Khamenei's Double Standards in Polarizing Society

Ayatollah Khamenei, in a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on September 1, advises him that his candidacy in the presidential elections and his campaign trips to various cities are not in the country's interest, effectively barring him from participating in the elections. Given Ahmadinejad's continued activity and the atmosphere created by his supporters, Khamenei publicly addressed the issue on October 27 to resolve it. The main reason Khamenei gives for preventing someone whose opinions were once closest to his is as follows: "Considering the state of the audience and the country's situation, I advise a gentleman that if you enter this matter, a polarization will be created in the country. Polarization is harmful to the country. I do not deem it appropriate for you to enter." Khamenei firmly believes that the "deceptive arrogant America" and "wicked England" are seeking to polarize Iranian society. Their constant goal has been to create a rift between the regime and the people, although they have so far failed in this strategy. He stated on February 8, 2016: "One of the permanent goals of the enemy front - led by America - from the beginning of the revolution until today has been to create a dangerous polarization between the people and the system; exactly the opposite of what the Islamic Republic is based on; that is, the complete integration of the system with the people. They wanted to create this rift; however, they have not succeeded. Elections are among the issues that frustrate the enemy in this regard; they demonstrate the strong connection between the system and the people and completely eliminate the polarization that the enemy desires." Regarding the claims made, it may be assumed that Ayatollah Khamenei is entirely opposed to any form of societal polarization. However, this assumption is incorrect. He operates with a double standard in "societal polarization." He condemns any societal polarization by others and attributes it to the conspiracy of foreign enemies - America, England, etc. - while he himself creates polarization in society both in theory and practice. It may be assumed that Ayatollah Khamenei is entirely opposed to any form of societal polarization. However, this assumption is incorrect. He operates with a double standard in "societal polarization." He condemns any societal polarization by others and attributes it to the conspiracy of foreign enemies - America, England, etc. - while he himself creates polarization in society both in theory and practice. He vehemently rejects the division of political forces in society into "hardliners" and "moderates," considering it a construct of foreign enemies. However, at the same time, he defends two types of societal polarization and tries to justify them. He considers the polarization of regime opponents (anti-revolutionaries) and regime supporters (revolutionaries) and the polarization of supporters of the U.S. government and opponents of the U.S. government (anti-imperialists) as the main and acceptable polarizations. Ayatollah Khamenei stated on February 24, 2016: "One of the tricks they have recently learned and are applying is the creation of false polarizations; false polarizations... They constantly report on their radios, televisions, and various media about the polarization of the Iranian nation - that is, the division that is hostile to each other and works against each other. Yes, there is a polarization in Islamic Iran; the polarization of revolution and imperialism... Yes, [between] those who are interested in Imam, interested in the revolution, and those who do not accept the essence of the revolution, do not accept the essence of the system, of course, there is a polarization like this... Now in this election, they induce a polarization; induced polarizations; the essence is there... Do not use the enemy's rhetoric. The enemies of the revolution have from the very first day introduced the terminology of hardliner and moderate; this person is a hardliner, this current is a hardliner, this current is moderate. Back then, the most hardline in their view was the great Imam; today, the most hardline, according to them, is this humble servant... In the political rhetoric of America and England and their ilk, the meaning of hardliner and moderate is: a hardliner is someone who is committed to the revolution, a moderate is someone who submits to their demands." Thus, societal polarization is not entirely rejected. Others do not have the right to polarize society; societal polarization is solely his right. He has always done this and intensifies it during every election period. The issue of "enemy infiltrators," which he has pursued for years, was particularly emphasized after Hassan Rouhani's government took office, especially after the nuclear agreement (JCPOA). This has become a repetitive and daily claim of his: "The Americans had a plan for inside Iran after the nuclear negotiations, a plan for the region... Well, when the enemy has a program for inside the country, what does it do? It uses infiltrators... Some become agitated when it is said that there are infiltrators, that you said infiltrators? Yes, we must be cautious. Well, then the enemy is thinking of infiltration." He explicitly states that by infiltration, he means infiltration into the decision-making and policymaking bodies of the system. He claims that the