While flicking through my Sunday papers (and by flicking naturally I mean clicking), I came across an interesting article about the wave of protest we have seen since the start of the Arab Spring in 2010. Among the very many reasons they cite for the new rise in protest, one is about the correlation between trust for a states institution and the likelihood that the nation will take to the streets in action.
The article cites the Edelman Global Trust Barometer as the current reason for the protests in Brazil, because ironically, currently in Brazil, youth unemployment is low and living standards have been significantly raised, but the trust in the government institutions is very low.
When applied to Iran this theory could provide interesting insight to the fate of the new Iranian government. What has been noticeably obvious is the lack of protest following the elections despite the fact that until now (granted only a week has passed) no major action has taken place aside from some heavy rhetoric. This is in direct contrast to 2009 - meaning that the people must have trusted in the system and the so called fairness of said elections (I say so called because at the end of the day the candidates were still handpicked by the Ayatollah). More interesting perhaps is to what extent the openness of the internet affected this rise in trust, perhaps the next research for Edelman Global Trust Barometer.
Concerning in all of this is that if protest is a matter of trust in a system, and this government is trusted what will this mean for the overall human rights of the Iranian citizen? The nuclear program and harsh religious boundaries are controlled by the Ayatollah and not the president, which means that I am not hopeful that there will be any major changes soon. Additionally as long as the sanctions are still in place the dire humanitarian situation will only continue in its downward spiral. So will trust in the new government mean an end to action and protest? Or can we hope that other factors of protest will outweigh the trust and bring people to the streets to ensure that their rights are guaranteed?
Tuesday 25 June 2013
Sunday 16 June 2013
Having his cake and eating it!
The Ayatollah Khameini's twitter is flooded with #appreciation. His appreciation for the people who came out to support the election. Claiming that "the true winner of the #election is the great nation of #Iran that with the help of God was able to exhibit their heart full of hope&faith/#appreciation", but I think it was he who was the true winner.
The election left us all in a little bit of shock - the Internet ran smoothly and the "people" were victorious (although being so called democratic elections, it should really be that they won, and this shouldn't be such a surprise). Additionally the most 'liberal' candidate won, by an enormous margin 50.7% of the votes. And in all of this, it is the Ayatollah that is appreciative.
From early on we knew that a large voter turnout was necessary in order for the elections to seem legitimate, as choosing not to vote could be considered a form of passive protest.Yet come election day, the people went to the polls and elected someone who is not necessarily the Supreme Leader's first choice, or is he?
Before we get a little too excited about this outcome, lets consider a few things. Rowhani used to be directly answerable to the Ayatollah during his role as Secretary of the National Security Council, and is still one of a handful of candidate that were selected to run for president.
The real question is did Khameini play his people like a fiddle? Khameini is anything but naive. He also had the added benefit of having seen the Arab Spring all around him and the current situation in Syria to understand that the winds of reform are in the air. It was no secret that people were going to vote for a reformist leader - and anyone that was considered close to the Ayatollah at the time would not be considered a reformist. Throughout the election there were rumours in the media that Jalili was the Guardian Council's favoured contender, someone who rejected the softening of any approach. Khameini, arguably, did not come out at any point and confirm such rumours, but neither did he deny them. He just let the rumour mill turn. After the initial rejection of the favoured reformist, the people's choice would be the most opposed to the hard-line views of the Ayatollah (or who was rumoured to be his favoured contender - Jalili). So the nation got behind the one person that represented an ever so slight glimmer of hope - and the Ayatollah already knew full well he had a good working relationship with Rowhani. Did he intend for this happen the whole time? He put forward a candidate that spoke to the people and would bring them out to the polls which was so desperately needed in order for the elections to seem legitimate. He let the elections run smoothly and insured no barriers, thus avoiding the threat of any protest and at the end of the day, the president elect was still hand-picked by the Supreme Leader, but with the support of the people. Yes, it seems to me that Ayatollah Khameini had his cake and ate it and for that he sure is #appreciative.
The election left us all in a little bit of shock - the Internet ran smoothly and the "people" were victorious (although being so called democratic elections, it should really be that they won, and this shouldn't be such a surprise). Additionally the most 'liberal' candidate won, by an enormous margin 50.7% of the votes. And in all of this, it is the Ayatollah that is appreciative.
From early on we knew that a large voter turnout was necessary in order for the elections to seem legitimate, as choosing not to vote could be considered a form of passive protest.Yet come election day, the people went to the polls and elected someone who is not necessarily the Supreme Leader's first choice, or is he?
Before we get a little too excited about this outcome, lets consider a few things. Rowhani used to be directly answerable to the Ayatollah during his role as Secretary of the National Security Council, and is still one of a handful of candidate that were selected to run for president.
The real question is did Khameini play his people like a fiddle? Khameini is anything but naive. He also had the added benefit of having seen the Arab Spring all around him and the current situation in Syria to understand that the winds of reform are in the air. It was no secret that people were going to vote for a reformist leader - and anyone that was considered close to the Ayatollah at the time would not be considered a reformist. Throughout the election there were rumours in the media that Jalili was the Guardian Council's favoured contender, someone who rejected the softening of any approach. Khameini, arguably, did not come out at any point and confirm such rumours, but neither did he deny them. He just let the rumour mill turn. After the initial rejection of the favoured reformist, the people's choice would be the most opposed to the hard-line views of the Ayatollah (or who was rumoured to be his favoured contender - Jalili). So the nation got behind the one person that represented an ever so slight glimmer of hope - and the Ayatollah already knew full well he had a good working relationship with Rowhani. Did he intend for this happen the whole time? He put forward a candidate that spoke to the people and would bring them out to the polls which was so desperately needed in order for the elections to seem legitimate. He let the elections run smoothly and insured no barriers, thus avoiding the threat of any protest and at the end of the day, the president elect was still hand-picked by the Supreme Leader, but with the support of the people. Yes, it seems to me that Ayatollah Khameini had his cake and ate it and for that he sure is #appreciative.
