Yes, but…
By Thoreau
I don’t think Daniel Larison’s points are entirely wrong. I said downblog that the US government should keep its mouth shut. I’ve said in other posts that I can’t rule out the possibility that a lot of Iranian voters saw the good old boys lining up with Mousavi (who was Prime Minister in the 1980’s, not exactly an era of peace and freedom in the Islamic Republic) and smelled a rat. I’m on record here as the person most likely to be suspicious of a candidate promising hope and change.
Despite all that, I’m optimistic about the protesters. Mousavi himself may be, for all I know, a corrupt good old boy in a coalition with Rafsanjani for the purpose of seizing power from Khameini and Ahmadinejad. Or he might be a reformed sinner. But I don’t really care. The protesters themselves are a power to be reckoned with. I have no trust in any politician, but I trust that politicians will behave better if they know that they can be removed as punishment for screwing over the populace. Clearly a lot of Iranians are fed up, and they’re taking to the streets to remove the Supreme Leader’s preferred candidate. Whether the replacement would be better is almost irrelevant, given that the replacement will take power after the people have protested an apparently rigged election and flexed their muscles in support of a platform that is allegedly reformist.
If the Iranians succeed in removing Ahmadinejad and replacing him with Mousavi, and if Rafsanjani should even find a way to topple Khameini, I don’t expect that much would change over night. But I do expect that it would set in motion a different process, and that reform would follow. In fact, given how awful sudden changes can be, I hope that if Mousavi takes power the changes are gradual rather than revolutionary.
Anyway, while I agree that the US government should stay the hell out, ordinary people can and should express their support. Here at UO I am pleased to announce the adoption of a green color scheme to show our support for the Iranian protesters (as well as sustainable local agriculture).
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 16, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
What would change?
Remind me, Thoreau, why are we concerned about whether some guy (whom you’re the first to characterize as a meaningless figurehead) loses his job and someone else becomes a meaningless figurehead?
Beyond the yeah, yeah, Ahmadinejad give neocons ammo angle that isn’t actually all that relevant right this moment with the neocons well out of power, what does it really matter to us if the leadership blinks and gives the people of Iran a different figurehead?
Comment by Thoreau —
June 16, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
I don’t know that I’ve ever said that he’s completely meaningless, but he’s certainly far less powerful than the Supreme Leader.
OTOH, if Mousavi wins, it will be because the Supreme Leader lost a fight. A President who takes office under those circumstances has more power than one who takes office by normal means. There’s more to power than just the official flowchart.
Comment by Eric Martin —
June 16, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
Yeah, and it will invigorate the voting population’s sense of empowerment. Once that gains momentum, broader changes are possible. Not a given, or even likely necessarily, but the odds get better.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 16, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
You deemed Ahmadinejad all but irrelevant when it came to questions like the use of nuclear weapons.
Sure to the first, a very mild perhaps to the second. It’ll be hard to keep people in the streets if the leadership relents and Mousavi ends up president with the same minimal powers Ahmadinejad had. In that case, what does he do?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 16, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
Perhaps, or perhaps the leadership will just learn to fix elections more carefully.
I’m not expecting it in any case.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 16, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
Decisions on the nuclear program are certainly above the Iranian President’s pay grade. OTOH, some decisions that affect the daily lives of Iranians may be in the hands of the President. The President is as powerful or weak as the Supreme Leader allows him to be. A President who takes office because the Supreme Leader lost a street fight is different from one who took office because the system performed its usual function and delivered a figurehead.
Also, if Khamenei loses a street fight, it will be a victory for Rafsanjani as much as a victory for Mousavi, and Rafsanjani controls levers of power at higher levels than the President. Rafsanjani is also more open to talking to the US. If Khamenei loses that battle, I expect to see a different foreign policy because the hard-liners will have lost a battle to a coalition of reform-minded citizens and moderates in the clerical establishment.
Now, if Mousavi is installed to appease the masses but his allies are side-lined, then I will be far less optimistic.
The point here is that it’s not about one man in an office with little sway over foreign policy, but rather it’s about which forces are getting the upper hand.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 16, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
HA! Love that!
Comment by Thoreau —
June 16, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
The crowds set fire to a militia headquarters. If they start getting into buildings, capturing cops, and either burning or releasing dossiers, this is pretty much over for the regime.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 16, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
God knows brutal theocrats can’t crush insurrections.
Less sarcastically, I’m starting to think that, to this day, the fall of the Iron Curtain still gives people the dangerously misleading idea that repressive governments are just a big march or two away from collapsing.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 16, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
I’ll admit this is possible…but very bluntly, I think this is all going to look a lot less like the Berlin Wall coming down and a lot more like Tiananmen Square writ large.
