The Green Movement, which nucleated in response to the fraudulent elections of 12 Jun 2009, was supposed to die out in a week, after Khamenei’s big speech at a Friday prayer. The security forces too, relying on their past experiences, had predicted that the movement will die out soon (they had gained “invaluable” experience suppressing people’s voices in the past). But that did not happen and the movement is still going on strong, many months after the fraudulent elections.
Security forces in Iran are well equipped. The latest communication technologies have been implemented and many gigantic western companies have helped install sophisticated technologies for surveillance and mass spying across the nation. Why then is our movement still going strong?
Our predecessors used to say, for a social movement to operate successfully you need at least three elements: leadership, organization, and a tangible goal. The security forces in Iran also know these pillars of a successful social movement and have been trying to sabotage any and all of them. For example in the recent years security forces have tried, and to some extent succeeded, in sabotaging student organization’s attempts to connect with women’s and workers movements.
The basic elements needed of a social movement remain the same. Indeed a movement needs a leadership, and organization, and a tangible goal-- but the essence of these factors, their characteristics, have to be adjusted to current realities that exist today in our society knowing that massive western surveillance and military technologies are at the service of the Islamic Republic. The Iranian Green Movement is the first movement of its kind to grow in the context of these new social realities.
1- The leadership
Classical social movements, up until now, have had one or a few distinct leaders, or a single nucleus of leaders. This central leadership has been an important factor in consolidating the movement and leading it toward the collective goal. Even the new so called “modern” velvet movements have had distinct publically known leaderships. The Iranian security forces, who love velvety movements, in their feeble backward minds had thought that public’s discontent can crystallize into a movement around Khatami. All reformists did agree on Khatami and he was the single choice of the reformists who could potentially release much social energy. In such a social atmosphere Khatami was forced to decline from running for the president. The leaders of the Islamic republic never asked how plausible the blueprint of Ukraine or Georgia’s social movements was to what was developing in Iran. Getting rid of Khatami at the beginning of the election was not enough to subdue the growing movement for democracy in Iran and this was the first indication that what was happening in Iran was different than what had happened elsewhere.
The current Iranian movement does not depend on a declared leadership and it never has. Although “imaginary leaders” like Khatami and Mousavi have been around, they have always played the role of the least common denominator for the movement and in truth do not do much leading. So, in our particular circumstances, we choose leaders who do not lead us but rather follow our lead. Such “leadership” will not allow division of the forces and will prevent a group or a sect from controlling or directing the entire movement toward its particular goals. Mousavi is well aware of his weak leadership authority. He stands firm on his demands but does not claim leadership or direction over the people’s movement.
He knows and acknowledges the multi-faceted character of the movement and has made no attempt to centralize the leadership at all. Mousavi knows that many people, from all walks of life and with many differing political and social inclinations, see themselves as a part of the Green Movement and sees that as a strength, not a weakness.
Several opposition groups continuously advertize that “Mousavi is not the leader of the movement” and that “the green movement of Iran does not have a leader” or that “the people are the leaders of this movement”. Such cries are the result of an old view of leadership, one that coincides with the past experiences where leadership was a crown that shaped the movement. Such leaders, knowingly or unknowingly, would cause the demise of the movement.
The headless nature of our movement has allowed it to persist in the face of tremendous odds against it. The truth is that if Mousavi, Karoubi, and Khatami are all arrested and put in jail, the Green Movement will continue to bring people out into the streets to demand their rights and ask for a democratic Iran.
2- The Organization
With Mousavi not playing a critical role in the movement, the security forces had to go after the organization of it. Which organization? Which organization had to be destroyed to stop people from coming to the streets? Many political organizations were raided, their members arrested, and their offices closed. But people kept coming to the streets. The Islamic Republic went even as far as closing the cultural NGO’s which were neither popular nor political. The government even closed down the professional organizations. Nothing stopped people from protesting on the streets. This movement had become “self organizing”.
Finally Ahmadinejad blamed the “media” for those unceasing protests his government had to face on every street in every city of Iran. Internet and satellite television were next in the list of potential means by which people could be led and protests could be organized. But cracking down on them did little to dampen the protests.
From the vantage point of the Islamic Republic leaders, any social entity that can organize people has an innate potential to organize protests against the regime. According to this analysis, any civil organization, any entity that is independent of the government, is a potential threat to the existence of the Islamic Republic. Therefore the ninth Parliament (ninth Majlis) did all it could for 4 years to abolish all independent social organizations that sprang into existence in Iran. Attempts to destroy civil organizations and strengthen a “populist” state worried intellectuals who warned about the threats of fascism in Iran.
Organizing in today’s Iran is a new phenomenon. It requires individual creativity and persistence.
3- The objective (a tangible goal)
The third element that has led to the resilience of the green movement in Iran is the fact that the opposition has not been able to distract it from its initial goal. The immediate objective of a movement has to be tangible, clear, and attainable. The initial goal of the Green Movement, from the start, was to change the government and the head of the government; a simple and concrete proposal that can easily be understood by any layperson. Complex goals will prevent public understanding and create divisions in methods.
Opposition groups who propose out-of-reach goals like “changing the leadership of the regime”, or “change of the political structure”, or “establishment of a secular state and omitting the Islamic part”, or “getting rid of supreme leadership”, or “change of the constitution” or a “referendum to call for a change of constitution” will ignite many differences among the Green supporters and will lead to demoralization among the people. One way to harm a popular movement is to infiltrate it and offer more radical slogans that will attract some groups and will confuse others. Such developments will cause divisions and can weaken the movement. The current slogans, although not as attractive as some more radical demands, have remained the same and it is summarized in the demand to change the government and the head of the government.
A unique movement
The three characteristics we discussed here have enabled the green movement to grow and persist in Iran. The fancy western technology at the service of the government in Iran is not enough to stop the Green Movement and the use of such technologies in the end had harmed the government and not the people. It may be that the western countries sell these technologies to Iran because they know it is futile in suppressing the people.
Translator’s comment:
It is with my most sincere wishes for the success of the green movement in Iran that I write this short comment.
The current amorphous character of the green movement may have saved it from total annihilation by the ruling clergy, but it has done little in terms of focusing political and social demands in Iran.
The great strength of this movement is its five solid months of mass street demonstrations for human rights, by a population which is overwhelmingly free, not jailed, intellectually strong, and physically unharmed. The percentage of those killed, jailed, and physically injured is very small, and thus the movement is intact and self-confident. The so-called Green Movement is increasingly seen as the legitimate voice of the nation, by itself and by the world.
As is acknowledged by the above article (in the section about the objective and a tangible goal) many ideas are developing within the green movement in Iran. Ideas such as the need for a referendum, or for a change of the constitution, or for the establishment of a secular state, are being thrown around publicly and examined by the people. These are all healthy and important discussions. Paying attention to these discussions and helping them develop into real public demands are necessary and healthy if any real change is to come.
The duck and cover strategy (and by that I mean to be afraid of divisions, admiring the large amorphous character of the movement etc,) will also prove to be an obstacle in the way of the movement’s growth into a movement for real social and political change. If we Iranians are sick and tired of the way things are in our country, we must be ready to face many obstacles including having to discuss controversial ideas and methods for reaching a means by which to change our political and social system; a system that amasses huge fortunes for a few while leaving the majority of the population in need of their daily bread.
Let us not be afraid of “divisions” and “differing methods” in our quest for a democratic and just Iran.
PRINT THIS PAGE 
BACK TO LAST PAGE