Meaningful Interpretation of Rouhani on December 30

Hassan Rouhani, in his latest remarks made on December 30, did not want to pass over the day that has become a symbol against the Green Movement and the democratic demands of the majority of the Iranian people, indifferently and in silence. The President of Iran, in brief but empathetic expressions regarding the gathering of December 30, 2009, indirectly criticized the Green Movement. This is unlikely to come without cost for a president who had a spectrum of the majority of reform-seeking Iranians among his electoral supporters. Rouhani described the crowd that was mobilized by government institutions and extensive propaganda against the Greens on December 30, 2009, as 'the people,' stating: 'On December 30, the people wanted to put an end to a series of unpleasant events.' It is unlikely that Rouhani, who at that time was one of the two representatives of the Supreme Leader in the Supreme National Security Council, was unaware of the regime's mobilization for a street march of the social base supporting the government. It is also hard to believe that the president does not know how the bloody violence against the electoral protests and civil questioning of millions of citizens manifested itself on Ashura 2009, resulting in numerous victims in various forms (from the dead and injured to those arrested). Although Rouhani attempted in his recent speech to repair the rift that formed in society after the 2009 elections and between the nation and the government with a different interpretation of December 30, he clearly ignored millions of Iranians protesting the official results of the 10th presidential election (2009) with a one-sided and directed interpretation of the concept of 'the people.' On one hand, he claimed that the mobilized forces by the government on December 30 represented 'the people' of Iran and did not belong to 'a faction or political group'; on the other hand, he asserted that this government gathering was a symbol of 'the allegiance' of the people of Iran to 'the leadership and the principle of Velayat-e Faqih.' This interpretation comes at a time when one of the most important characteristics of the Green Movement was its resistance against despotism and disregard for the absolute authority of the jurist in the elections. Citizens who felt that their civil participation in the 2009 elections had been betrayed held the top of the political system responsible. Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, two reformist candidates, also stood against the Supreme Leader's assessment and did not comply with his view that the elections were held fairly, siding with the majority of protesters and creating a new alignment in Iran's political forces. Thus, contrary to Rouhani's interpretation, the demonstrators on December 30 did not reflect the entirety of 'the people of Iran'; rather, at that time, a significant part of society, outraged by the clear bias of the Supreme Leader and other main government institutions in favor of Ahmadinejad, expressed their most extensive and vehement protests against the absolute authority of the jurist. In another part of his recent speech, describing December 30 as an 'epic,' Rouhani characterized its 'message' as follows: 'Anyone who has a word, criticism, or protest must express it within the framework of laws and regulations.' The Purple Government head clearly stands on the side of that reading and narrative of the 2009 elections and the events that followed, which the Supreme Leader represents and defines. Rouhani overlooks the important criticism from Mousavi and Karroubi and the 'Greens' protesting the official results of the 2009 elections regarding the significant manipulation and impactful fraud by government institutions. At a time when there was no competent and impartial authority to judge the matter, the protesting citizens took to the streets relying on their 'legal right' to assemble, march, and express their views. This legal right is explicitly stated in Article 27 of the Constitution—in Chapter Three, Rights of the Nation: 'The formation of gatherings and marches, without carrying weapons, is free, provided it does not disrupt the principles of Islam.' It is noteworthy that Rouhani, a legal scholar, disregards this right of the people and shows indifference to it, even criticizing street protests. Ironically, he empathizes with the December 30 gathering, which was considered a government mobilization. It is significant that Rouhani, in this recent speech, speaks of the necessity of 'strengthening unity, coherence, and national empathy' and avoiding 'disagreement and division.' It is unclear how he seeks to achieve national unity while criticizing democracy-seekers and the imprisoned leaders of the Green Movement and ignoring the Greens. Rouhani's recent remarks and his meaningful and thought-provoking interpretation of December 30 seem to complement statements made in recent days by the head of the Cultural Council of the Presidential Institution. Seyyed Reza Aghrami, in several comments and interviews, described the house arrest of the leaders of the Green Movement, which has lasted for 1400 days, as 'legal' and assessed the protesters against the 2009 election results as 'a small group of troublemakers,' and the protests on Ashura as 'an insult to the sanctities.' He also emphasized: 'When the National Security Council has reached a conclusion about the house arrest of the leaders of the sedition, and the leadership has confirmed it, there should be no further discussion'; he also mentioned the necessity for 'apology' and 'revision' by Mousavi and Karroubi regarding their positions. These remarks were met with a strong reaction from Karroubi's family: 'Repeating the worthless words of the front of lies and deceit and accusing the God-fearing people and the lovers of the pure and immaculate household of disrespecting the sanctities on Ashura, especially from the Presidential Institution, deserves congratulations. If for any reason, over the past 17 months, the government has not considered the rights and freedoms of the people as its concern and has not wanted to take effective steps to alleviate the oppression and violations of the security apparatus, at least it is expected that it does not allow its Cultural Council head to become a propaganda trumpet for the repressive current. Mr. Aghrami rightly knows that occupying this position in the Presidential Institution is the result of the persistent pursuit of the people for their right to determine their destiny in the events following the 2009 elections and the resistance of the leaders in detention and house arrest. If they do not want to be grateful to the past, at least do not sprinkle salt on the wounds soaked in blood and prison and house arrest and homelessness.' Now, with the new statements and the strange interpretation of the president regarding December 30, the remarks of the head of the Cultural Council of the Presidential Institution have found a meaningful complement. It seems that Rouhani has based his continued presence in the government and the advancement of his programs more on gaining the satisfaction and continued trust of the core of power in the Islamic Republic, especially the Supreme Leader, than on a supportive and empathetic social force. The experience of the past two decades has shown that the central power will face the president in a totalitarian manner and has no inclination towards any form of 'decentralizing' action. If Rouhani does not want to become the executive responsible for the Leader's office, he must inevitably face the democratic social movement in Iran with more empathy. A year and a half has passed since the Purple Government came to power; however, Rouhani not only continues to show indifference to civil society and political development but also alienates a significant and effective part of his electoral supporters.