Raising the issue in the form of a call to sign a petition, as a step toward deepening and broadening the idea of a referendum, began in Iran a few months ago. It had nothing to do with monarchy, nor with republicanism. It was the initiative of the country's young generation and the leaders of the student movement. Those involved also spoke, as far as they could reach, with many individuals and political groups in Iran, informed them of it and asked for their signatures. Some opposed it, and some, while agreeing, put off signing until later.
On the Referendum Call
The referendum movement in Iran, like many other democratic movements, has come under pressure from two parallel lines, on the left and on the right. Rather than parallel lines of left and right, it is better to say the more radical and the more cautious, so that, God forbid, no misunderstanding arises. In this piece I try to set out the questions and criticisms of these two parallel lines and to answer them as far as possible. But before that, one point must be made. The language used by these two parallel lines is sometimes very harsh and rude. Their tone is nervous and tense. Words such as mercenary, traitor, vomit, "Hakha antics" (a reference to Hakha, the satellite-TV figure who called for a sudden uprising), idiot, ignoramus and so on are common in both groups. At times even mockery of proper names can be seen in the statements of both. Drawing a caricature instead of the real picture and then attacking that caricature at length is also seen in both groups. Obviously, the author of these lines will not engage in such things. I will try to extract, as far as possible, their real arguments from the enormous volume of material, and with the help of God the Bountiful address them with the utmost courtesy.
Let us ask God for the grace of courtesy; the discourteous are deprived of the Lord's grace.
"Questions Raised by the More Radical Faction"
Question One – This referendum is supposed to be held while the Islamic Republic is still alive. Yet first this regime must be overthrown, and only then can a referendum be held to determine the type of government, for example with the question of republic, monarchy or Islamic Republic. Will a referendum held by this regime not entail government control and the possibility of fraud and manipulation?
Answer – A system of government is nothing but a constitution and the institutions arising from it. The constitution defines these institutions and sets out the relations among them. Individuals then occupy the posts defined in that constitution. When a new constitution is drafted on the basis of democracy and human rights, naturally new offices are defined which, in a democratic process, will certainly be filled by qualified people on the basis of free elections. The counter-question to those who want to overthrow the regime is: by what method do they intend to overthrow a government? It seems that, above all, the model of the Islamic Revolution itself is in mind, whereas out of a revolutionary process the chances of authoritarianism emerging are greater than those of democracy. Moreover, if a regime is overthrown, it is not clear what purpose a referendum would serve. Drafting the constitution falls within the competence of an assembly of experts elected by the nation, and after its approval it is put to a popular vote. Thus the type of government also emerges from the drafting of the constitution. If the government is forced by popular pressure to hold a referendum under the supervision of international bodies, one can be confident that by forming people's committees the ballot boxes can be protected, and at the counting centers the supervision of several thousand international observers can be used. Thus the possibility of fraud is contained.
Question Two – This plan is another form of the reform movement, which deceitfully kept the people waiting for seven years. We must take a path in which there is no trace of the existing regime. Are the people willing to follow such a thing once again?
Answer – In the reform movement, the people specifically made four demands: democracy, human rights, civil society, and joining the global family. With their vote on 2 Khordad 1376 (23 May 1997), the people in effect told the Islamic Republic that it must reform itself in order to meet these demands. In several subsequent elections, too, the people insisted on these demands by voting or not voting. It became clear that the constitution and structure of the Islamic Republic fundamentally lack the capacity to meet these demands. It is therefore natural that the next step should be a demand to change this structure. The referendum is a non-violent and democratic path that can make the people's demand prevail. If the people vote yes in this referendum to free elections for a Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution, the existing institutions will become illegal, and naturally a provisional council will run the transitional period until the new constitution is drafted and the new institutions are formed. Given that the referendum is built on the people's demands and is the logical continuation of realizing them, a welcoming response from the people is likely.
Question Three – The eight signatories of this call are not suitable people. Why were others not consulted on this matter?
Answer – The personal suitability or unsuitability of the initial signatories is not a matter I can answer, as one of the members of that group. It is for others to judge. But two points must be made. First, these eight people explicitly stressed in a subsequent statement that they regard themselves as being like everyone else and claim no special right for themselves. Their intention was only to put forward the discourse of a referendum, and that merely as an initial framework for Iranian society's democratic transition from its present situation; they did not intend to go into details. Second, in principle, when dealing with an issue, a theory or an idea, it is the content that matters. What is said matters, not who said it. In the words of Amir al-Mu'minin [Imam Ali] (peace be upon him): do you measure the truth by men, or men by the truth? In my view, focusing on individuals instead of ideas is a deviation from the main issue. As for consultation, the signatories consulted as far as they could. Obviously, they did not have the means to consult everyone.
Question Four – A Marxist group has argued that the only path to liberation is the formation of workers' councils and a revolution of the peoples. Will this referendum not delay the revolution of the peoples?
