Pedestrian

Posted in Iranian Masquerade Ball 2009, Islamic Nazis of Iran, The Illusionist | 53 Comments

53 Responses to “What Happened on the Night of June 12th?”

1. on 19 Nov 2009 at 12:01 am1supp

   I suppose the most provocative part of the letter is the implication of Khamenei or Khamenei’s office in vote-rigging. We’ve heard this from other parties (notably Makhmalbaf and Sazegara/Nourizadeh) but no one this close to the campaign.

   As you mention, Mousavi’s camp has never offered any definitive proof of vote-rigging. I have no doubt that there were voting irregularities. I’m sure there are for every major election in Iran. It’s a fact of life. Whether there were enough irregularities to turn the election, I still don’t know.

   For me, and I might be missing something here, the Green leadership has undermined its cause by not sticking with a single accusation about the election fraud. On the one hand, they claim that there was funny business with the ballots (10 million unsigned ballots, ballot boxes disappearing, polling stations closing early, not enough ballots, mobile ballot station problems, etc.). On the other, they suggest that even though they won a huge majority of the votes, the real vote count was never released and the Interior Ministry, in cahoots with the Office of the President and now the Leader and maybe even the Basij and Pasdaran for good measure simply picked numbers out of the air and gave the election to Ahmadinejad.

   I don’t know but to my way of thinking, it has to be one or the other…it can’t be both.

2. on 19 Nov 2009 at 4:24 am2parvati_roma

   Thanks for translating!

3. on 19 Nov 2009 at 8:51 am3Pedestrian

   parvati, my pleasure!

   supp, I get into this argument all the time: “the Green leadership has undermined its cause by not sticking with a single accusation about the election fraud.”
   Friends respond: “in this political climate, you expect them to come out and say they didn’t have hard evidence of fraud?”
   This whole thing started with that accusation, and it may have grown into something much bigger exactly becaue of the violence that was unleashed … but yes, I would want them to acknowledge it. Fazel keeps talking about these “reports” they were getting. Where are they? Does by “report” he just mean that Haj Ali from some little town called them up and told them Mousavi was winning in his center? I think that’s what it might have been. Otherwise, why didn’t they ever publish the reports? The interior ministry released the voting results center by center, why not compare it to those they had? They didn’t even have one?

   The biggest arguments that still keeps me convinced of foul play are: Abbas Abdi, my friend’s discussion with Beheshti (they are family friends), and the fact that all three candidates spoke of foul play and were silenced, the best example being their meeting with the leader himself.

   I would add “the way they are silencing/imprisoning/torturing (even if mentally to confess)” dissidents. But I don’t think that signifies fraud. That signifies the state’s inability to answer or be held accountable for its own violence.

4. on 19 Nov 2009 at 9:29 am4Abbas

   Dear Pedestrian, I love your blog and I think u have many deep and interesting insights, compared to other iranian blogs. However, one thing bugs me. Why are u so obsessed with the election, everything that happened around the election (officially I mean) and the outcome of it? I am certain that u are perfectly aware that this was a farce-election in a dictatorship that holds elections solely for the purpose of legitimacy in the eyes of the outside world and also to calm down some people inside Iran who genuinely believes this is a democracy.. I mean, WHO CARES what happened on election night according to Mousavis campaign manager or other people who are part of the system, yadda yadda yadda…. We should be grateful for the elections because it created the real opposition movement to the Islamic Republic, finally after 30 years, and everything else, all the other little details, such as what the official tally was, that is just pure nonsense! Who cares? Fundamentally, this wonderful movement has really nothing to do with election results, it is the pressures and hardships of living under a fascist clerical regime for 30 years that have sprung up… The people really dont “want their vote back”, they want their COUNTRY back… So please, I would appreciate if you would concentrate more on other kinds of news and less on e.g. what happened on election night, because that is TOTALLY irrelevant in this context… Other than that, thank you again for a great blog…

5. on 19 Nov 2009 at 9:59 am5Pedestrian

   Abbas, I get asked that question all the time! So I’ll try to provide a coherent response:

   There are two sides to this IMO. One is, what you said: this really is no longer about an election. So many violent contradictions that have existed in the root of this constitution and this system have come out. We are not fighting for an election anymore, it is the question of the future of Iran and the battle between the various visions that exist for it. A mass movement did begin, but this movement is anything but homogeneous. Everyone from those who support a “soft theocracy” (Mousavi, etc who btw, do have a base in Iran, there are people who truly believe in the revolution, and want it put back “on the right track” – you may argue that there never was a “right” track and was rooted in trouble. But I’m just saying that this group does have a following) to those who strongly believe in the separation of state and religion, to even monarchists, are calling themselves green.

   That’s ONE side. The other, however, is:
   This new round of resistance started with accusations of fraud regarding the election. And those who made the accusation of fraud are as responsible in their own deeds as those who unleashed violence on the people are for theirs. To me, one of the aspects of this movement is the question of responsibility – for statesmen and civilians alike to be held accountable for their actions and their words – be it Mousavi or Ahmadinejad or Pedestrian or Abbas. one of the most widespread slogans in the protests is “doroogh-ghoo, doroogh-ghoo, 63% koo?” (liar, liar, where is your 63%?) – That key concept of responsibility has never been widespread in our political vocabulary, and if nothing comes out of this, I think this should. We call Ahmadinejad a LIAR, we ask and call and scream for his to be held ACCOUNTABLE for his actions and words. We should want the same for everyone else.

   Lastly, yes, the guardian council vetted voters and the voting process was thus very flawed from the getgo – it was a farce to many. Yes, only certain people could run or win. but this system did have a following (I think it still does and that’s what makes this so problematic. We are not fighting a small group of oligarchs, or Ahmadinejad and his buddies. I think Ahjmadinejad has a strong civilian backing, although he exaggerates his numbers) – people, many people, and I don’t know the #s, believed in the election process. That’s why the IRI has outlasted all those who were predicting it would soon fall. I no longer do believe in that process. As many other people don’t either. So to me it’s important to know what happened.

