Iran: The Green Revolution

This being the 20th year since the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is an opportune time to reflect on what brought about the demise of that wall and the regime which had built it. Glancing at the protests which have been taking place throughout the last week in Tehran and other large cities in Iran, one can sense that perhaps again totalitarianism is doomed to failure.

Indeed, as history has proved, totalitarianism is always doomed to failure. The reason being that government was never meant to control the day-to-day actions of peoples' lives. As Thomas Hobbes pointed out in The Leviathan, the government of man was created in order to protect man from all others, to secure man in life and property, to protect his inalienable rights. Man, the creator of the social contract, has been provided with these inalienable rights from the beginning of time and thus cannot give said rights away. Though they may be taken away from time to time, such theft often causes friction between man and the sovereign (government) which he created with the social contract. The sovereign, while not beholden to the people, is beholden to the Law of Nature which, as Hobbes described, dictates that an object without support cannot stand, and thus, once the sovereign treats his people so cruelly as to wither their support for him, the people have the right to overthrow him.

However, it must be remembered that revolution is not so simple, as the sovereign has ways to retain power: 1) Having historical or ideological ties with the population, 2) Having charisma and 3) Controlling the security forces.Many leaders have come to power and maintained their rule due to their historical significance which created an almost cult-like following, George Washington for example, and Mao Tse-tung. These men were not altogether charismatic, but they held historical or ideological meaning respectively to their followers. Charisma has aided many leaders, especially Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro. Fortunately, both sentimentality and charisma both wear off once the brutality of totalitarianism is made obvious. This is why all totalitarian leaders must eventually resort to using force of arms to control the population.

The use of such force is interesting because it plays on human nature. According to Hobbes, man is driven by passions, chief among them the fear of violent death. This fear is what pushed man to create the social contract in the first place. Once the leader begins using force, he reneges on the rules of the contract and replaces mans' fear of man with mans' fear of the regime. Machiavelli admitted that fear was a useful tool of any great leader, but he understood that fear was meant to be used in order to keep the peace, not to repress people completely, for once the leader loses the sentiment of the people, he has backed himself into a corner, destined to use force or risk losing power. The repeated use of such force during the beginning of the leader's reign and the fear which it creates, pressures the totalitarian regime to rely on force and coercion instead of consent, thus alienating the population. This process may take anywhere from a few days to a number of decades, but once the process has completely stripped the people of their rights and freedoms, the regime has no choice but crush every semblance of rebellion immediately, since reform is out of the question.

Hobbes wrote that the sovereign can only rule by consent of the people; in essence, the people hold the right to depose their sovereign if he is not fit for duty. This universal right of man is what eventually destroys totalitarian regimes. It is not outside influences, such as economic sanctions, that destroy totalitarianism, it is internal influences, such as the weakness of the regime and the will of the people. Eventually, once the people have been completely marginalized by the regime, and once an opportunity for rebellion shows itself, the people will rise up against the regime, ready to reorganize the social contract. At that point the regime has to make a decision: 1) reform by giving in to a few of the people's demands and die a slow death, 2) give in completely and lose their power or 3) use force to suppress revolt and remain in power.More often than not the regime chooses the latter. Such force was used in the Prague Spring of 1968, Tiananmen Square of 1989 and in many other places.

However, the use of such force relies on the loyalty of the security forces. In East Berlin, the government relied on the border guards to protect the wall which had divided the city for decades. The guards had direct orders to shoot to kill any person who crossed the border into West Berlin illegally. In similar fashion they successfully crushed a number of labor strikes and other protests. The change came in November of 1989 when for whatever reason, be it confusion or a sudden strike of humanity, the East German border guards refused to use force to stop the flow of people from East and West Berlin streaming through the wall. This refusal to use force motivated the people.Emboldened by Gunter Schabowski's gaffe which basically gave East Berliners the ability to legally cross the border, thousands of people stormed the wall and were allowed through. While the wall did not officially fall until the following year, the permissiveness of the guards effectively exhibited the weakness of the East German regime. Once that weakness was made public and the people realized they were no longer in danger from the security force, it was only months until the wall fell completely and West and East Germany were made one.

