 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 22 - 28 July 1999 Issue No. 439 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 22 - 28 July 1999 Issue No. 439
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Focus Interview Travel Living Sports Time Out Chronicles People Cartoons Letters Two Irans, two Khatamis
By Amir Taheri *The crisis unleashed by the student revolt in Tehran may well appear to have been brought under control by the authorities. But there is evidence that the deep popular discontent that triggered the revolt continues to simmer under the surface.
Many Iran-watchers in the West, and some Iranian liberals, believe that the best option is to mobilise support for President Mohamed Khatami who suddenly disappeared from public view as the ruling establishment deployed its shock-troopers to regain control of the streets. The Islamic Republic is facing its most serious challenge since its inception in 1979.
Expressing support for Khatami may look like the easy option. He is a properly elected leader and almost alone among the ruling mullahs in propagating a discourse of modernisation and reform.
The question, however, is: which Khatami should one support?
The events of the past few days have shown that there are, in fact, two Khatamis. The first Khatami referred to the students as "my dearest children" and promised to punish those responsible for "this tragedy."
The second Khatami appeared three days later when the student uprising began to spread to other sections of society. This Khatami spoke of "bandits" and "evil doers" and accused the protesters of being "agents of Zionism and America, the Great Satan." He promised to "nip this foreign conspiracy in the bud".
The first Khatami spoke in Gorbachovian tones. The second one borrowed his vocabulary from Deng Xiaoping. Khatami's ambivalent, not to say contradictory, attitude towards the democracy movement has led to calls for his resignation.
"Khatami, Khatami. Either do something or go," was one of the slogans chanted on Iranian campuses this week. The showdown in Tehran revealed two Irans: One consisted of clean-shaven students wearing T-shirts and jeans and giving the "V" sign. They are distinctly middle class and, even in their public gatherings, play pop music cassettes. The women of this Iran make sure that the enforced hijab does not cover all of their groomed hair. Their war cry was: "Democracy Now."
Facing that camp in Tehran this week was the camp of the Hizbullah: bushy-bearded grim-looking men dressed in black and armed with batons and knives. The women of this camp were wearing the thickest of veils and ululated their dark rage against the demonstrators. The war cry of this camp was "Allahu Akbar" (God is great).
Khatami may be the only major Iranian leader still capable of talking to both camps. He could play a crucial role by preventing a brutal suppression of the democracy movement which could provoke an even more violent popular backlash.
The student democracy movement and the counter-attack organised by the establishment may have little impact on the balance of power within the broader Iranian society. But they have already changed the balance of power inside the ruling establishment. Khatami has lost a part of his popular support and, instead, has gained additional powers within the system. What he does with his newly won power is of vital importance. He could listen to his predecessor Hashemi Rafsanjani who wants political reform postponed and economic reform accelerated. In other words, Khatami could adopt the Chinese model of an authoritarian state with a capitalist economic system.
He could, on the other hand, listen to some of his own closest aides such as Ayatollah Abdallah Nuri, the liberal who was forced out of office as interior minister. Nuri told students in Tehran this week that there could be no economic development without democracy. "Freedom precedes economic development. Without democracy we shall always remain poor," he said.
If Khatami listens to people like Rafsanjani he may well save the regime in the short run, but could condemn Iran to years of violence and chaos.
If, on the other hand, he listens to people like Nuri, he could use the democracy movement as a springboard for genuine reform of the system. He could start by dissolving the present Islamic Majlis (parliament) which was formed on the basis of rigged elections and is dominated by hard-line Khomeinists. Elections are due in February 2000. An early election could allow the Iranians to choose between the two camps whose duel has turned the streets of Tehran into a battlefield during the past two weeks.
The major powers should not back an Iranian version of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Only a genuinely democratic Iran could become a reliable partner and friend for the Western industrial democracies.
The revolution that ended the Shah's regime 20 years ago started with a similar student protest that was also quashed by the intervention of thugs hired by the regime. But the crisis triggered at the time continued for a year until the Shah had to leave the country.
History, of course, does not repeat itself in exactly the same manner. But there is no doubt that the present Iranian system has been de-stabilised.
* The writer is a London-based Iranian expert on Middle East affairs.