6. on 19 Nov 2009 at 10:40 am6este'mar-e pir

   For me this part is interesting:

   “I speak to Hamid Rasaee. Fourth months ago he’d said that Ahmadinejad would win 23 million votes and that he would veto the 22 million Khatami vote. ”

   Some hardliners clearly felt the need to claim a level of popular legitimacy greater than that of Khatami in 1997, in order to justify the subsequent elimination of reformist factions from the political scene. The official result – massive turnout, 2/3 voting for Ahmadinejad – fulfils this aim rather well.

7. on 19 Nov 2009 at 10:51 am7Pedestrian

   EP, I certainly agree.
   The other camp constantly bombs mousavi for declaring victory the night of the election. But weeks BEFORE the election, I remember the Ahmadinejad camp making claims about how he would win by a bigger margin than Khatami did. There was this will to “beat” the reformists and nobody knows how that influenced the results.
   Looking back, if Mousavi had no proof of fraud, he should have focused on the pre-election violations of Ahmadinejad – and long before the election too.
   And I just noticed a really bad error, sorry about that!

8. on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:21 am8supp

   The elections are important to the extent that if this opposition movement has any kind of focus or point of unity, it is the widespread belief that national sovereignty ultimately lies with the people. This is an idea that’s been bouncing around since Qajar times when sovereignty first passed from the monarch to the people via the Constitution. It’s something that every politician has had to account for and at least pay lip service to since then. Those who ignore this belief (e.g. the folks that say there is no democracy in Islamic Iran, only the leader) do so at their own risk.

9. on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:47 am9Pensive Persian

   I second Abbas.

   Pedestrian, Mousavi and co. didn’t unleash violence. The thugs that attacked peaceful marchers did.

10. on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:49 am10Pedestrian

    Pensive Persian, I completely agree. Where did I say Mousavi unleashed violence? He said there was fraud. I’d like to know if/how much there was.

    We say that “the election is no longer the issue” but had this gone to a second round and had Ahmadinejad won on his own or had won as many believe he won in 2005, with foul play but just a small amount of it. Or if Mousavi had won – we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I don’t believe this is a plight or a purpose that began with the election, but it would have taken a much different form had there been no word of fraud.

11. on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:51 am11Pensive Persian

    You clearly link their “accusation” with the ensuing events.

12. on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:58 am12parvati_roma

    IMHO the most convincing argument in favour of the totally-rigged-results hypothesis is the turnout maths: in the light of previous Iranian elections, high turnout=reformist victory, low turnout=conservative victory, it’s that simple! Here’s a post of mine from last August – on the ever-lengthening Iran-thread on my pet debate-forum – which gives the figures that back up that reasoning – scan down till you come to the paragraph below the show-trial pics which starts: “Incidentally, when considering the credibility…”

13. on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:59 am13Pedestrian

    Mousavi didn’t unleash violence. The leftist/Ahmadinejad claim that he was the one to “convince” people of fraud is also false. I vividly remember the day after the election and this very, very distressing feeling that we had been duped and viciously attacked – irrespective of what Mousavi said or didn’t say.
    But as I mentioned, he did vocally claim fraud. So I’d like some proof.

14. on 19 Nov 2009 at 12:03 pm14Pensive Persian

    Do you really believe that he’s in a position to freely search out and present the evidence that you want? The regime’s behavior is proof enough for me.

    I just noticed this in your comment: “That’s why the IRI has outlasted all those who were predicting it would soon fall. I no longer do believe in that process. As many other people don’t either. So to me it’s important to know what happened.”

    This helps me understand a lot of your remarks. Sometimes I feel like you’re wrestling with some major cognitive dissonance about the Iranian system. I’ve always been puzzled by your waffling between condemning this system and being charitable towards it.

    To my mind, a high school social science student could easily point out the inherent contradictions of this system. Anyone who believes or believed that this was a workable blueprint for stable governance and basic civil rights is either irredeemably naive or a partisan with vested interests.

    Yes, I’m calling you naive.

    *duck*

15. on 19 Nov 2009 at 12:05 pm15Pedestrian

    parvati, there’s lots of reasons to believe foul play, fraud, rigging, etc. Some of which you mention. There’s also many reasons to believe this was a process on the part of Ahmadi & Co that was long in the making. However, I do buy the Ahmadinejad argument that Ahmadinejad wasn’t the typical “conservative” figure. He was able to work across those traditional lines.
    As one small example, the Arab tribes of Khuzestan (at least those I know) have always voted reformist (they voted for Khatami both rounds). But they voted for Ahmadinejad this time around. Of course, that “may” have to do with the fact that he flew all their leaders to Tehran for one week on a chartered plane – the tribe votes for whomever the leader endorses.
    That’s why I think Mousavi should have focused on the pre-election crime and done so before the election. He briefly mentioned them in a debate, but they needed more coverage.

16. on 19 Nov 2009 at 12:25 pm16Pedestrian

    Pensive Persian, I suggest you read over Fateh’s claims again. They had various “reports” throughout the day. Where as these reports he claims they had? If they were some call from Haj Ali, why does he call them “reports”? I’m not asking for them to hire Sherlock Holmes or go on a country wide search. They claim to have had things on election day – where are they now?

    That’s a question I have, as a person, as one citizen. It doesn’t mean Mousavi is responsible for the violence or for anything. In the end, it is the responsibility of the state to ANSWER the allegations its citizens put forth. It’s not Mousavi’s responsibility, or anyone else’s. Never mind unleashing violence on them for asking in the first place.

    And that’s it exactly: I do walk a line between condemning this system and being charitable towards it. You can call this what you wish: naivety, vested interests, etc. But it’s a system I’ve learned in, lived in, struggled in, and hated, despised and appreciated at the same time.