Answer – If someone, on the threshold of the year 2005, in the age of globalization, after the collapse of the communist camp, and especially after the Iranian nation has moved beyond revolutionary discourse and entered a period of liberal and democratic discourse, still seeks to bring about a communist revolution, there is, as a rule, nothing to say to him. Besides, such revolutionaries certainly cannot, and should not, agree with a democratic approach such as a referendum.
Question Five – Will this referendum call not become a bargaining chip in negotiations with the current regime?
Answer – When the goal is the drafting of a new constitution based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its supplementary covenants, at the heart of which lies freedom of conscience and religion, it is obvious that this path cannot have any alignment with a government centered on velayat-e faqih (the guardianship of the Islamic jurist) and founded on the rule of religious despotism.
Questions Raised by the More Cautious Faction
Question Six – There is no way the government will submit to a referendum on the constitution. Is raising such an issue not an unattainable goal which, because it will not happen, will dishearten the people?
Governments far more cohesive and more oppressive than the current government of Iran have ultimately surrendered to the will of the people. Democratic movements in every country in the world started by raising simple demands and then became widespread. The referendum movement in Iran, like many similar movements, passes through five steps. The first step is raising the issue, which has been done in various ways over the past few years and has attracted the attention of thoughtful minds. The second step is deepening and broadening. Deepening means that this idea (that is, the referendum) must be able to defend itself against rival theories; various questions must be raised against it from various angles and answered. Broadening means that it should reach the ears of the people as much as possible and be discussed among different strata of society. Using the mechanism of collecting signatures to put forward the demand for a referendum has been a suitable means, and up to this point it has already brought considerable depth and breadth to the referendum proposal. The third step is the step of organization; that is, supporters of this idea among the people and the elite must create a suitable organization to advance the movement. After this stage, the fourth step, namely civil resistance, can be realized. Civil resistance is a spectrum of activities ranging from the simplest actions, such as passive resistance, up to strikes, which are the ceiling of such activities. If this step is taken correctly, the fifth step, namely holding the referendum, becomes possible. Therefore, the argument about disheartening the people is baseless. If any of these stages is not achieved, the next step will naturally not take place. With the help of God the Bountiful, in other writings I will address other aspects of these five steps, especially organization and methods of civil resistance, drawing on the experiences of other countries. Let me also repeat, at the end of my answer to this question, that the eight signatories of the call defined their task at this stage as putting forward the discourse, and they accomplished it. The subsequent steps and stages naturally require the participation of others and a larger group.
Question Seven – The United Nations will not intervene in this matter. So is not the mention of its supervision a result of the authors' ignorance of international affairs?
Answer – The text of the call uses the term "international bodies." The signatories of the statement are also aware of the United Nations Charter. Moreover, a commission at the United Nations is drafting a proposal to amend the Charter, which probably also provides for UN involvement in matters relating to democracy.
Question Eight – Is the student movement qualified to raise a political and national issue such as a referendum?
Answer – First, the signatories of the statement consist of four leaders of the student movement and four political, social and human rights activists. Second, the student movement in Iran has always been one of the most important pillars of the country's political developments. From this very reform movement back to the Islamic Revolution, the armed movement and the events of 15 Khordad [June 1963], all the way to the movement to nationalize oil, the university has always been one of the most active and pioneering currents in the country. And in fact it is one of the country's most important reference groups.
Third, in other parts of the world too, students have always been a driving force in the political arena. From Ukraine to Georgia; from the fall of Milošević in Serbia, which was essentially achieved with students at its core, to Western Europe; from the fall of General de Gaulle in 1968 to the Vietnam War and the upheavals in America; from Japan to South Korea, student movements have played a role as the backbone of the most important political events. Questioning this national legitimacy, as raised by my dear friend Mr. Alireza Rajaei, greatly surprised me and his other friends, especially since his own education is in political science. And worse still was his remark, which he attributed to Huntington, about the strategy of suppressing students. I hope to God that Alireza did not say this, or at least meant something other than what everyone understood from the published report.
Question Nine – Does raising a radical issue such as a constitutional referendum not give the authoritarians a pretext for repression, thereby also blocking the path of the reformists?
No. Because if the referendum movement can properly go through its five-step path, it may itself face repression at the third step, namely the organizational stage, and afterwards. Moreover, if it has taken the second step, namely deepening and broadening, correctly, such repression will certainly benefit the referendum movement, since it accelerates the process of forming civil resistance. Therefore, there is no danger to the 2nd of Khordad reformists or to the supporters of free presidential elections with the Guardian Council and its approbatory supervision in place. On the contrary, I think the strength of the referendum movement will make the authoritarians closer to and kinder toward the 2nd of Khordad reformists. Up to this point, this has already happened to some small extent.
Question Ten – Why is this call silent on the rights of ethnic groups and women, economic issues, liberal-democratic tendencies, and indeed the alternative constitution?
