The government of “National Unity” and its promises / Majid Shia Ali
Today, a government has come to power in Iran that considers its slogan to be national unity; a slogan that more than two decades ago, the movement for freedom – as part of the opposition to the government inside Iran – demanded through its statements and has been brought up again in political discussions in our country since then. For example, the head of the reformist government, after the conclusion of the JCPOA, called for national reconciliation, which provoked a reaction from the leader of the Islamic Republic regime. But what is the intention of these diverse actors behind this unified slogan and is it possible to achieve it? One way to answer this question is to analyze the behavior of political actors based on their efforts to maintain the authoritarian system or transition to democracy.
One of the questions that political researchers have been trying to answer in the past half century is how democratization occurs in countries. Among different theories, some focus on the role of actors in the transition to democracy; in what conditions a country can achieve democracy and what stages it goes through in this process. In the 1980s, “Philip Schmitter” and “Guillermo O’Donnell” first attempted to answer this question by examining the performance of political players in their four-volume book “Transition from Authoritarian Rule”. In the 1990s, “Samuel Huntington” continued their work with his famous book “The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century”.
These theories were based on the two fundamental axes of democracy.
First, they believed that democratization without a phase of political liberation is not possible. Their idea of liberation was that the authoritarian regime, for whatever reason, decides to open up the political space and recognizes citizens’ rights to some extent. This level of freedom should be such that it is considered a visible deviation from the previous path. According to O’Donnell and Schmitter, political liberation leads to conditions that they call “the resurrection of civil society.” In this resurrection, civil and political actors gradually come to believe that the country’s political space has changed and over time, parties, trade unions, people’s organizations, and other non-governmental organizations expand and strengthen, and the media find a new life by crossing red lines. It is during this period that opponents of non-democratic rule, who have lost their ability to organize and have a political presence under the pressure of military and security apparatuses, rebuild themselves. This creates the groundwork for a transition.
Second, the theorist of agreement is the focus. They see the different stages of transition to democracy as a result of various agreements both outside and within the government. Of course, their intention of agreement-making is not necessarily a formal, serious, and public agreement. This agreement can be informal, unspoken, and only implemented in practice. In the schematic path that is depicted, these agreements persuade different parts of the non-democratic government to accept democracy and force democracy advocates to compromise on their idealistic demands and accept political participation. In the initial stages, an agreement between different parts of the authoritarian government can provide an opportunity for political liberation, and ultimately, an agreement between the opponents of the government and the ruling power can achieve the transition to democracy.
The third axis, on which both theories agree, is the instability of the state of liberation. Schmitter and O’Donnell go to the example of the Roman sword of Damocles, in which a sword hangs above the head of the king and could fall at any moment, threatening his life. Although political liberation is implemented by a part of non-democratic government, conservatives could always push it back. This constant threat necessitates that political opponents, who have grown during the rise of civil society, come to an agreement with the government for a transition to democracy.
Huntington provides another example to illustrate this instability. He describes a despotic regime that has implemented political liberation, but sees it as a half-built house that will surely collapse if not completed. In this situation, it is impossible to remain stable and conditions will either move forward or backward. Although these ideas were true in the face of the threat of regression or the possibility of moving forward, Stephen Levitsky and Lucan Way have shown that liberated authoritarianism can remain stable for long periods of time and, in addition to the previous two paths of regression or progress, a third path of remaining stable in liberated conditions has been added to the conditions of a despotic regime that has experienced liberation.
The terrifying image of regression has been experienced by many nations in the past few decades. For example, in China after Mao, Zhao Ziyang became the General Secretary of the Communist Party in 1987 and under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, initiated the phase of political liberation. As a result, the political landscape of the country changed so much in two years that students were able to organize and engage in civil resistance in support of a liberal figure. After the suppression of students in Tiananmen Square in the spring of 1989, Zhao was also removed from office and his desired political reforms were reversed.
Our country has also experienced a similar experience. After the establishment of the reformist government, changes begin that can be considered as political liberation. However, after the experience of the student movement, political conservatives in Iran, like China, were able to gradually reverse all the achievements of political liberation from 1380 to 1388; as a result, the level of civil society today is much lower than before the reformist government, and widespread civil organizations such as Islamic associations and unity strengthening in universities have been completely destroyed, and opposition political organizations within the country have also found themselves in a worse situation than before.
In fact, the sword of Damocles has been hanging over the head of political liberation in Iran for almost a decade, and political opponents and reformists within the government have been unable to overcome the conservatives or guide them towards democracy through compromise. The proposal for a national reconciliation in 2002 by some of the government’s opponents was seen as a step in this direction. These individuals, who had recently left the ranks of the Revolutionary Guards, are trying to take a major step towards democracy through this proposal and prevent the half-built house of liberation from being destroyed. To do so, they are reaching out to their torturers.
But after the destruction of civil society and political opposition during these years, the re-proposal of a national reconciliation plan is uncertain. In order to create a great agreement at the national level towards the transition to democracy, first political liberation must be carried out and civil society and political organizations in the country must regain their vitality so that the other party can truly participate in the political space of the country.
Given this issue, what could the national unity slogan mean by the new government leader? It seems that he is somewhat concerned about the regression of political liberation based on past experiences and believes that in order to succeed, he must either have the conservatives on board for his project or neutralize them. Therefore, it can be assumed that his government is seeking an agreement within different branches of the government for the implementation of political liberation and believes that fulfilling promises such as the return of professors and students to universities, lifting filters from social networks, etc. can only be achieved by eliminating the danger posed by the conservatives.
The process of democratization is accompanied by many difficulties and often leads to failure. Will we experience political liberation again or not? If we do, will we move forward and build democracy or will we reach stability at this stage? If we return, will we be able to reform our foreign policy and achieve economic growth like China or not? The answer to these questions depends on the actions of all domestic and foreign political actors in Iran.
Tags
Civil society Democracy Democratization Huntington Majid Shia Ali Masoud Pazhakian Ministry of Science National unity Opposition peace line Peace Treaty 161 Suppression Sword of Damocles ماهنامه خط صلح ماهنامه خط صلح