    No, not high school. You can pretty much sum up the contradictions once you finish grade 5 social science. Perhaps earlier if you have discussion about it with your grandpa after he comes home from work. It’s not a matter of the system being anything remotely ready for stable government or civil rights. In the end, I see this system as only one in the path we take as a nation. But as I said before, it’s also a matter of the possibilities that exist on the ground, the lives that are at risk, the future not replicating the past. When I said “do you have any suggestions?” I wasn’t being sarcastic, but that really: do you, I anyone else out there, have a better plan? an alternative? I don’t see any right now. This moment. Maybe there will be in other moments, a future not far from now.

    And in the end, I think this system has more supporters than many would like to believe. So whatever this alternative, it has to account for them as well. Quite obviously, their alternative doesn’t account for us.

17. on 19 Nov 2009 at 12:48 pm17Pensive Persian

    “Where are they now?”

    I don’t know. Does the man who’s been under virtual house arrest for the past several months know? I don’t know. Have agents of this evil, vile regime done everything in their power to silence anyone who claimed to have evidence? Yes. Are the answers to these questions crucially relevant to Iran’s struggle for democracy?. No. Why quibble over some letter from 6 months ago while ignoring the mountain of other evidence, the most significant being the inability of Ahamdinejad supporters to organize and stage rallies all over Iran on a scale commensurate with his purported 63% result. Again, I second Abbas.

    I appreciate your comment about your complex relationship with the system. But an individual living in Nazi Germany could concede that the trains always run on time, and still unequivocally condemn the regime, without entertaining the chimera of reform.

    “It’s not a matter of the system being anything remotely ready for stable government or civil rights.”

    Anything remotely ready? It was dead on arrival. Again, you want to reform something that’s unreformable.

    “do you have any suggestions?” I wasn’t being sarcastic, but that really: do you, I anyone else out there, have a better plan? an alternative? I don’t see any right now.”

    Of course I have alternatives. As many alternatives as there are people with alternatives. The question, however, should be what alternatives are acceptable to the majority of Iranians, and how viable are they. You can’t keep boosting this system, while waiting for alternatives to magically materialize.

    The regime does have supporters. What are there numbers? Not as few as anti-regime people would have, and not nearly as much as you would have.

18. on 19 Nov 2009 at 1:05 pm18Pedestrian

    O.k. We’re speaking on two very different wavelengths. I don’t compare the entirety of the IRI to Nazi Germany. Although I believe Ahmadinejad seeks a fascist state and the constitution certainly has enough in there to give him one. But that’s not how he operates anyways – I’m pretty sure the law is his last concern.

    Many others on his own camp have come to criticize Mousavi lightly: if you couldn’t present claims of rigging, you shouldn’t have claimed it. And it DOES matter as I said before, because if not for those claims, this would have gone very differently. It does matter because if not anything else, the results would give us a good estimation of where Iranians stand.

    Pirouz said something here once about the IRI judiciary. I fully agree with that.

    I’m not speaking of alternatives as those in our heads, but those that are on the ground. Jebheyeh Melli, the nationalist front, was once a very threatening alternative to the authoritarian regime in Iran. There’s really nothing left of it now. The Freedom Movement has always been relatively weak. The Monarchists are a joke (at least to me they are). The reformists are just another group. Now I buy a lot of the argument about how the strong point of this movement is that it doesn’t have a leader, there’s no one dictating the moves, etc. At least so far. But in terms of viable alternatives to power, it has none except for the reformists, at least not yet.

    “dead on arrival” – what is the point of “arrival”? The draft of the constitution written up in 79? That actually set the frameworks for a promising regime. The one in 80? 81? 89?

19. on 19 Nov 2009 at 3:02 pm19Pensive Persian

    “I don’t compare the entirety of the IRI to Nazi Germany.”
    I do. But to the credit of Nazi Germany, they didn’t pretend to synthesize fascism with republicanism. Nazi Germany’s political structure was more honest than the IRI’s. (And I’m not making this analogy in the same way a dingbat neo-con war fetishist would.)

    Re: Mousavi – I never said he’s above criticism. In fact, I don’t like him very much. My point is that you can’t expect him to present you with a nifty PowerPoint presentation outlining the fraud given the repressive circumstances he faces. Moreover, the whole question is irrelevant now. You’re still in a pre-June 12th mindset.

    “But in terms of viable alternatives to power, it has none except for the reformists, at least not yet.”

    Yes there is. It’s called democracy and civil rights. Just as the movement doesn’t need a central leader, the ideas propelling it don’t need a formal political party.

    When the reformists were in power they got their asses kicked. Empirical proof of the un-rerformability of the system.

    “The draft of the constitution written up in 79? That actually set the frameworks for a promising regime.”

    There’s nothing promising about a theocratic constitution that’s sugar-coated with lip service to democracy and its attendant rights.

20. on 19 Nov 2009 at 3:27 pm20Pedestrian

    There was no word of theocracy or a supreme leader in the draft.
    Yeah, I know what it’s called but it doesn’t come out of thin air and it doesn’t come out of a student protest. It doesn’t need a political party but it does need resources, strategy, planning, vision etc. The only group in Iran who claim to aspire to those things are the reformists. You see the student protests right? I know dozens of those students and they are strongly pro-reformist. So even some of those who are on the streets support this faction. You may claim they are a dead cause, but they are THERE whether you like it or don’t.
    Maybe you’re talking about arms resistance? That is certainly a possibility and worked before the revolution. I would hope we won’t repeat it, but we’ll have to wait and see how things unfold.

    You think it’s irrelevant, as I said before, I beg to differ. Especially given that this system has a following, and knowing the results would let us know by how much. If I believed that 25 million people voted for Ahmadinejad, I would have a different mindset. I’m sure I’m not the only one. Also, you don’t believe in the reformist factions as a viable alternative to power, so naturally, you wouldn’t care what they said or how valid it was.
    The reformists got their ass kicked, but the reformists still consider themselves part of the system even if the “system” claims they are traitors. If you are going to make analogies or comparisons, be more specific. Khatami is a Nazi? Taleqani? I don’t personally think much of him, but I don’t consider him an agent of Gestapo. If the by the “system” you are referring to the SL gang, I would agree. You may argue that what Khatami is advocating ultimately leads to fascism, but so does George Bush’s. This is all about walking very fine lines. And they’ve repeatedly said that they are for changing the constitution – once people start learning to ABIDE by a constitution. If no one cares for the law, then why does it even matter what’s in there?
    Democracy isn’t the only form of government, and it certainly has its own shortcomings – it may be the best we’ve experimented with so far, but how can you claim it’s what Iranians as a majority want or would be willing to risk their lives for? I agree with most of what you say in theory, but in practice, I think there’s a different story going on.

