Thirty years later, Iran seems to be indicating the presence of similar winds of change. In a hotly contested election, the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared to having secured 63% of the votes while the forerunning reformer Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh won 34% of the votes.
Questioning the credibility of the electoral process involved in these elections, Tehran soon broke out in protest. Opposition supporters and sympathizers clashed over the weekend. In response, videos of police brutality swept through western media.
Within Iran, foreign media outlets faced severe censorship and the Iranian population was starved of any information that was not official dispensed by the Iranian government. Garnering information from a variety of sources BBC reported that “more that 100 figures [were] arrested, including the brother of ex-reformist President Khatami; Local and International phone and text message services [were] interrupted; social networking and newspapers websites [were] blocked; ‘heavy electronic jamming’ from inside Iran disrupted Persian TV service; International journalists [were] attested and asked to leave; [and finally] Iranian newspapers do not carry reports of the violence.”
While these events represented Tehran’s ability and commitment towards maintaining the status quo in Iran, it is also strangely reminiscent of the upheaval seen in the country in the 1970s. So, are these the beginning of another landmark change in the country? Is this the start of the Iranian Revolution Part II?
For the Iranian political leadership the answer is clear; the elections were free and fair and reflected the sentiments of the Iranian nation. In a post-election speech, President Ahmadinejad saw the unrest as only a manifestation of unrequited expectations of the opposition. For him it is a question of the failure of Mousavi and his supporters to accurately analyze and understand the Iranian nation.
Furthermore, severely critical of the analysis of the events made by the western media, Ahmadinejad claims the electoral process to be in absolute control of the ‘people’ thus eliminating any possibility of foul play. The election results and subsequently Ahmadinejad were also blessed by approval of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Finally, Ahmadinejad boasted his triumph (almost as a snub to the opposition) on the 15th of June when thousands joined in a victory rally in Tehran. For Mousavi and his supporters this rhetoric is of little meaning in lieu of their concerns with the conduct of the most recent elections. The reformist leader sent a letter to the supreme leader articulating some of his primary points of contention. He claims that such controversies regarding the electoral processes have caused “…frustration and disappointment for people who are actively participating in strengthening the pillars of the Islamic Republic system with their inexpressible passion.” In largely conciliatory tone he concludes his letter by saying that he hoped that the leaders “…guidelines and interference will create appropriate conditions for absolute impartiality of authorities, supervisors and election executives, and safeguard people’s votes.”
So, with these two diametrically opposed positions in place, are we witnessing the second edition of the Iranian revolution? It is difficult to make this bold claim. Media outlets, both inside and outside the country are seriously pressed for credible information and essential details. While it is clear that there is significant unrest, it is difficult to estimate its scale and extent, especially outside Iran.
Following the pro-status quo argument, one may cite the scale of the victory rally as a somewhat indication of the popularity of the incumbent leader, it is often claimed that such rallies in Iran are easy to summon and hardly reflect the true sentiments of the citizens. But, what is fairly clear though is that Iran, based on political allegiances, is divided. There remains a significant section of the population that sees the need to reform the foundational aspects of the country’s political systems and its society. They are invariable in confrontation with those that support and believe in the status-quo that was developed and institutionalized by the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Iranian society today isn’t representative of the overwhelming support for change that was seen on the eve of the revolution, but there is something brewing. Only time will tell if this is capable of evolving into a revolution but what is clear, no matter which direction the current political strife takes Iran, it will be of critical importance to not only the dynamics of the region but that of the entire world.
(A Masters student with the Central European University in Budapest, the writer specializes on Middle East politics. He can be contacted at somdeeps@gmail.com. The idea expressed in the article is of the author)
