For centuries it has been a central tenet of political philosophy that no state can yield legitimate authority without at least the tacit consent of those over whom it seeks to govern. Current events are showing this is as true in Iran as it is anywhere else.
Since the revolution of 1979, Iran’s leaders seem to have believed that their mandate to govern was established through the popular, bottom-up protests that overthrew the shah and installed the current regime. Yet the recent protests, as big as anything seen since the revolution, seem to suggest that 30 years on, that mandate is starting to expire. Contrary to much popular opinion, Iranians are a people of sophistication and learning, with a long and distinguished lineage of poets, historians and others capable of seeing beyond the kind of zero-sum politics that characterises the incumbent regime.
Ironically, perhaps, the fact that Iran is a democracy of sorts, in which people are given the chance to express whether or not they consent to the continuation of an incumbent’s mandate to govern, has only made matters worse for the ruling regime. Once you let a man taste a good thing, he will usually want more. The Iranian regime has made a catastrophic and potentially fatal mistake in believing that it could placate the masses with a cosmetic democracy, but continue on as though such a democracy did not actually exist.
Even if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did defeat his main rival, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, it seems exceedingly unlikely that he would have triumphed in quite such the comprehensive fashion official statistics claimed that he did, polling 62.6 per cent of the vote, given the contentiousness that has characterised so many of his policies. Reports in the international media, citing Iranian bloggers, claim that an unofficial leaks showed Mr Ahmadinejad polling just 13.6 per cent of the vote, behind not only Mr Mousavi, but also the liberal reformist Mehdi Karroubi. The BBC tonight broadcast allegations that Mr Mousavi had in fact been informed of his victory by the supreme council (the religious body ruled by Ayatollah Khamenei, which holds the real power in Iran) before later being informed that he was to remain silent.
Whether there is any truth to these claims is highly uncertain. What is certain is that the Iranian regime is attempting what may well turn out to be the impossible task of closing Pandora’s box. In the run-up to the election the regime belatedly attempted to impose some sort of control over the internet, clamping down on popular networking sites such as Facebook, widely seen as the preserve of liberal, anti-establishment youths who oppose the current regime. Following the announcement of Mr Ahmadinejad’s victory, protests in support of Mr Mousavi were announced to be illegal, though the sheer size of protests appears to have rendered the security response impotent for the time being.
As is the case almost everywhere in the world, the internet revolution in Iran is empowering people to circumnavigate the traditional top-down sources of information to obtain alternative points of view. It is also enabling them to better co-ordinate opposition to the ruling regime. No longer can governments simply impose their doctrines on peoples safe in the knowledge that no other view can realistically prevail, and if the Iranian regime is found to have perverted the outcome of this election, then it may yet pay the price.
Tags: Iran