21. on 19 Nov 2009 at 3:43 pm21Pensive Persian

    You’ve sorta put words in my mouth and misrepresented my comments somewhat.

    In any event, this comes back to something we discussed a while back: democracy has many flaws, and we need to be creative in finding ways to manage them, but theocratic republicanism or any system with a guardian council, supreme leader or anything else that sounds like it comes from the Lord of the Rings is hardly a corrective to the shortcomings of capitalist liberal democracy.

    “Democracy isn’t the only form of government, and it certainly has its own shortcomings – it may be the best we’ve experimented with so far, but how can you claim it’s what Iranians as a majority want o would be willing to risk their lives for?”

    umm…the last 6 months.

22. on 19 Nov 2009 at 3:47 pm22Pedestrian

    regarding the last 6 months: as I mentioned, some/a lot/(x) <—- ( x = unknown quantity) of people who were out on the streets actually believe in the reformists. Some only voted for them to say no to theocracy. I meant: how do you know "Iranians as a majority" want what you think would be a better alternative to the reformists? I simply don't know that yet. And I don't see a way of getting there straight from where we are right now.

    And Gandolf has my vote any day.

23. on 19 Nov 2009 at 3:55 pm23Pensive Persian

    I’m confident that the majority of Iranians want genuine democracy. Can I present you with a scientific poll? No. But I have more than anecdotal knowledge that Iranians want to live in peace and freedom.

    Regarding the reformists, I’m not making an empirical claim about the strength and distribution of their support. I’m make a normative claim about the coherence and practical viability of their platform.

    Gandhalf? Man, I’m done with beards!

24. on 19 Nov 2009 at 4:02 pm24Pedestrian

    Well, I simply don’t know “what Iranians want”. I know what I want, and I know that irrespective of what they want, a 19 year old kid out on the streets to protest shouldn’t get shot. Or have his crushed body thrown to his parents 3 weeks later. I think we should have long-term goals and short-term goals and while they are interconnected, it’s not an all or nothing scenario.

    Men with beards are very uncomfortable to kiss so I wouldn’t want them as a partner. But as statesmen, I certainly don’t mind them so long as they’re well groomed.

25. on 19 Nov 2009 at 4:14 pm25Pensive Persian

    I appreciate your epistemic fastidiousness. It’s much needed.

    You think I want to have that 19 year old kid’s cadaver released to his family pending the payment of an exorbitant fee, per the regime’s m.o.? Come on.

    I think we’re disagreeing over tactics.

    Long term goal: a country where a 19 year old kid can assemble with others to freely express his political beliefs/grievances without fear of physical harm. That’s a start.

    Short term goal: maintain the momentum of the movement. Street protests? We don’t need more prisoners. Strikes? I think that’s the way to go.

26. on 19 Nov 2009 at 4:16 pm26Pensive Persian

    “Well, I simply don’t know “what Iranians want”.”

    Well, let’s establish a democracy and find out.

27. on 19 Nov 2009 at 4:53 pm27Pedestrian

    strike?! … JEYSUS … I’d argue that one, but I’m just too hungry.
    That’s another day and another cup of coffee (well, actually latte + waffle). Hmmm … or maybe soup + cheesecake?

28. on 19 Nov 2009 at 5:21 pm28German

    Dear Pedestrian,

    thank you for your report on what might have happened on election night.

    I am really not allowed to comment Iranian society and politics, being utterly ignorant of matters Iranian !!!

    The only excuse I can offer is my hope that perhaps some memories, mental leaps and mental fragments on my part might perhaps offer the possibility of mentally relativizing the degree of differences and contrariness possible as to (the) Iranian skeptical movement(s) for more democracy, and thus mitigate – in my view – possible unnecessary and contraproductive acrimonies between people following highly praiseworthy similar aims and objectives.

    At first two questions:
    • Having read on this blog on the Larijani brothers, my impression is that they somehow are born opportunists. If one of them, being in a high position within the Iranian power structure, congratulated opposition candidate Mousavi, he must have had access to classified election returns, and consequently he behaved as a true-blue opportunist sniffing chances to be taken – congratuling the coming provider of chances. Might my impression be plausible ?
    • “ Larijani never denied this once it was announced in parliament”. Why didn’t he think it necessary to deny that?
    Everybody in the power structure knows the obvious: He might have been signalling the identity of the election’s true winner, in case this criticism of his congratulation was to continue ? Might my assumption be plausible?

    Re: Nazi-Germany
    A comparison with Nazi-Germany might be helpful, if limiting itself to certain mechanisms e.g. how power was acquired, wielded, different ideological trends, organizing public opinion etc. Nazi-Germany’s system and incomprehensible deeds, towards political, religious dissidents and “racially non-Aryans” [whatever this ridiculous term might mean], and towards the citizens of occupied Europe, in particular in East Europe and Russia, is beyond any comparison. That has only become popular knowledge and lore in the last ten years really ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung ). Before that people, scholars, progressive studies and media equated Nazism with the then systems in Spain, Portugal and Italy, calling all three systems “fascism”, which spared us, the Germans, to look reality into its real eye. Portugal, Spain and Italy – these systems were comparably harmless, humanistic and kind when put into relation to Nazi-Germany.