rulers of the country - referring mainly to the government and parliament - express words and make decisions that they think are their own, but in reality, they are the words of the enemy coming from their mouths. Their decisions are the enemy's decisions that are implemented with their signatures. Of course, it is clear that he does not consider his followers and principlists as enemy infiltrators; rather, his infiltrators refer to reformists and moderates. Thus, given the social base and millions of votes of this section, society is practically polarized by him. His strategic policy in societal polarization is to label opponents, critics, and rivals as infiltrators of America, England, and Israel. When foreign policy and foreign governments become the main basis for societal polarization, the inverse poles that he rejects become the other pole of his polarization. Thus, a polarization of East-leaning and West-leaning is created. Khamenei emphasizes expanding relations with China and Russia. He has met with the presidents of both countries several times. Ayatollah Khamenei stated on April 20, 2002, in a meeting with the President of China: "The fixed and principled policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to expand relations with China and utilize all capacities in bilateral relations." Khamenei stated on February 22, 2016, in a meeting with the President of China, emphasizing the "inclination and outlook towards the East in Iranian culture," said: "The Iranian government and nation have always sought to expand relations with independent and reliable countries such as China and, based on this, the agreement between the presidents of Iran and China for a 25-year strategic relationship is entirely correct and wise. The hegemonic policies of some countries, especially America, and their insincere cooperation with other countries have caused independent countries to seek more cooperation with each other." The main rift of democracy and dictatorship should be activated as much as possible, and the elimination of discrimination should become the main demand of the democracy-seeking movement. If individuals and groups seek a free and democratic Iran, activating the rift between dictatorship and democracy-seeking is a necessary condition for that. If the equality of citizens is the common basis of democracy and human rights, fighting discrimination in all areas is a prerequisite for these ideals. Regarding Russia, I have provided sufficient explanation in two articles, "Iran and Russia, and Khamenei's Dual Policy" and "How Khamenei Created the Polarization of Russia-leaning and West-leaning?" Thus, Khamenei unwittingly transforms the upcoming presidential election in Iran into a polarization of "Russia-leaning" and "West-leaning." Given the current perspective of most Iranians towards Russia and the West, this polarization will be detrimental to Khamenei and the extremist and hardline forces he supports. The historical records of Russia in the disintegration of large parts of Iranian territory, Russia's affirmative votes on all UN resolutions sanctioning Iran, the superiority of Western technology over Russian technology, and the Russians' failure to fulfill their promises regarding Iran are part of the reasons for the Iranian people's distrust of Russia. Russia, like any other government, naturally pursues its own "interests." Iran's hostile relations with Western governments - especially America - benefit the Russian government. However, this type of relationship is absolutely not in favor of Iran's "national interests." Especially since the "post-Obama era" will never be like the Obama era. For us, Iran and Iranians are important, not Putinism. Vladimir Putin is neither a symbol of the left and socialism nor a symbol of the struggle against imperialism. He is solely pursuing the interests of his mafia government and restoring Russia's status to that of the past. However, Iranians must think of Iran and its "national interests." The main rift and polarization in Iran occurs around real social divides. Currently, tens of millions of Iranians live below the absolute and relative poverty line. There are over 4.8 million unemployed people in Iran. Corruption and national plunder have raised everyone's voices. At the same time, the main divide in society is not left/right, because the economy is trapped in the grip of politics and the military, and without resolving the political issue, there can be no significant transformation in the state-run and rent-seeking economy. The main divide in Iranian society is the divide between democracy-seeking and dictatorship. Here, democracy means a "democratic system committed to freedom and human rights" that minimizes ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination as much as possible. Activating ethnic and religious divides is detrimental to the territorial integrity of Iran and the movement for democracy. The main divide between democracy-seeking and dictatorship should be activated as much as possible, and the elimination of discrimination should become the main demand of the democracy-seeking movement. If individuals and groups seek a free and democratic Iran, activating the divide between dictatorship and democracy-seeking is a necessary condition for that. If the equality of citizens is the common basis of democracy and human rights, fighting discrimination in all areas is a prerequisite for these ideals.