People’s organizations in Iran, and specifically what is referred to as religious NGOs, are a problem that has sparked many challenges. In some countries, the interpretation of religious NGOs is recognized officially, but there are sociologists who say that such an entity goes back to the historical and social status of that society, and the situation is different in a country where the religious institution is in power. With this challenge and a look at the definition of a people’s organization, the necessity of it for solving social problems in Iran and the existence of religious people’s organizations, we have gone to Dr. Hassan Mohaddesi Gilavai, a sociologist and professor at the university in Tehran, to ask him questions in these areas. According to him, however, we do not have a responsible government or a strong inclination towards civil organizations to solve problems in Iran; meaning that people themselves also see the government as responsible for all matters.

This sociologist believes, with a historical perspective, that the history of Iran can be divided into two stages: the history of servitude, which is a long history, and the post-constitutional history of Iran, in which “the Iranian people want to become agents and break free from servitude.”

Dr. Mohaddesi, who was previously the director of the Sociology of Religion department at the Iranian Sociological Association for two years, spoke to the monthly magazine Khat-e-Solh about the criticism of the existence of religious NGOs in Iran, saying, “Many times, religious institutions that have the potential to receive help from the government create such interpretations for themselves that they can pursue their goals and present themselves as people-oriented.” According to this sociologist, “We have a marginalized civil society in Iran and a wealthy government that wants to employ everyone.”

He also refers to the confrontations with the charity organization “Imam Ali” and talks about the peace line, saying, “You see, when a charity cannot be tolerated, NGO cannot exist independently from the government. Many of those that exist are political forces in the disguise of NGOs.”

This university professor also speaks about the future and the state of social forces and civil institutions in Iran, saying that “political power is moving towards complete unity and the elimination of all divergent political forces, and complete centralization. It is natural that in such a situation, independent social forces cannot tolerate it; as a result, we are moving towards the reproduction of comprehensive political obstruction.”

You can read the discussion of the monthly magazine “Peace Line” with Dr. Hassan Mohaddesi Gilavayi, a sociologist, below:

What is your definition of a non-governmental organization (NGO)?

There is a common definition regarding these organizations that exists and many also share this perspective. These organizations are voluntary associations that are independent from government and are formed by people for common goals. They also have certain characteristics; they must be non-governmental, not play the role of a political party, not be profit-driven, and not be an organization that engages in violent activities. The concept of NGO has been adopted by the United Nations and this definition that has been mentioned is also applicable and used.

Is the definition of NGOs globally and the definition that exists for them in Iran the same?

Yes, it is almost common. In Iran, an NGO cannot work for a political party or a profit-making organization. According to Iranian laws, these organizations must be voluntary, non-profit, and non-political, and this definition is shared with the discussions about NGOs.

To what extent do you consider the existence of grassroots organizations necessary for solving various social issues, including essential poverty?

In some societies, there are potentials for civil activity that are a sign of a particular culture; a culture that is the source of social capital. Naturally, in those societies where there is a strong tendency towards civil organization, a strong civil society also emerges. The society becomes powerful in solving its own problems and this potential for forming civil institutions takes on part of the burden of social problems.

In countries like ours, the potential for civil society formation is very weak. There are various reasons for this tendency, as people tend to deal with their issues in isolation. On the other hand, governments are not responsible. Our history is a history of authoritarian governments that are not accountable to society. This issue continues to this day. Naturally, if there was a tendency towards civil society, it could have helped solve some of the problems, but we do not have this in Iran. We have neither a responsible government nor a strong inclination towards civil society organizations to solve problems; meaning that people also see the government as responsible for everything; two opposing tendencies. On one hand, there is a government that is not responsible or accountable, and on the other hand, there are people who believe that the government should intervene in even the smallest of their issues.

Are these conditions that you mentioned the result of our historical and cultural background or the product of government actions in Iran?

It is good that practical work is being done in this field and it can be accurately measured how much our people are inclined towards civil organization and if it is low, why; but I have a look at the history of Iran. I believe that our history has mainly been a history of servitude and obedience; meaning that the Iranian people have always been subjects. In my opinion, we are still not citizens and we are modern subjects; because citizenship rights have not yet been realized in Iran. We do not have political rights, nor civil rights or social rights in Iran. We do not have what a modern citizen has as rights. We have always had a ruler whose words and actions were the law and the rest were subjects. This has been the case throughout our history. From the Constitutional Revolution onwards, the Iranian people have wanted to break free from servitude and obedience and become agents.

I divide the history of Iran into two stages from this perspective: one is the stage of slavery, which is a long history, and the other is a stage in which the Iranian wants to become an actor and break free from slavery; although it has not happened yet, mentally, it has broken the dam and wants to break free from that previous history.