    Re: the aims of a movement (might rapidly) change
    As to the post-war protest movements in Germany [I am NOT comparing Germany to Iran, but some mechanisms or trends of political-societal movements somewhere], its reasons/motivations, aims and emphases partly changed or arranged themselves into different and multifarious combinations like a river with many tributaries and inflows, taking its course in winter, in summer, in rain, in drought, a river which consequently changes its composition of water particles, of chemical substances, of different temperatures.
    a) It might have started – before my memory and participation set in – as expressing skepticism against the publicly spread legends of respectable citizens just unfortunately seduced by a very few evil Nazi-men having appeared out of the nowhere, out of the void,
    b) Followed by protests against the rearmament of Germany ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiederbewaffnung ),
    c) Protest marches for nuclear disarmament.
    d) My memory sets in with the visit of the Iranian Shah, whose secret agents beat up cruelly Iranian students protesting against him in Berlin, when a German policeman killed a German student ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benno_Ohnesorg ), a death which was the start of a huge and (several years?) long-lasting wave of protests throughout Germany. Then, or rather in addition, other aims and causes “flowed into this river of protest”:
    e) protests against the political German Emergency Acts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Emergency_Acts ),
    f) for/against University reforms,
    g) against the Vietnam war,
    h) for Palestine,
    i) for the Third World,
    j) against repressive-reactionary (nazi-traditional) contents of different University subjects,
    k) for a University reform.
    l) The movement, if one can attribute that term to such a mixture of multifarious motives and aims, had a socialistic leaning – plausible with a view to the Nazi-antisocialist past. There were discussions to join the reformist Socialdemocrats or to oppose and work against the reformist Socialdemocrats. Revolution or reform ? [seems to be ridiculous in hindsight today]. To try to “march through the [existing] institutions” [of society, of the state] or to continue to outright oppose society and state and to convert or topple society and state. What happened was that e.g. the Socialdemocrats changed to a certain extent and turned somewhat to the left, absorbing a considerable part of the protest(ers).
    m) Later this (?) movement decreased and morphed itself into different communist groupings
    n) Later this (?) movement became ecological, became stronger

    One thing is clear: all these different moments of protest changed German society, slowly but surely.

    I am stopping here with this reality of a chicken tikka massala and salad bowl of multifarious aims and motives constituting a social phenomenon called “movement”.

    Apologies for this overlong letter !!!

    Best wishes

    German

29. on 19 Nov 2009 at 8:03 pm29anon

    pensive persian

    Just read the first postings after the elections, (and before) and you might see better. Pedestrian is stubborn and despite her great talents in writing and presentation, cannot get rid of her religious and brainwashed past.

    ps – basically she said fuck off to those who offered their sympathies and help

30. on 19 Nov 2009 at 8:24 pm30Pedestrian

    German, that’s exactly what I meant regarding the Larijani brothers and thank you for the info on Germany. I didn’t know too much about the post-war protests at all.

    anon, I am curios as what you know about my “brainwashed” past. I think I’ve been pretty discreet about personal information in this space, so how’d you figure that one out?

31. on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:14 pm31parvati_roma

    German and Ped – I could hug you two!! remember that comparative-history post on Fascism -roots/essence/history/past-and-presentforms-thereof – that I promised on Naj’s that I’d attempt on my own blog, as in the light both of past histories and of current developments in Iran-and-not-only we’re all somewhat obsessed by the topic? I’ve been revolving obsessively around how to tackle it for weeks now but something held me back – call it an awareness of daunting complexities and ambiguities were holding me back – translating into a mental block re … format? and where-oh-where-to-start on the Italian-history aspects… with the Risorgimento? or with Julius Caesar??? how about Napoleon??? Cola di Rienzo, anyone?? Machiavelli??? How about Italians’ long centuries of moaning about the Fall-of-the-Roman-Empire and miserable barbaric consequences thereof and how-can-we-restore-our-past-status-and-glory??? or with xxx?? yyy?? zzz? – and that’s just the Italian part! What about Spain, Chile, Romania???
    Anyway, I’ve finally had a Eureka Moment!
    Revelation: this “project” was born out of a multiway reflection with interwoven Iranian, Italian and German voices, so must continue as such. Ergo: it needs a blog of its own, with all of us – not just me but Naj and German.. and Ped-too-if-interested + any other serious-minded posters from whatsoever continent who post on these blogs and find the topic interesting – both as post-contributors and as commentators, so its palinsest-nature can develop freely. Agreed?
    So: I’ve just “opened” a new blog (still empty) on blogspot, called it Dark Mirrors Of Fascism – http://fascismsdarkmirrors.blogspot.com, which I think sounds rather appropriate? – and I’ll set it up for multiple authorship. For this I’ll need the email addresses of those who are interested in posting on it – so if-that-means-you, please send me an e-mail addressed to parvati_roma@yahoo.it – topic “Fascisms” – so I can use the email address to enable you to post.
    Step 2 – I’ll fish out the main previous posts from this blog and Naj’s that revolve around the main topic, and post them with further-accretions regarding the main historical-aspects points I’ve focussed on so far – to be added to, developed and further commented on by all of us from our various POVs as time and inspiration permit.
    What do you think – good idea???

32. on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:46 pm32German

    @anon
    Dear anon,
    I would like to have more people of the attitude, calibre, character, friendliness and mentality of Pedestrian in our life here on earth [[resembling a madhouse, dominated by characterwise and mentally dissatisfying primates and chimpanzees of all sorts, for ridiculous reasons calling themselves human beings]]:
    our planet would be better off and more beautiful, rest assured !
    But obviously this was and is not to be:
    “On the eighth day of creation God the Lord ordered earth to be a loony bin and stipulated that only and without exception the stupid variety of the human species was to rule it”
    German

33. on 20 Nov 2009 at 9:07 am33Pedestrian

    parvati, I think that’s an excellent idea, I’ll email you.

