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?

Revolution by typewriter?

It is enough to be noted as problematic and then visit the wrong political site to be hanged in Iran. Freedom of press and speech is far more than we can expect from the regime, but it goes even further by making speaking out a crime punishable by death, with four netizens given the death penalty for the first time in 2012.

We all know how important the internet was in galvanizing the revolutionaries during the Arab Spring. Even within Iran in the 2009 election, the internet and Yahoo, in particular was vital in the organization of protests and demonstrations. With the election once again just around the corner, the internet could play a very significant role. However could is the operative word. The internet has the undoubted ability to influence the forty-five million (approx 60%) Iranian citizens online, however the government is systematically cracking down on the World Wide Web and all the freedom it has come to represent.

The regime itself is well aware of the power of the internet; the Ayatollah has his own website, twitter and perhaps most surprisingly instagram account. Moreover regime members are rumoured to dabble in the odd porn site, a crime in Iran.

However, that which it does not deny itself, it is most certainly attempting to deny its population. The Iranian government is doing all it can to influence its citizens to surf only on Iranian websites. It filters and significantly slows down access to external sites, such as Google and Yahoo, with the aim of causing Iranians to start using domestic sites simply out of frustration. In March of this year crackdowns began on using VPNs and Tor with only registered VPNs being able to be used. The government generously offers to sell VPNs however they then can of course monitor one's online activity. Now the regime is moving one step further with plans to implement an internal Iranian internet, much like an intranet. A system such as this already exists in North Korea, which itself is not exactly the most shining example for human rights. This move has been in the works for a while, although it is highly concerning that it might go into effect so close to the election.

In keeping with the theme we have become so used to seeing in Iran, the regime chooses rather to veil its citizens of all opportunity. Internally millions are being cut off to vital information before the elections, while externally it still maintains its charade of democracy. Will Iranian citizens be able to overcome the internet 'roadblocks' to organize effective opposition? Can there be a revolution organized by a typewriter? Share your thoughts below...