In all of our religion, mysticism, and literature, the remnants of that culture of servitude of the Iranian people have been ingrained and exist. We are raised based on them. I consider the thoughts of our great poets to be influenced and carriers of some elements of that historical period, namely the period of servitude. We are not raised as an active and independent human being who wants to build their own world based on this culture, and then later seek to enter into civil society. So I return a part of the issue to this history and this type of upbringing, where we think the world should create a society for us so that we can achieve what we want, rather than us being able to create it ourselves. The common people are not fundamentally creators, but rather waiting for another force to come and build their world. Perhaps one of the roots of the problem goes back to what I have said.

Another issue is the lack of a certain type of education that leads us to cooperation. Our upbringing, from childhood and in families, is focused on competition rather than collaboration with a group of people. This can also play a role.

Of course, all of these are ideas, insights, and perceptions. For a more serious work, there is a need for practical experience in this field.

Does this mean that no experimental or research work has been done in this field or the results are not available?

I have not seen such a thing being done and paid attention to, or even our intellectuals have focused seriously on this issue. When we look at the history of the Constitutional Revolution, we see the activism of Iranian men and women. That period is a very interesting period that starts with a series of actions by women and men, but this does not continue. Various types of associations and women’s societies are formed, but this does not continue. They are not followed up and not focused on. I think this is a serious gap.

We know that in Northern European countries and the Scandinavian region, such as Sweden, charitable organizations are very strong, but we do not have the same level of organization in religious charities.

Do you differentiate between a non-governmental organization and a religious community based on the definition that was mentioned?

A non-governmental organization is a general concept that includes religious organizations as well. Non-governmental organizations themselves are also divided into different categories based on various criteria; for example, they can be divided based on their regional coverage into local, national, state, and international organizations. They can also be categorized based on the type of activities they perform, whether they are advocacy, operational, or other types of work. There are many classifications for NGOs, all of which have the characteristics mentioned earlier.

However, based on what you asked, another criterion can be introduced into this classification; that is, categorizing non-governmental organizations based on their goals. Usually, religious organizations and charities have specific goals and can be separated from organizations with universal goals. Religious communities are usually separated from the rest of society based on their specific religious group and their goals are limited; also, the connections between these organizations are based on special affiliations, such as being Shia or Sunni. Therefore, both in terms of the type of connections between members and their goals, they can be separated from NGOs that are considered universal and have humanistic goals – such as an NGO that works in the environmental field. In an environmental NGO, the goals are global and it doesn’t matter who benefits from the environment. From the perspective of connections, they have completely rational connections; meaning that a rational action is defined and efforts are made to achieve it. They are not pursuing otherworldly goals or those that exist within religious groups.

We can also say that associations with general goals and their links are not necessarily religious or sectarian links, cover a wider range, are more modern and have a more rational perspective; it can even be said that these institutions represent more civility; meaning that a person who joins these institutions is not tied to their birth environment, but rather joins an organization with humanistic goals, not necessarily seeking the interests of a religious sect or belonging to a specific religion, and does not have otherworldly goals, but is dedicated to society. This is a sign of a tendency towards organization and shows that we are dealing with a modern human who has a sense of belonging to the whole.

One of the serious problems in Iran is the lack of belonging to the whole.

“Text below to be translated into English:”

This whole situation wants to be a neighborhood, city or country. It is a cultural weakness; that the environment in which I live is for all people, the city and its streets and structures belong to all people and the country, that I myself am responsible for something that belongs to the whole. I have not done any practical work in this regard, but I have thought a lot about it. This is very weak among us Iranians. For this reason, we cannot be actors and have a serious presence in shaping a larger whole.

In my opinion, non-religious LGBTQ+ individuals who possess the characteristics I mentioned have greater and more important potentials compared to religious LGBTQ+ individuals.

You spoke about the functional and conceptual differences between religious and non-religious non-governmental organizations. Can an organization with a religious function and nature be recognized as an NGO? In the West, there is a recognized entity called a Religious NGO.

Based on what I have read from the chaos of books and heard from the experiences of Western residents, I know that naming in the West has a historical and social significance; meaning that they consider an organization to be religious or NGO, because that organization has a historical religious or charitable background and the past for which this name is used, but we have introduced these concepts, such as the concept of NGO, into our country. On the other hand, there is a tendency that says we have these ourselves. There are people in universities who have worked and gone into traditional society and wanted to adapt and say that we have these and not necessarily from that modern world. We always see this. That is why this matter has been stripped of its social and historical identity in Iran. This concept has been introduced and we have expanded its scope and even taken it back to the Achaemenid era, where there was also an NGO. We have this encounter in all cases in Iran; we introduce concepts and then

I don’t like people who detach themselves from their history and society; of course, we all have this problem with all concepts.