Answer – A call to sign a petition for a referendum is not supposed to answer all the world's questions. Besides, the explicit reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights encompasses many of these issues. My recommendation is to read the thirty articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights carefully once. Drafting a new constitution, moreover, is within the competence of a Constituent Assembly in which the people's elected representatives will debate and exchange views.
Question Eleven – Will this referendum under the supervision of international bodies not become a vehicle for foreign interference? In effect, will the Afghanistan and Iraq model not be repeated?
Answer – The whole point is that, with the referendum proposal and the support of various political tendencies and groups for it, a unity has formed that has surprised international circles as well. Iranians have shown that at this stage they are capable of setting aside even major differences such as monarchy versus republic, uniting around a clear and specific goal such as a referendum, leaving the resolution of these differences to a Constituent Assembly elected by the people, and allowing a democratic mechanism to govern the advancement of their political struggle. Rest assured that repeating the Afghanistan and Iraq model on this path is meaningless. The world understands this too, and has taken its hat off in respect to Iran's democratic and intelligent opposition. At the same time, we must know that we do not act in a vacuum, and naturally the various world powers will also define their relationship to the referendum movement. We can establish relations with all the democratic nations, organizations and governments of the world. But let us remember that, as the late Dr. Mossadegh said, all the powers of the world can be dealt with, but none can be relied upon. Our red line must be the matter of money with respect to the world's governments.
Question Twelve – The real basis of power lies in social equations. The constitution is merely a text, the legal form of power. Is the real balance of forces such that it can change the constitution?
Answer – Because of serious changes within Iranian society, such as the growth of urbanization, the spread of literacy, the growth of women's participation in the economy and society, the growth of industry and of global communications, and dozens of other factors on the one hand, and the crisis of the Islamic Republic's ineffectiveness on the other, a rift has opened between the nation and the government that renders the existing equilibrium completely unstable. In other words, the government, with its foundational theories and current structure, is not capable of meeting the people's demands. So it is true that the current power structure, having no rival, dominates the field for now, but the real and essential change has taken place within Iranian society. The real shift of power has occurred within Iranian society. Sooner or later these changes will transform a government that no longer relies even on the clerical establishment and relies only on the armed forces and the intelligence organs. The concern of responsible forces in the present circumstances is how this change can happen with minimum damage and maximum democratic gain. The referendum is a democratic path along which, as a first step, one can set about a new constitution, and then, by removing the obstacle of the current power structure in Iran, pave the way for appropriate political development commensurate with the changes within Iranian society.
13 – It is said that supporters of the monarchy, or Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, are behind this call and that ultimately it will benefit them?
Answer – First: As has been said, the referendum discussion has been raised for a long time, both inside and outside the country. I myself raised it two years ago in the article "The Last Word, the First Step," and, of course, because of that writing I ended up in prison twice. But raising the issue in the form of a call to sign a petition, as a step toward deepening and broadening the idea of a referendum, began in Iran a few months ago. It had nothing to do with monarchy, nor with republicanism. It was the initiative of the country's young generation and the leaders of the student movement. Those involved also spoke, as far as they could reach, with many individuals and political groups in Iran, informed them of it and asked for their signatures. Some opposed it, and some, while agreeing, put off signing until later.
Second: No monarchist group designed or organized this call. The records of its initial signatories do not indicate any such thing either. For my part, I have repeatedly stated that, because of Iranian society's propensity to reproduce despotism, I consider any kind of unelected institution, whether monarchy or velayat [clerical guardianship] or the like, to be unhealthy and potentially dangerous for Iranian society, even if we make it entirely non-accountable [i.e. purely ceremonial]. It is more logical and healthier for the symbol of the country to be elected in some form. But this does not mean that we should deprive others of the right to elect or be elected because of their beliefs. Suppose there were only one supporter of the monarchy, and that person were Reza Pahlavi himself (which in practice is not the case); even then, as an Iranian citizen, this one person has the right to sign or support the national call for a referendum and, should the current constitution be abolished, to ask for a debate or a question on the monarchy when a new constitution is being drafted. In a democracy, a minority, however small, must have the right to speak; besides, we cannot decide on behalf of the Iranian nation from now. The argument that because the Iranian nation once voted against the monarchy it should never be asked again is also wrong. By the same reasoning with which we say the new generation has the right to put the current constitution to a referendum, it has the right to put the other decisions of the previous generation to a vote again. As for Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, I have not yet seen him defend the drafting of a new constitution anywhere. I do not think he will take such a step either, because if a new constitution based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were drafted, he would have no chance of gaining power. Moreover, the Iranian nation has many serious questions that Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani must answer. Akbar Ganji's continued imprisonment, the involvement of his family and relatives in the country's economic affairs, and the issue of domestic and foreign assassinations are only some of these questions.
Mohammad Mohsen Sazegara
16 December 2004
26 Azar 1383