Popular Protests, Social Movement, and Democracy; A Note by Saeed Piyvandi

The ongoing popular protests in various parts of Iran are considered an unprecedented event since the revolutionary period of 1979. The type of action by citizens, frustrated and angry due to political and economic deadlocks, inflation and unemployment, environmental crises, systemic corruption, discrimination, gender inequality, and social repression resembles the revolutionary events of late 1976 and 1977 more than, for example, the Green Movement in 2009. Although many had spoken for months about the unprecedented rise in dissatisfaction and anger among the people, the sudden acceleration of movements and the explosive reactions of groups of people caught everyone by surprise. Media and analysts use various terms to describe and explain these popular protests. For some, these protests are a rebellion, uprising, or even a revolution, while others refer to it as a popular awakening or movement. However, from a sociological perspective, what name can be given to the recent events, and how can they be analyzed? It is clear that the discussion here is not about supporting the people who express their suppressed anger and deep frustration in various forms. It is also not about condemning the violent actions of security forces against protesters, imprisoning them, or failing to recognize the right to protest against the lack of freedom, corruption, inflation, and governmental incompetence. The discussion is about the meaning and nature of the movements of social groups and their demands. Three essential aspects of a social movement are evident: protesters clearly express their opposition to the religious government (and not its reform), marking a significant shift compared to 2009. However, there is no clear political project evident in the slogans and demands of this emerging movement, and it is still difficult to speak accurately about the collective identity of the participants in the protests. Some signs from recent days can serve as a basis for an initial sociological approach and raise questions regarding what has happened or is taking shape. For instance, one important question that can be raised in the current situation is whether these popular movements can be labeled as a social movement or not. In sociological approaches, there are often differing views on social movements, their characteristics, and how they differ from other forms of collective action. For example, a social movement can be recognized through the goals and characteristics of its participants. From this perspective (Alain Touraine), attention to at least three essential aspects is important when dealing with social movements: the first aspect is identity, which relates to the composition of those participating in the social movement. The four major social movements of the past century in Iran—namely, the Constitutional Movement, the Nationalization of Oil Movement (1951-1953), the 1979 Revolutionary Movement, and the Green Movement—had relatively clear identities. In the last major social movement in contemporary Iran in 2009, angry voters, primarily from the urban middle class, especially women and youth, took to the streets to protest electoral fraud and the disregard for democratic and civic rights, raising the slogan 'Where is my vote?' and demanding respect for democracy and free elections. The second aspect of a social movement is that activists come out in opposition to a specific entity. In other words, a social movement targets a particular person, institution, or force. In the 1979 Revolution, the Shah and the royal government were directly the subjects of opposition and the target of the movement, while in 2009, the governmental institutions organizing the elections, from the Ministry of Interior and Ahmadinejad to the Guardian Council and Ayatollah Khamenei, were the targets. The third aspect of a social movement is its project or demands. In the 1979 Revolution, the transition to a democratic government was not the main demand of the Islamist forces and the leadership of the revolutionary movement; they mobilized the masses more with the utopia of an Islamic government that was supposed to bring justice, independence, freedom, and a new public morality based on religious values to the agitated and angry society of that time. The slogan of freedom during this period, in the minds of the Islamist leaders and their followers, did not mean democracy and political pluralism; they had a very limited and reductive understanding of these concepts. In their view, 'freedom' meant liberation from the secular rule of the Shah and was for their own people. This narrative also applied to a large part of other political forces that were not aligned with parliamentary democracy and pluralism. In the Green Movement, the slogan 'Where is my vote?' reflected a new collective conscience that articulated a clear demand for democracy, free elections, and respect for civic rights. The weakness of leadership and fundamental doubts within this movement regarding its approach to the existing political order (the project) significantly contributed to its decline and failure. In dealing with the current popular protests, only the second aspect is somewhat visible. Protesters clearly express their opposition to the religious government (and not its reform), marking a significant shift compared to 2009. However, there is still no clear political project evident in the slogans and demands of this emerging movement, and it is still difficult to speak accurately about the collective identity of the participants in the protests. The slogans are primarily political, and economic demands have been completely sidelined. Some refer to the 1979 Revolution as a mistake and recall the former Shah, apologizing to him (nostalgia for the past order), while others shout for an Iranian Republic (a non-religious government). All these slogans could be the work of a few dozen people who take the initiative in a heated atmosphere and raise a specific demand or slogan. However, these demands and slogans are neither subjects of collective agreement nor are they presented by a leadership or structure accepted by all. Although these characteristics are understandable at this stage, they will pose significant challenges for the future if protests continue. A significant part of the social movements of the past two decades that have targeted the political order of various countries has characteristics that distinguish them from past experiences. These differences are significant enough that they are referred to as a new generation of social movements. For example, in the movements known as the Arab Spring, the role of intellectuals, political parties, and recognized civil organizations was marginal, while social networks, especially utilizing the virtual space, played a leading role in actions. These movements, lacking reference intellectuals and civil organizations, without leadership and a roadmap, although they had significant mobilizing power, remained fragile after sidelining their political rival (the second aspect of the movement), lost their dynamism, and in some cases reached a deadlock. The experience of the Green Movement and the Arab Spring, like similar movements in other regions of the world, showed that communication and information technology have transformed the nature of civil relations and that demands and citizen mentality have gained a new place in society. The form of action and movements in recent days is primarily due to the lack of the possibility of change through the ballot box, peaceful protest, and the suppression and limitation of civil organizations. The violent governmental response, the repression of people who have taken to the streets, and the failure to hear the cries of anger and understand their meaning and message will only exacerbate the current situation and the disintegration of the regime. Now, it remains to be seen how the current explosive movements in Iran will carve their way forward and what direction and fate they will take. One of the key points in the coming weeks is the tools that the protest movements choose to articulate their demands and advance their goals, tools that, as Hannah Arendt stated, can sometimes relate more to the fate and future of a movement than to its goals. The escalation of violence and state repression under the pretext of restoring order and preventing destruction, and in the face of the accumulation of more anger and hatred among activists and their reactions, could lead to a vicious cycle of violence and complete political deadlock or even destructive chaos. The popular movements and the outlook for democracy can be clearly stated from a political perspective: the deep dissatisfaction and frustration of the masses, especially the youth, and their distrust of the religious government and clergy. What is referred to as subversive slogans and behaviors is a direct consequence of over two decades of the religious government's remarkable stubbornness in refusing to accept reforms and the political deadlock, economic crisis, ineffective management, blatant poverty and discrimination, and social repression of women and youth. The form of action and movements in recent days is primarily due to the lack of the possibility of change through the ballot box, peaceful protest, and the suppression and limitation of civil organizations. The violent governmental response, the repression of people who have taken to the streets, and the failure to hear the cries of anger and understand their meaning and message will only exacerbate the current situation and the disintegration of the regime. In political movements, the balance of power, mobilization of resources, and leadership play a crucial role. If the main concern and project of these movements is to establish a new democratic order, the main challenge is to gradually shape a smart roadmap for transitioning from protest movements to a full-fledged social movement and to attempt to disrupt the political balance in favor of democracy within society. The experience of the 1979 Revolution or the Green Movement, as well as what has happened and is happening in other tumultuous and crisis-ridden countries in the region, indicates the significant difficulties and complexities that a society like Iran faces after four decades of religious government in its transition to democracy. The problem of democracy will not be solved merely by changing the government. The important question today is whether the vibrant forces of society, activists, intellectuals, and civil figures will be able to intelligently step forward and bring this heavy historical burden to its desired destination.