Comment by Ken Shultz —
June 16, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
“Whether the replacement would be better is almost irrelevant, given that the replacement will take power after the people have protested an apparently rigged election and flexed their muscles in support of a platform that is allegedly reformist.”
Don’t blame me–I voted for Kodos!? What happens when the protesters realize it doesn’t really matter who they vote for?
I suppose democratic government would be an improvement. …but even here in the United States, so long as our leaders are powerful and incompetent, who cares if they’re duly elected, appointed, etc.?
Legitimacy is important. It can and does quell protest in the streets. But then what? Legitimacy is no substitute for good policy, and Iran will still have the same problems it had before…
Yeah, democracy isn’t the solution to our economic, cultural and security problems, and it won’t be the solution to theirs either.
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 16, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
And Islam!
Comment by Walt —
June 16, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
I see. Mr the .5b is of the “preemptively announce self-defeat” persuasion. This has never worked before, but it’s so crazy that this time it just might work.
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 16, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
Thoreau, you’re aware that Rafsanjani himself is a giant crook, right?
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 17, 2009 @ 12:06 am
The protesters themselves are a power to be reckoned with.
Um… why? The goal of their protest is to empower a man whose previous time in power saw more violations of liberty than Ahmadinejad’s did. That doesn’t speak to their power – it speaks to their gullibility. Even if Mousavi wasn’t a cynical opportunist hitching his star to a crooked zillionaire, the fact remains that the Iranian presidency is easily neutered by the supreme leader and the Guardian Council – ask Mohammed Khatami how much the presidency’s worth if the powers-that-be don’t like what you’re doing with it.
I can sympathize with the sentimental urge to wish well a bunch of earnest do-gooder kids, but really, what’s the plan here exactly after all the nifty green flag-waving is done? Because it doesn’t look like the rest of Iran – that is, all the poor dumb shlubs in the provinces who probably really did vote for Ahmadinejad because he was the first one in a while to bother giving them some money – are up for a bit of violent revolution right now.
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 17, 2009 @ 12:30 am
And it does need to be said: while I know that the Official Blog Consensus is that the election was stolen, I’ve yet to see actually compelling evidence of this. Pre-election polling indicated Ahmadinejad was going to win, and the margin that he won by wasn’t all that surprising – previous Iranian incumbents such as Khatami and Rafsanjani won comparable or even larger percentages on the first ballot. Nor am I swayed by Juan Cole’s “Azeris must have voted for the Azeri” argument: first, Ahmadinejad has a record of successfully campaigning in Azeri districts; second, Khamenei is Azeri, and by the end of the campaign the election appears to have been cast as a proxy struggle between Khamenei and Rafsanjani, which muddies Cole’s ethnic-solidarity argument considerably; third, pre-election polling, conducted by Western polling groups, showed Ahmadinejad leading Mousavi in those Azeri districts as well. And while I’m open to being convinced if any evidence does turn up, what’s been presented so far is a lot of shadow-chasing, strongly-influenced by pro-Western hopes and biases.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 17, 2009 @ 1:54 am
Thoreau, you’re aware that Rafsanjani himself is a giant crook, right?
Yes.
For all the dangers of democracy, crooks who might just lose an election seem to be less dangerous, overall, than crooks for whom elections don’t matter. I don’t worship democracy, but it still beats the alternatives.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 17, 2009 @ 1:58 am
I can sympathize with the sentimental urge to wish well a bunch of earnest do-gooder kids, but really, what’s the plan here exactly after all the nifty green flag-waving is done?
If those earnest do-gooder kids win a street battle with the Revolutionary Guard, whatever happens next in Iran will happen under different circumstances.
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 17, 2009 @ 10:44 am
If those earnest do-gooder kids win a street battle with the Revolutionary Guard, whatever happens next in Iran will happen under different circumstances.
Says who? Khatami was a reformist president elected in part by earnest do-gooder kids; it wasn’t worth much to him in the end. Unless the structure of the Iranian government itself is changed, ultimate authority will still rest with the supreme leader – and Mousavi isn’t interested in overhauling the fundamental structures of the Iranian government. In fact, he repeatedly identified himself as a “principalist” and called for a return to the spirit of that well-known champion of civil liberties, Ayatollah Khomeini.
I mean, Jesus, Thoreau. You’ve spent the last several months pointing out how very little has changed since a bunch of earnest do-gooder kids swamped the streets over here for a politician promising hope and change. What makes you think that things work out better in Iran?