The totalitarian regime of the Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran is an abomination to all mankind. It stands for religious intolerance, repression of women, the destruction of free speech and the right to due process among many other rights. Thus, it is destined to fail. This Ayatollah does not have the historical and ideological aura which the late Supreme Leader held. Also, he has no overpowering charm or charisma with which he can woo the population. He has taken away many of the rights which Iranians would like to enjoy and he has been particularly cruel to the habits of young Iranians who wish to adopt Western ideals, clothes, music, literature, etc. The only thing which the Ayatollah does have is control of the armed forces: the Artesh (regular army) and the Revolutionary Guard (Qud's Force, specials and Basij militia). This gives the Ayatollah the power to use force to quell the dissent which is currently spreading throughout Iran.

By examining this event and comparing it to history, one notices that, unlike many totalitarian powers, the Ayatollah has been slow to unleash the power of his army. This may be for one or another reason, but it raises the question: if unleashed, would the Iranian Army kill its own?The army is completely under the direction of the Ayatollah, however it is not necessarily loyal to him as much of the army acts independently under the authority of numerous commanders. What’s more, frequent unconfirmed reports have been coming from Iran hinting that the army is not ready to attack fellow Iranians. While the police seem to be quite active in countering the protesters, they have not been as cruel as expected and have (according to current reports) killed less that a couple dozen people. True, they have resorted to using tear gas, water cannons, batons and media restriction, but they are definitely not rolling Iranians over with tanks. The real threat to the protesters has come from the Basij militia, a group of plain-clothes trained thugs used by the Ayatollah to infiltrate and destabilize protests. While this group is extremely violent, its tactics have killed relatively few and only help to fuel the fire. This is hardly overwhelming force.

The picture that this illustrates is one of a nation with a large youth (and that is to say politically active) population which has been repressed throughout much of its existence. Dissent has been bubbling up as students have asked for more and more rights within their nation. In 2003, Iranian students led a protest for government reform and were severely subdued by the regime. Then, the 2009 presidential elections offered Iranians a chance to voice their opinions in the form of votes. The election was rigged. The Supreme Leader placed the last straw on the camel's back, he created an event which took the last freedom, the right to vote, away from the Iranian people. The candidate which they voted for, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, was tallied at a loss to the irrational and possibly insane Muhammad Ahmadinejad, the lit fuse who repeatedly denies the Holocaust and hopes for the destruction of Israel. While the protests of this last week originally only asked for a recount of the votes, they now seem to be asking for much more and may soon foment into a mass protest for the end of the totalitarian Iranian regime.

For now it is unclear what will happen, however, if history is due to repeat itself, the Ayatollah will soon order the army to silence the protests, and if they refuse, which they may very well do, the Iranian regime has its days numbered. On the other hand, it is completely possible that the protests may wither as the days drag on; or perhaps the Ayatollah will give in (which will seal his fate); or the army just might decide to follow their orders which would certainly end in the deaths of hundreds.One thing is certain and that is that events have been set in motion, and thus the laws of physics state that they will remain in motion until some force stops them. A free and democratic Iran could possibly come into being within the next few months.

While it is true that freedom must come from inside the nation, it is also important for the protesters to realize the support of all democratic states, most prominently the US. Drawing from the media coverage of the Iranian protests, it is clear that the protesters are seeking US support; it is not a secret that a large portion of their picket signs are written in English. The US should certainly not intervene militarily, but its solidarity with the Iranian people must be made public, along with a strong condemnation of the totalitarian regime of the Ayatollah. Such solidarity was shown by Reagan in the 1987 'Berlin Wall Speech' and in his frequent condemnations of the USSR as an evil empire. The East Berliners knew they had the moral backing of the world and it is highly likely that international support helped bolster those Germans as they crossed the wall which had kept them from their family, friends and freedom for so long. If the world truly cares about a free Iran, which it should, it needs to make a firm stance against the Ayatollah and make it clear to the Iranians that the international community respects and supports their sovereignty and their cause. If ever there was a time to put the squeeze on the regime, it is now.

With November and the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall quickly approaching, such support and assistance would be an added boon to the thousands of courageous Iranians now fighting for their God-given rights.