34. on 20 Nov 2009 at 9:51 am34Abbas

    Wow, this has been an intense discussion while I have been away, haha… I got to say though that I generally agree with Pensive Persian, our views are very much the alike… Look, there are som very, very basic aspects here:

    - The Islamic Republic = a system that really has no and should have any legitimacy, and anyone who says otherwise is either dependent on the regime or cant see clearly, why, I dont know.. This regime has held Iran hostage for 30 years, reality is NOT anymore difficult than that…

    - Elections – Farce…. A “show” to keep peoples minds occupied and have some of them think that they live in a “democracy”…

    Mousavi, Karroubi – Parts of the system… Just beacuse they come out in “opposition” as “reformists” doesnt make them anything of leaders for a freedom movement.. The Iranian people have used them to show their frustration with the regime, but really, both these guys are thugs and should hypothetically the regime change tomorrow, both of them should have their punishments for crimes against the iranian people… Dont u guys remember Mousavi? Prime minister, AND also one of the men behind the idea of “committes” that drove around on the streets in the 80’s and 90’s and took people in or beat people for “un-islamic” behavior? And this was only one of the nicer things on his resume.. The man is an islamic thug, appearing now as some kind of “angel of hope” for a people in despair… He will get his someday too..

    Basically, the crimes against the iranian people that this regime has committed for 30 years, I cannot even begin to understand how some smart iranians have what Pensive Persian expressed as “cognitive dissonance” for the whole situation.. The systme is rotten, the leaders are evil, and thats IT…. Take it or leave it…

    Thank you

35. on 20 Nov 2009 at 9:55 am35Inna

    pensive persian sounds like someone i know…..

36. on 20 Nov 2009 at 10:25 am36Pedestrian

    Abbas, that’s exactly what I mean: it’s NOT take it or leave it.
    I am all FOR “changing the system completely”. But that’s NOT an obtainable reality on the streets of Iran – at least not on all the streets and at least not right away. That’s a premise, you can disagree right there, and I’m not sure we can convince each other otherwise since there are no viable reports, data, stats, etc you or I could quote. But we start from a very different premise I think and that’s why our arguments would never converge.
    Yes, the system is brutal, contradictory, stupid, violent – last two posts on the marriage and on the chain murders are perfect examples.
    But short-term, can it change completely?
    I would say no. Short-term, for an Iranian like me, and millions like me, your day to day life is impacted by whether Khatami is president or Ahmadinejad. It literally impacts your day to day journeys in the city.
    I don’t call it cognitive dissonance, I call it be being a pessimistic realist. But you can call it what you wish

37. on 20 Nov 2009 at 10:41 am37Inna

    abbas- this is not so simple! and pedestrian does a good job of pointing to everything about it that isn’t

    you can’t ignore the multitudes who believe in theocracy.. they do exist, eh? their mindsets have to change – they need to be educated from birth.. this will take a very long time. and note that i don’t mean their religion – i mean their understanding of civil rights.. of equal rights for everyone, etc

    and in this case, it does matter who is in power. the system will not change (or relax, or anything) until the numbers are higher..

    and semi-related: i fully believe that strikes are more effective than street protests, but this is not viable for those who live in poverty

38. on 20 Nov 2009 at 10:58 am38Abbas

    Pedestrian: I know what you are talking about, and I can understand it. Listen, I am NOT saying that the system can change overnight, what do u think I am, imbecile of the century? Of course this will take time, no matter how change will take place. However, you must understand one thing too: Just because there are many people supporting this system, either because of economic reasons or because of religious reasons, doesn’t mean that we, who are totally opposed to it, should change our mind-sets an iota. We should rather stand by our convictions, work towards them, and also act accordingly. I have been to Iran many a time in modern days, I know what life is like there, and I know that there is a significant difference in peoples lives depending on whether khatami or AN is president. And I know that building a mass peoples movement towards an eventual regime collapse is extremely difficult and takes time, not only because of the brutality of the regime, but also, and most importantly according to me, because of the support the regime receives from great powers abroad such as the EU, Russia, China etc… It is not in their interest to see a nationalistic, pro-iranian, democratic government in tehran, simply because they wouldnt profit from it as they do from the mullahs..
    HOWEVER, again, we should NEVER compromise with our convictions… And for me, that is very simple.. Either you support the regime, our you are against it… It has nothing to do with whether you think the regime will fall overnight or whether it will be a struggle of epic proportions to bring the system down, or whether the popular movement will succeed at all… One can see the situation from whatever perspective one sees fit.. The most important thing here, is to TAKE A FIRM STAND… That, is what I mean by all this…

39. on 20 Nov 2009 at 12:24 pm39Pedestrian

    Inna, I would add the list of “don’t cares” to that. When I went to our little town a few weeks after the death of the Foruhars and the other dissidents, it surprised me how little people aside from my personal circle, knew about it. Some, none at all. For them, reality and daily struggles are defined so differently.

    Abbas, I’m not sure what you mean by “take a firm stand” though. I voted for Khatami. Through the vote, I was actually making a compromise or stepping on my own principles of not believing in a theocracy. But day to day life is many times about making compromises with your own principles – at least for me it is, I don’t claim to be a moral authority! … and I don’t regret doing so.

40. on 20 Nov 2009 at 12:57 pm40Inna

    sorry for my rant, i was a little blinded. what i really meant to say, abbas: “for” or “against” – i think there are very few things in life that can be so clearly demarcated

    i don’t think pedestrian is sacrificing any “iota” of her “mind-set”.. i think she sees both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ here (to use these very simple terms), in the way that there is absolutely everywhere else. the fact that there are supporters does also mean something for the system of government itself

41. on 20 Nov 2009 at 1:22 pm41Abbas

    So what, u are suggesting I claim to be a moral authority? That I dont, however I express my views on what I think is right… And I know a great deal of people in Iran who didnt vote for khatami or mousavi, and through that they expressed their opposition to the whole system.. I have lots of relatives who think the same way u do, but I dont agree with that way of seeing things…

42. on 20 Nov 2009 at 3:37 pm42German

    Dear Pedestrian,

    as a foreigner I somehow understand your cautious approach and attitude. It is somehow understandable, why you try to find out the exact number of votes.

