Unofficial 'Apartheid' in the Islamic Republic

The governor of Yazd has issued a two-week suspension order to the Zoroastrian member of the Yazd City Council, Spenta Niknam. He is now required to take mandatory leave while it is determined whether he should bid farewell to the council or not. The ruling against this Zoroastrian council member was issued by the Administrative Justice Court, based on the peculiar opinion of the Guardian Council, signed by Ahmad Jannati. The Guardian Council and the judiciary of the Islamic Republic have disregarded the votes of approximately 22,000 Yazdi citizens, who deemed a Zoroastrian candidate fit and capable for re-election to their city council, and have ordered his removal from this civil society-related institution. Spenta Niknam, who also served in the fourth council of Yazd, entered the Yazd City Council as the seventh elected member in the recent elections. Ahmad Jannati's illegal edict and decree, if the strict racial policies in South Africa led to the formation of 'apartheid' in the mid-20th century, in Iran, unfortunately, under the shadow of religious despotism, such informal confrontations against 'non-affiliated and non-conforming citizens' are ongoing. Last April, coinciding with the assessment of candidates for city and village councils across the country by supervisory bodies, an announcement by Ayatollah Jannati, the secretary of the Guardian Council, was published regarding the prevention of the qualification of religious minority candidates in council elections. In this announcement (on the Guardian Council's letterhead and signed by Ayatollah Jannati), the necessity of preventing the qualification of religious minority candidates in council elections was emphasized. Jannati stated that based on the opinions of the Guardian Council's jurists — all of whom are appointed by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic — the presence of non-Muslims in the city councils of areas where 'the majority of the people are Muslim and followers of the official religion of the country' is 'contrary to the explicit teachings' of Ayatollah Khomeini and 'against Islamic principles.' At that time, several members of parliament, legal scholars, and political activists protested this ruling, deeming it a 'novelty' and 'against the constitution' and lacking legal backing. However, the course of events — as has unfortunately become a common method in the Islamic Republic — has favored the clerics of the Guardian Council. The judiciary (in this specific case, the Administrative Justice Court, which is under the supervision of the head of the judiciary) has predictably stood alongside the Guardian Council and has misused its hardware capabilities to violate the fundamental and civil rights of citizens. Disregard for the civil rights of 'minorities' One of the significant reactions to the recent ruling against the Zoroastrian member of the Yazd City Council was expressed by Abdollah Ramazanzadeh (a senior member of the Participation Front and spokesperson for the reformist government of Khatami); he wrote on Twitter: 'The suspension of the Zoroastrian member of the Yazd City Council is not compatible with any standard; we were just left to be accused of apartheid!' The bitter and ongoing reality in the Islamic Republic is the violation of the fundamental rights of a significant portion of Iranians due to the establishment of an authoritarian regime based on a strict and narrow interpretation of religion and, of course, reliant on astronomical oil revenues, as well as suppression, intimidation, censorship, and distortion of truth. The clerics of the Guardian Council and the judicial arms of the Islamic Republic show authoritarian disregard for the existing laws in the Islamic Republic and even the constitution. Article 19 of the constitution states that 'the people of Iran, regardless of their ethnicity or tribe, enjoy equal rights, and color, race, language, and similar factors shall not be a cause for privilege.' Article 20 of the constitution also emphasizes that 'all individuals of the nation, both men and women, are equal under the law and enjoy all human, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, with due regard for Islamic principles.' However, the confrontation of judicial, security, and governmental institutions with religious, ideological, and political 'minorities' unfortunately clearly includes a type of 'apartheid' and 'us vs. them' categorization of citizens and political-ideological judgment. From millions of Sunni citizens in the country to the dervishes who are Twelver Shia, from Baha'is to political critics and opponents, and from civil activists pursuing labor and trade union rights to citizens who have a different interpretation of the Quran and Islam and existence and even 'lifestyle,' the list of 'non-affiliated' individuals and victims of totalitarianism and 'apartheidists' in the Islamic Republic is extensive. If the strict racial policies in South Africa led to the formation of 'apartheid' in the mid-20th century, in Iran, unfortunately, under the shadow of religious despotism, such informal confrontations against 'non-affiliated and non-conforming citizens' are ongoing. Without the formation of a powerful social movement and without widespread protests by civil society activists in Iran against the violation of civil and fundamental rights of Iranians, the 'apartheidists' in the Islamic Republic will not abandon their totalitarianism and will continue to violate the fundamental rights of non-conforming and non-affiliated citizens — in various areas. The outcome of apartheid Apartheid was undoubtedly one of the inhumane and horrific forms of racial discrimination against black people and in favor of the white and racist minority in South Africa. The apartheid regime established in this country forced non-white races not only to separate their living, educational, work, and gathering spaces from white individuals but also deprived them of many political, civil, and economic rights. Unfortunately, in Iran, despite all the claims of senior officials of the Islamic Republic, the violation of civil and fundamental rights of citizens who are considered 'non-affiliated' has created a system of apartheid under the shadow of the established religion. A situation that violates the civil rights of the Zoroastrian citizen and even thousands of voters for him — contrary to the explicit text of the constitution. Preventing the travel of Molavi Abdolhamid (the leading figure of the Sunni community in the country) to other parts of Iran, issuing a death sentence for Mohammad Ali Taheri, preventing economic activities and even continuing the education of Baha'is, issuing life sentences for some dervishes of the Nematollahi order, and even continuing the house arrest of the leaders of the Green Movement (which has reached 2429 days) are horrific and recent manifestations of the apartheid-like confrontation of totalitarians with 'non-affiliated' citizens. Apartheid in South Africa gradually receded into the background and became history with the formation of a powerful social movement led by Nelson Mandela and the continued tireless struggle of black people from the early 1990s. It can be confidently said that without the formation of a powerful social movement and without widespread protests by civil society activists in Iran against the violation of civil and fundamental rights of Iranians, the 'apartheidists' in the Islamic Republic will not abandon their totalitarianism and will continue to violate the fundamental rights of non-conforming and non-affiliated citizens — in various areas.