Why Does House Arrest Continue?

The house arrest of the leaders of the Green Movement has reached its fifth year. Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Zahra Rahnavard have been imprisoned for 1825 days without any trial, even a symbolic one, following their last official statements. The day after the last significant public appearance of the Greens (February 14, 2011, in solidarity with the democracy protesters in Egypt and Tunisia), Mousavi and Karroubi reiterated the demands of the Green Movement in separate messages. Mousavi emphasized that "the Green Movement has sought to pursue its goals peacefully, emphasizing the fundamental principle of human dignity and recognizing the right of the nation to govern its own destiny and to implement the constitution without compromise." Karroubi also addressed the rulers, saying: "Before it is too late, remove the cotton from your ears and listen to the voice of the people. Learn from the fate of governments that distance themselves from the people. Be faithful to the covenant you made with the people in the name of the constitution." The central power's reaction to Mousavi and Karroubi's calls and the widespread protests of the Greens was to confine the leaders of the Green Movement; their social connections were severed. Why has the house arrest of the Green Movement leaders continued despite the rise of Rouhani's moderate government? As Mustafa Pourmohammadi, the Minister of Justice and a senior former security official of the Islamic Republic, has stated, "The discussions regarding the house arrest are considered a political and security issue." Pourmohammadi explicitly said that "this issue cannot be raised or addressed in the government or the judiciary"; the decision to impose and continue the house arrest is "beyond the decision of the branches." As the Minister of Justice and some other senior military, police, and judicial officials of the Islamic Republic have stated, the decision for the house arrest of the Green Movement leaders was made and pursued by the highest authority of the system. With this important assumption, the house arrest of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard has been prolonged, as it seems: 1. The demand for lifting the house arrest has lacked the necessary power against the prevailing repression. If the social layers protesting the house arrest of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard had the necessary capacity to express their demand, and in other words, if the social force seeking to lift the house arrest had been sufficiently determined, manifested, and empowered, the imprisonment of the Green Movement leaders would not have lasted for 60 months. Even the rise of Rouhani's government and the new political atmosphere after the 2013 presidential election, and the possibility of lobbying by the moderate president, have not been able to convince the leader of the Islamic Republic to free the prisoners. Despite the continuous and palpable demand for the freedom of the Green Movement leaders in the public sphere, the pressure resulting from public opinion within the country has not had the potential and manifestation necessary to lead the highest authority of the system to reconcile with the protest movement and change the prevailing unwise and authoritarian course. 2. The core of power lacks democratic legitimacy and authority. If Ayatollah Khamenei and the aligned security-military current considered their authority to be supported by the backing and cooperation of social layers, and were not afraid of the social-political consequences of freeing the Green Movement leaders, there would be no need to continue their house arrest. The dominant political bloc has failed to persuade the layers of society to accept its political and ideological values and to align them with its desired projects and processes; thus, the central power seeks to impose its dominance through coercion, relying on repression, intimidation, and censorship. The continuation of the house arrest of the Green Movement leaders from this perspective is not surprising. Gholamali Haddad-Adel, a member of the Expediency Discernment Council and a relative of the leader of the Islamic Republic, admits that "breaking the house arrest and releasing them would be detrimental to the country." 3. Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard stand firm on the demands of the Green Movement. If the leaders of the Green Movement had declared the end of their critical activities and democratic political actions for any reason, there might have been no need to continue the house arrest. However, Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard insist on their critical views and positions, as reported by senior judicial-security officials of the regime. Mohseni-Ejei, the spokesperson and deputy of the judiciary, has repeatedly stated that as long as the Green Movement leaders do not express repentance regarding their alleged criminal actions and do not "repent" and "remain steadfast in their positions," the house arrest will continue and "conditions will remain as before." He reports that Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard "say: We will not repent." Ahmad Jannati, the secretary of the Guardian Council, has also expressed his displeasure, stating that Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard "are unwilling to express remorse." 4. The Green Movement leaders are not willing to remain silent after their release. Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard are not only unwilling to retreat from their demands and views, but they have also not been willing to provide even the slightest guarantee of silence after the lifting of their house arrest over the past several years. It can be confidently stated that if the leaders of the Green Movement commit to remaining silent after their release, the house arrest will end. However, they have seen no reason to express such silence after their release. The situation is so concerning for the totalitarian rulers that the head of the judiciary reflects some of this concern when explaining the reason for not trying Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard, stating: "The court is not a place for lamenting and spreading words and stirring people's emotions." 5. The absolute rule of the jurist is seeking personal revenge against the leaders of the Green Movement. The head of the political system, just as he was enraged after Ayatollah Montazeri's critical speech in November 1997 and confined the critical cleric, could not digest and tolerate Mousavi and Karroubi's "no" to his vote and action, and their standing against his project. The current leader of the Islamic Republic lacks the charisma and popularity of Ayatollah Khomeini; nevertheless, he carries the legal title and position of "absolute rule of the jurist." For the highest authority of the system, the refusal of the Green Movement leaders to comply with his judgment regarding the elections and the events that followed was not only unpleasant but also caused severe displeasure and anger. It is difficult to overlook the personal and psychological aspects of the order for the house arrest and its continuation. 6. The protest movement is alive and ongoing beneath the surface of society. If the expression of dissatisfaction with the current situation and the desire for change among various social layers were not widespread and meaningful, lifting the house arrest would not instill fear in the core of power. If the Green Movement were not alive beneath the surface of society, the continued detention of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard might not have been significant. However, the central power in the Islamic Republic is not only aware of the depth and intensity of the majority of society's dissatisfaction with the political, economic, and cultural situation but also feels threatened by the effective role of the Green Movement leaders at a critical juncture. Especially since Mousavi and Karroubi have gained a more precise understanding of the ruling authoritarian figures and their projects and desires following the 2009 election coup and the subsequent repressions, they have also gained increasing popularity. This is what Abolfazl Ghadiani, a prominent activist of the Green Movement, emphasizes: "They are afraid of the freedom and popularity of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard; they are afraid of the base these individuals have among the people; it is this fear that leads them to continue this house arrest."