    It will be extremely difficult to get these numbers any time anyhow at all, though. Even in political systems claiming to represent an “open society” like the USA it turned out to be impossible, though not, of course, –as in Iran (of course?) – via violence and killings, but via court decisions: “The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court and stopped their recount” in the case of the unclear results of the 2000 United States presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, specifically the Florida results.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount ).
    What was there to hide in whose interests (possibly petty career interests of the individual judges concerned) in Florida ?

    Thinking back I remember

    (1) that my/our own idealism fuelled our wishful thinking which then was confused and mixed up with non-existing, dreamt-up “reality”. Being linked to a maoist grouping with the claim to represent the interests of the working class(es); the election turnout in the general election 1976 was 0,1 %
    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_League_of_West_Germany )
    (2) Having to do with the associations of Iranian Students at our university (FIS = Föderation Iranischer Studenten; CISNU = Confederation of Iranian Students National Union) we somehow “competed” who was the more perfect social analyst, communist, maoist, radical. I remember joint activities between our grouping and the members of FIS and CISNU, we jointly demanding the overthrow of the Shah regime (“Down with the Shah regime! Down with Imperialism! Cheers for international solidarity!” – we would usually shout). None of us young people, neither we German Maoists nor our Iranian co-students, wasted any thought on the perseverance and pertinacity of traditions and religion. For we all, of course, exactly knew the workings of the objective and absolute spirit of time as analysed and predicted by Marxian, Leninist and Maoist thought. [In other words, we all were blinder than blind – easily said of course in hindsight and retrospect.]

    We naively imagined that everywhere the broad population thought as we thought (see election results above). How gigantic must have been the surprise of everyone of us, as years later the Shah regime was indeed toppled and – as far as I can gather from this blog and from international news – replaced by an incomparably more murderous tyranny hiding itself and seducing naïve followers under the cloak of religion.

    Perhaps indeed, I ask myself, if it would have been much more appropriate, courageous and target-oriented as to Iran to have demanded just, only just, a constitution, a constitutional reform, a constitutional monarchy, elections or something like that instead of our loudmouthed bragging slogans.

    This is not supposed to be and cannot be any comparison with what is happening in Iran now. It only explains why I somehow understand your, Pedestrian’s, cautiousness and inbuilt doubt and question mark.

    If I only had been as mature as you are in my younger years. [But we know, the most closely relatives of the human race are the chimpanzees and gorillas.]

    German

43. on 20 Nov 2009 at 5:04 pm43Pedestrian

    Abbas, when did I say you claim you’re a moral authority? I myself wrote: “But day to day life is many times about making compromises with your own principles” then I thought “but there are people who really do stick to their principles” or at least die trying. But I’m not one of those – thus the moral authority comment.
    Wow. I knew people who didn’t vote for Khatami but I don’t know ANYONE who didn’t vote in this election. Second cousinsand such but no one close. I respect their views, I just have a different one.

    LOL German thanks. But it really depends on how you look it. You call it “wise” others call it “cognitive dissonance”, or “self-serving”, etc. I think I would make a die-hard revolutionary if I had lived in the 70s though. And I’m not sure if kids like me are “wiser” or simply more cautious.

44. on 21 Nov 2009 at 2:26 am44parvati_roma

    Chipping in from outside, also-but-not-only in the light of my own country’s tormented history, in particular of its ever-recurrent 3rd-wayist “historic compromise” tendencies as ever-recurrent lesser-evil “national solidarity” solution: if I were Iranian I too would be seeking a middle-ground solution based on mutual respect both amongst the very diverse components of the anti-coup movement and in relation to what seems to be a large “semi-passive”, tendentially conservative element of the population (noting also the relatively high demographic incidence of rural and v. recently urbanized populations…) that is not directly involved in the protest movement itself but not currently unfriendly towards it and is/has become increasingly suspicious of the Khamenei-Akhmadinejad-IRGC nexus. In this perspective, the wisest course seems to be convergence on the primacy of basic human and civil rights and the upholding of best-interpretation legality within the current framework (with mechanisms to ensure the possibility of subsequent progressive improvements) as the most “inclusive”, least disruptive i.e. potentially dangerous course for Iran to follow: last thing you want is to see your country ricocheting yet-again from one extreme to another in a near-endless series of violent upheavals, purges and coups!
    P.S. a big question-mark is what will happen when Khamenei dies: afaik velayat e-faqih is a very recent innovation… which means its support amongst those of traditionalist-conservative tendencies must be somewhat fragile-to-put-it-mildly??? If it’s abolished, “collegialised” in a checks-and-balances way or otherwise rendered toothless, the way should be open to gradual change… but if it’s hijacked in a coup-de-main by the hardliners, a violent solution may well be inevitable???

45. on 21 Nov 2009 at 2:33 am45parvati_roma

    Ooops wrong pagelink for historic compromise – please replace with this!
    historic compromise

46. on 21 Nov 2009 at 1:33 pm46Abbas

    Pedestrian: Well, there u go… Just the fact that I know lots and lots of people who didn’t vote in this election, in opposition to the system, just shows how different backgrounds or perhaps circles we have … U say “wow”, I just think it is totally normal… They didnt want to pick between bad and worse, instead they stood for what they believe in… Not to say that I dont respect those who are opposed to the system but voted anyway, as I explained earlier, I understand how they are thinking too, I just dont agree with it…

47. on 22 Nov 2009 at 4:35 am47German

    Postscriptum

    Dear Pedestrian,

    The highly differentiated statements made by you and your friendly and reflective contributors don’t leave me in peace !

    All these statements are highly well-founded and seem to cover different, justified, various, multifarious aspects of the truth, which only thus shows a picture approaching its usually high and manifold complexity !
    Thus: Chapeau to You and Your contributors/commentators/readers !

