The downside of trust

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?

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.

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.

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?

The Ayatollah's betrayal

Social media is the devil isn't it? A way to express ideas, share opinions and publish photographs. Yes, social media is the ultimate enemy if you are trying to keep your citizens in a closed regime cut off from the rest of society, if your nation goes by the name of China, North Korea or Iran.

Today the ordinary citizen can reach out to tens of thousands of people instantly, an ability that used to be reserved solely for public figures and journalists. Today everyone is a reporter,either reporting on their own lives, or public events. Yet, those that are most fearful of the power of social media are themselves scared not to partake; case in point, Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khameini.

Ironically, the leader who denies his citizens access to most of what the internet has to offer is himself active on Facebook, Twitter and even Instagram. I wonder if he considered that in theory none of his population would be able to 'like' his statuses - or perhaps he just figured that none of the hate speech he spews on Facebook would be 'likeable' anyway.

Now United Against Nuclear Iran has written an open letter to the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerburg, calling for the shutdown of the Ayatollah's page, claiming it goes against their terms of agreement for inseminating hate speech. The letter states that shutting down the Facebook page will send "a powerful message to the Iranian regime that it does not tolerate the regime's denial of digital freedom for the Iranian people". While I agree full heartedly with this message, I also worry that shutting down the Ayatollah's Facebook page will have the negative consequences of even tighter filtering of the internet. As long as the Ayatollah has a Facebook page and people that read his tweets and status updates, there is the tiny hope that he might at some point allow this freedom to the Iranian people - if for nothing else but his own propaganda benefits. However if he no longer has a page then there is no hope that such a freedom will be brought to his people.

The Ayatollah's Facebook page is an utter betrayal of his people. HE allows something for himself, which he blatantly denies to others. Even more so his favoured candidate in the upcoming election is also using the internet to his advantage with a Twitter account, and now he is the first to accept online donations. Will the Ayatollah also demand filtering for Jalili? They call it evil and dangerous, yet they frolic in all it has to offer. The question is - is shutting it down really the solution?

Cheap Humanity

How cheap human life must be in Iran that ten people could be hanged in one day on May 15th. Next to China, Iran has the highest rate of death sentences in the world with 580 people being put to death in 2012. Furthermore International Human Rights Law mandates that capital punishment may only be given to crimes that are "intentional crimes with lethal and extremely grave consequences". Yet in Iran it is given for blasphemy, adultery, "acts incompatible with chastity" and recently even theft. I fail to see the lethal consequences in these crimes.

The legal system does not favour the defendant and often they are not given adequate legal representation or appeal., with lawyers that are merely actors in the theatre they call trials. Not only is Iran handing out the death penalty at a rapid rate but it does not even give its citizens enough respect to effectively defend themselves in court. Horrifyingly Iran has also on several occasions sentenced children (under the age of 18) to death, despite being a signatory on the International Conventions on Human Rights and The Convention of the Rights of the Child both of which forbid the execution of minors.

Public executions are also common practice in Iran, another element of the "show", often staged in large football stadiums or public squares. Perhaps most frightful is that the regime has moved past using the death penalty as a deterrent for crime, and uses it as a deterrent for dissonance, effectively turning punishment for "lethal crimes" into a political tool. This is evident by the increasingly common public executions which according which according to a report by Iran Human Rights are being used as a weapon to instill fear in the run-up to the elections.

Ironically, Iranians have become so used to their fate that jail is no longer seen as something to be ashamed of; in fact for many pro opposition, jail time is seen as something to be respected. Perhaps the real question is, how many more can we expect to be jailed and hanged in the run-up to the election? Will the public react with shock, or just take it as expected?

Action through inaction?

It is almost impressive how the Iranian government always finds a way to poison that which should be good. The struggle for the vote has been central to almost all revolutionary movements, from the Suffragettes that brought a voice to women, to the Apartheid struggle that ended 19 years ago. Now Iran has managed, quite remarkably, to turn its own population against voting in the upcoming elections as a way of protesting the regime.

It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could be motivated not to go out and vote, but the opposition movement in Iran has decided that this is the necessary move. The regime needs a higher voter turnout in order for the elections to seem legitimate, it is therefore understandable that the opposition prefers to stay away. However voting carries heavy weight within Iran. while the vote may remain anonymous (at least we are lead to believe), whether one voted is certainly not, those who vote get a stamp in their passport which often proves to be crucial in trying to find work, something which is hard come by these days in Iran as a result of the sanctions. So on the one hand not voting is not legitimising the elections, but on the other hand not voting is not having your voice heard. It's six of the one and half a dozen of the other and it doesn't matter how you count them, all the eggs are rotten.

Take the university exams as an example. They were initially scheduled to coincide with the elections. One would think this is an almost genius idea one the part of the incumbent government as students would be far too preoccupied with studying and sitting their exams to go out and vote. Students are traditionally exceptionally politically active and in Iran (for the most part) they are pro the opposition. However the government moved exams a month earlier so that the population of students would indeed be able to make it to the polls. Initially this was puzzling. Why would the government encourage an entire group of voters that are going to vote against the regime to vote at all? It serves as proof that the regime is desperately seeking legitimisation through these elections

The legitimacy however appears to be only for their outside appearance. As much as Iran claims to be running a free democratic election, why then do candidates still need the approval of the Ayatollah to run?On that line, does the president really ever get a say or will he always just be a puppet of the Supreme Leader? If this is the case is it even worth electing a reformist leader- because the supreme leader will then receive legitimacy for the entire process while still pulling the strings behind the scenes.

In a place that so desperately needs a government that will bring reform and grant the human rights and respect that are missing one would hope for action through election. Yet such action could only be achieved through free and fair elections, which will not be the case in Iran in June. Could the election stay-away thus be seen as the right move? Or should the pro opposition still go out and attempt to have their voices heard?