Comment by Thoreau —
June 17, 2009 @ 11:12 am
The Revolutionary Guard and Supreme Leader losing a battle is a necessary first step to reform. It isn’t reform, just a first step.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 17, 2009 @ 11:14 am
If street protests can compel the clerics and military to back down, that will represent a major structural change in Iranian government and politics.
That would be true whether they were marching for Mousavi or for a new recycling program.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 17, 2009 @ 11:17 am
That would be true whether they were marching for Mousavi or for a new recycling program.
And our green color scheme supports both!
Comment by Donald Johnson —
June 17, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
I don’t want to be a sentimental flag-waver, but if America stands for anything, it’s the idea that a crook who is afraid of being voted out of office and replaced by a different crook is slightly less scary than a crook who is sure he can steal an election if needs to. Jeeze, it’s in every Fourth of July speech–pay attention next time.
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 17, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
If street protests can compel the clerics and military to back down, that will represent a major structural change in Iranian government and politics.
I don’t think “structural” means what you think it means.
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 17, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
I don’t want to be a sentimental flag-waver, but if America stands for anything, it’s the idea that a crook who is afraid of being voted out of office and replaced by a different crook is slightly less scary than a crook who is sure he can steal an election if needs to.
Once again: there’s precious little evidence that this election was stolen.
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 17, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
The Revolutionary Guard and Supreme Leader losing a battle is a necessary first step to reform.
But the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard aren’t going anywhere. Hell, even if Rafsanjani managed to get the Assembly of Experts to replace Khamenei with himself, that hardly represents reform, since there’s nothing in Rafsanjani’s record to indicate that he’s substantially better than Khamenei. You keep talking in abstract terms about “winning battles” and “steps to reform,” but in the real world it’s far from clear what’s actually being gained here. To suppose that street protests in and of themselves are a step towards a freer society is nothing more than magical thinking.
Comment by Ken Shultz —
June 17, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Those speeches are usually made by politicians, right? Yeah, sorry, I started skipping those years ago, Jesus Christ, you think I should listen?!
I still get teary-eyed about rights and freedoms, but the sacredness of the election process and the wonderfulness of the mandates that process bestows?
“We got together and made some decisions about your paycheck. We’re usin’ it to bail out Wall Street. Hey, the last guy was from the other party and he did the same thing!”
Sorry, when I get bent over, I really don’t care so much about whether the guy that raped me was duly elected, I’d just rather not get raped. And have you noticed? …a lot of these guys, historically, seem to use these election thingies to justify raping people like you and me.
Democracy and freedom aren’t the same thing, but a lot of people seem to use the terms interchangeably.
I think everyday Iranians are suffering from a lack of freedom more than anything else. …and democracy may do something for legitimacy, but it can be as big a threat to freedom as anything else too. That’s Plato 101. Freedom’s been the enemy of democracy in our own history more than once. …even in recent history.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 17, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
I think you’re trying to wax sarcastic about my refusal to start singing “Winds of Change” and “Right Here, Right Now” in response to all of this, but I’m not sure.
Or maybe you think I’m an Iranian protester?
Can you coherent that up a bit?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 17, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
I’d like to think Joe and Thoreau have the right of it, but I agree with this. Even the feudal system had revolts, but those didn’t change the system – they just curbed the worst excesses.
Comment by Jon H —
June 17, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
“I think you’re trying to wax sarcastic about my refusal to start singing “Winds of Change†and “Right Here, Right Now†in response to all of this, but I’m not sure.”
How about “Beautiful Day”? Everybody loves some Bono.
(ducks)
One interesting thing: let’s say the security forces start turning to support the opposition. Ahmedinejad and Khamenei are kicked out and Mousavi, etc, goes in.
Then they fail to live up to expectations, and little changes. And protests start again. What would the security forces do?
Would they crack down harder than this time, or, having little invested in the new regime, would they support the opposition again?
Comment by Donald Johnson —
June 17, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Stasmangelo–
I don’t know if the election was stolen or not. The government is acting like it did something along those lines. Maybe it’s just that their instinct is to be repressive and thuggish even when they win an election by a 2 to 1 margin.
I think the people protesting in the street are sincere and that most Iranians want civil liberties and a vote that is counted–that was shown in the poll conducted in May that showed Ahmadinejad ahead (though the bulk of the voters were undecided), as Juan Cole pointed out.
OTOH, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if at the top level it’s simply a case of morally repugnant elites struggling for power in any way they can. Some might even champion democracy if that’ll work for them.
Comment by Chris H —
June 18, 2009 @ 9:56 am
I can’t help but think that the same argument could have been used in ‘79.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 18, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
I think it means exactly what I used it to mean, and if you have a problem with what I wrote, you should spill it.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 19, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Clearly, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”.