    The questions asked on your part and the ensuing discussion here on the possible but exact figures of the election votes on the one hand and the responsible exactitude and veracity of statements expressed by politicians (of the “Greens”) as to the election process and in particular outcome occupies your readers, like e.g. me, of course very, very much.

    a) re: election figures:
    Let’s assume the official public statements are somehow true, then the percentage of ca. 36 % of votes for the “Green” politicians is highly impressive from a European standard point of view, and this high percentage will make itself felt heavily in the near and far future, as the intention of votes and voters seem linked to a democratization of Iran. I, for one, do not know of any country where this call for more democracy does not constitute a more or less insurmountable goal/aim that no government is able to withstand really consequently and strictly for a very long time as being in accordance with the “spirit of the times” (exceptions perhaps North Corea, Burma).
    [I once mentioned the percentage of votes for the ecological “Green” Parties in Europe; (in Germany) an average figure of 8-12% was sufficient to change the politics of Europe, of Germany, of each political party, enforcing the unequivocal acceptance of ecological aims with far-reaching consequences; the reason in my opinion being that these ecological aims were somehow in accordance with the “spirit of the times”]
    b) re: the exact linguistic, political, technical terms used in connection with somehow mproper mechanisms adopted before, during and after elections:
    As to the exact formulations used by the politicians of the “Green” movements, painstaking linguistic, philological exactitude is demanded, in particular the thorough knowledge of the Iranian/Persian language: the English-language political-technical term “electoral fraud” for example covers a host of different degrees and measures of influence to be observed, having taken place or having been taken in the run-up to, during and after an election. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud ] If this English-language technical term was used, one cannot reproach any politician of the “Green” movement of deceiving or even misguiding themselves and the public. But only Iranians know which were the exact words used and what exactly these words cover or mean; translations will never do here !
    Any Iranian-language illíterate (like me, e.g.) is definitely obliged “to shut up” as to this philological-political discussion, I suppose.
    [e.g. the term” friend” in English covers a different, very wide range of meaning, the translated German equivalently sounding word “Freund” is used exclusively for only very, very, tried and trusted relationships; so a translation of “friend” with the German “Freund” is utterly misleading and thus wrong, in my opinion].

    Apologies and All the best

    German

48. on 22 Nov 2009 at 4:37 am48German

    orthographical error:
    “somehow improper mechanisms”

49. on 22 Nov 2009 at 10:15 am49Pedestrian

    Abbas, I wrote “wow” b/c I am surrounded by people who have NEVER voted in the past 30 years, not even in the notorious yes/no vote to the IRI or even for Khatami but they voted this time. Of course again, we can only refer to “our own circles”. And while we each have our own which represent only one slice of the population, the people who I know who don’t vote are those who can afford not to. For instance, at Sharif and University of Tehran and a few other universities where I have very close links to the students and the administration (family, friends, etc) I can pretty much guarantee that over 90% of the students voted (I’m not making that number up, those were the stats when they did a mock election before June 12th). Why? Because EVERY little thing in their day to day life as students is affected by the president and the minister of higher education and I personally was a student during the Khatami to Ahmadinejad transition and it was hell for all of us. Even all those students who had moved abroad made sure to go and vote because they all remembered that transition.
    Of course, most probably, almost none will vote next time.

50. on 22 Nov 2009 at 10:17 am50Pedestrian

    German, I highly agree with “a” – even though I strongly believe the votes were tampered with and it was even more than 36%.
    But, I always say: we don’t know how much more. We do know that we are AT LEAST 36% and that is enough for a viable movement, if we play our cards right.

51. on 22 Nov 2009 at 4:59 pm51anon

    @german
    >attitude, calibre, character, friendliness and mentality of Pedestrian
    I never said the contrary, but I’m not the only one, it’s obvious, she (to me) is not just pragmatic, but wavers, is learning, is confused, (she’s said it herself). I agree more with Abbas’ opinions, that when you see something clearly, you stick to your ideal, and work for it. If, in the process, you have to accept compromises, at least they will be higher. It’s exactly the process of any resistance movement, unions, anything. You aim for the highest, and eventually if necessary, negociate.

    To pedestrian, I thought when reading you on other blogs a couple a few weeks ago, you were a real defender of the movement, but when I took the time to read your earlier blog I was quite shocked by your atitude. You obviously have changed with the follow up of the protests, but you come over too often as representing iranians, when many others say they have a different opinion.

52. on 22 Nov 2009 at 5:34 pm52Pedestrian

    anon, I am still learning, am confused … and hope that I’ll always be. I’m not really sure I buy those so full of conviction that they don’t need to learn anymore or aren’t confused by the complexities in Iran. Those were the youth of 79. I don’t plan to be one, thank you very much.
    I am not for regime change in Iran short-term, and have never been. Thus, before this latest rounds of violence, I took a much more careful tone regarding the IRI – both for the reason I just describe but most especially because of the threats posed by the neo-cons, I always thought we should be considerate of our criticisms and there are very few Iranians in the public eye that I think are able to walk that line.

    I started writing a lot of the stuff on this blog when I was 16, and started it when I was 22. I’m observing and learning as I go. Frankly, I think some Iranians in the diaspora don’t have a very realistic image of what’s going on in Iran and especially the youth. That’s my personal take however.

    “If, in the process, you have to accept compromises” – it’s no “if” – you do. This isn’t a union where both sides have negotiating power – a union has bargaining power and a certain framework for maneuver. The movement in Iran is still not at that stage and I think we will slowly begin to realize where our bargaining chips may lie or what they may even be. Your words sound anything but pragmatic. I’m not sure what you’re really talking about when there is no homogeneous “movement” to begin with. There are basic rights they are calling for – but then various groups have various demands. I think we should go with the basics first and learn to make our way through the rest. Again, that’s just my personal take. I’m with Behnoud on a lot of this.

    And I’ve never claimed to speak for all Iranians. Not only is such a goal impossible, it’s also absurd.

53. on 22 Nov 2009 at 5:37 pm53German

    @anon
    Dear anon,

    thank you very much for going to the great lengths of answering me/reacting to my utterances, honestly !

    I thus understand your point somehow, but would all the same like to add a remark :

    You [yourself] will be utterly surprised in five to ten years’ time, how much and to what considerable degree your outlook will have changed – in retrospect !

    [ I bet, you will remember these my last few words - then ! ]

    Take care and best wishes

    German

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website