Wednesday 12 June 2013
All Iran is a stage...and the presidential candidates merely puppets in it!
I wonder when the last time was, that Iran had a president that was actually the decision maker. A man whose power was actually power and not just a title attached to string with a puppet aster tweaking and pulling to his needs.
It is an interesting country, with all the riches and wealth beneath its soil, everyone has been fighting for control, except that those that are supposedly in control have no say.
I recently had an argument with a friend of mine, who was speaking of Aref's withdrawal from the presidential race with utter dismay. She claimed he was the hope, the one that would be most likely to bring reform. Caked in cynicism, i could not help but reply "aren't they really all just the same?" The truth, we all know far too well, is that whoever wins the election may have a little pull here and there, but the big decisions are up to the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khameini.
The very fact that he is referred to as the "Supreme Leader" alludes to the fact that his word is final, "supreme" if you will. Calling oneself "leader" has not had the best reputation in history, if il Duce or Fuhrer, ring any bells. All over the world people are rising up demanding democracy, and since we are already looking back on history, if we can learn anything from Gorbechov or De Klerk, it is that a system can be changed from the inside, if those with the power are willing to relinquish just a little for the sake of their nation. Khameini, however, does not seem to possess this quality, the disqualification of Masha'i and Rafsanjani along with the continued house arrest of Moussavi show that he is holding on to his authority with
both hands, tightly. So what difference does it really make that Aref withdrew?
At the end of the day until the Republic of Iran becomes a true democracy where the religion is not intertwined into every decision, Iran will remain a puppet theatre and the people just an audience to the Ayatollah's whims.
It is an interesting country, with all the riches and wealth beneath its soil, everyone has been fighting for control, except that those that are supposedly in control have no say.
I recently had an argument with a friend of mine, who was speaking of Aref's withdrawal from the presidential race with utter dismay. She claimed he was the hope, the one that would be most likely to bring reform. Caked in cynicism, i could not help but reply "aren't they really all just the same?" The truth, we all know far too well, is that whoever wins the election may have a little pull here and there, but the big decisions are up to the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khameini.The very fact that he is referred to as the "Supreme Leader" alludes to the fact that his word is final, "supreme" if you will. Calling oneself "leader" has not had the best reputation in history, if il Duce or Fuhrer, ring any bells. All over the world people are rising up demanding democracy, and since we are already looking back on history, if we can learn anything from Gorbechov or De Klerk, it is that a system can be changed from the inside, if those with the power are willing to relinquish just a little for the sake of their nation. Khameini, however, does not seem to possess this quality, the disqualification of Masha'i and Rafsanjani along with the continued house arrest of Moussavi show that he is holding on to his authority with
both hands, tightly. So what difference does it really make that Aref withdrew?
At the end of the day until the Republic of Iran becomes a true democracy where the religion is not intertwined into every decision, Iran will remain a puppet theatre and the people just an audience to the Ayatollah's whims.
Tuesday 4 June 2013
Let's Get Stoned
Iran has decided to maintain the sentence of "death by stoning" for adulterers.
Yes, in most religions adultery is considered one of the big no-nos but at the end of the day being unfaithful to ones spouse is a private matter, which in my opinion should be dealt with between the couple themselves. The greater public is not plagued by an adulterer.The argument could be made that being unfaithful can harm the society by creating a lack of trust and a suspicious population. However adultery exists in every society and it functions just fine without someone having to die by stones being thrown at his/her head. The people will be no less pure or spiritually connected for stoning adulterers.
Perhaps what worries me most about such a punishment is that spouses or lovers are prepared to report their adulterous partners, even when they are aware of the punishment that awaits them. I cannot imagine ever being at a level of such anger that I would wish someone dead by such brutality. I shudder at the thought of the amount of cruelty that must exist.
Human life is to be valued and honoured. We should treat everyone with respect, even criminals, if nothing more than to set an example as to how people should act. What kind of example is being set for Iranian civilians if the regime chooses to degrade ones life even further, even when facing death.? putting aside the exorbitant and excessive use of the death penalty for a moment (although this is no less an issue) stoning is a total and utter violation of human rights. Everyone, me, you Iranians and non Iranians alike need to speak up against this heinous act! What kind of example are we setting if we sit silently and let this happen?
Yes, in most religions adultery is considered one of the big no-nos but at the end of the day being unfaithful to ones spouse is a private matter, which in my opinion should be dealt with between the couple themselves. The greater public is not plagued by an adulterer.The argument could be made that being unfaithful can harm the society by creating a lack of trust and a suspicious population. However adultery exists in every society and it functions just fine without someone having to die by stones being thrown at his/her head. The people will be no less pure or spiritually connected for stoning adulterers.
Perhaps what worries me most about such a punishment is that spouses or lovers are prepared to report their adulterous partners, even when they are aware of the punishment that awaits them. I cannot imagine ever being at a level of such anger that I would wish someone dead by such brutality. I shudder at the thought of the amount of cruelty that must exist.
Human life is to be valued and honoured. We should treat everyone with respect, even criminals, if nothing more than to set an example as to how people should act. What kind of example is being set for Iranian civilians if the regime chooses to degrade ones life even further, even when facing death.? putting aside the exorbitant and excessive use of the death penalty for a moment (although this is no less an issue) stoning is a total and utter violation of human rights. Everyone, me, you Iranians and non Iranians alike need to speak up against this heinous act! What kind of example are we setting if we sit silently and let this happen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)