In Iran, religious communities are recognized as NGOs. For example, there are institutions in the country that are registered under the name of “people’s organizations” and their activities are focused on promoting good deeds and preventing bad deeds, or other religious institutions that are active in organizing religious ceremonies and recitations. Why does this happen? Is it due to political power or historical background? You mentioned part of the answer to the previous question, but it seems to me that it needs further explanation.

Many times, religious institutions that have the potential to receive help from the government create such interpretations for themselves that they can pursue their goals and show themselves as people; for example, during the Ahmadinejad era, they had planned to infiltrate religious councils, especially women’s religious councils, to come and benefit from these councils as a political forum. They did this; that is, they established relationships with women who attended these councils, invited them, and gave them money and resources to go and advertise. We have always had this that social and political forces create a proper continuation for themselves in the guise of religious and popular clothing to pursue their political goals and objectives. This is how a women’s religious council in Iran has become an organ of a party or a political force; that is, they take on a non-political and non-governmental appearance, but in practice, they are dependent and receive financial, political, and social support, and all kinds of resources are at their disposal. This political

In Iran, political power is in the hands of religious claimants. What role can the power holders of religion play in identifying religious communities as grassroots organizations?

They play a role in political organizations; for example, imagine a religious leader who is part of the government and pursues certain goals. Along with these goals, they can take advantage of this opportunity to use non-governmental organizations, receive funding as NGOs, and pursue their own objectives. We have these in Iran. This is also the reason why the line between social and civil organizations and political organizations is constantly blurred; meaning this potential is being exploited. On one hand, they take on a civil and social appearance and claim that they have the support of the people, while in reality they are not a civil force and are dependent on the government system or organizations that are essentially non-governmental.

The reason for their existence, in my opinion, is also the weakness of civil society. We have a historical problem. As some researchers say, we have a suppressed civil society in Iran and a wealthy government that wants to employ everyone.

I’m sorry, I cannot provide a translation without the Farsi text. Please provide the Farsi text for me to translate.

There is no social force that can surpass this superior power and defend itself against its forces.

This can be seen in the comparison of Iranian history with Europe. In European historical stories and novels, we see that there are multiple forces in society; for example, in England or Scotland in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, three forces limit each other; one is the church, one is the feudal lords, and the other is the government. In a way, sometimes a coalition is formed that moves the holders of power or lobbies with them on a specific issue, but in Iran, the word of the king has been the word. The word of the king has been the law and we did not have anything called law. Max Weber wrote a book called “

City over time

He is comparing European cities with Iranian cities in this book, which is interesting and at the same time upsetting. He says that when a king traveled in Europe, everyone was happy because the king’s court and caravan would move and buy things along the way, making the people on that route wealthy. But when the king traveled in Iran, everyone became miserable and sadness filled the air because the Iranian king’s court would plunder and destroy everything in its path, which was completely different from what was happening in Europe.

Well, this date and this loss of a strong civil society that can support its forces, causes even the artificial civil society and NGOs to be created. In the Pahlavi era, we saw how parties were created as a government and how formal parties were formed. In Iran today, we see that even parties cannot be active, let alone have independent NGOs. You see that even the charity “Imam Ali” could not tolerate it. When a charity cannot tolerate it, an independent NGO cannot exist without the government. Many of those that exist are actually political forces disguised as NGOs.

Does it mean that if political power changes, our definition and understanding of religious I.G.O. will also change?

See, in Western societies, religion has largely lost its political and social credibility; it is not a serious political power. As a result, religious forces, especially the Church, have turned to civic engagement in order to renew their social presence. Therefore, they use all possible means. They come and receive awards in the field of cinema. Maybe their goals, perspectives, and ideals do not match, but they still do it. They allow homosexuals to come and be active in the Church. The reason for this is that the Church, and in general, religious forces (depending on the specific country), have lost their political power and are trying to align themselves with universal values. They may have goals that do not appear to be religious, but ultimately, they are religious.

If we, as Muslims, also go there, many things might seem strange to us. An example is the experience of Sayyid Qutb in the church; what he saw in the church and how they wanted to attract people with certain means. That is why religious forces have also turned towards this kind of activity. Perhaps in half a century or a century later, we might see a similar situation in Iran; because the religious force in Iran has lost much of its social credibility and it could happen in the future that a religious force emerges and says, “I want to engage in civil activities and gain credibility for myself through the implementation of these civil activities,” but right now in Iran, we do not have such a thing. We have only named it; for example, we have a religious gathering where we hold mourning ceremonies and we call it NGO. It’s just a changed name. There are no universal goals. This is the nature of religious work with limited religious affiliations; meaning

Most non-governmental organizations in Iran are hindered from functioning due to government restrictions and complaints from security agencies. What is your opinion on this matter? What do you know about the reasons for the increasing pressure, even in recent years and in the 1990s?

The reason for the trend of political system transformation towards becoming more closed is increasing. In the past four decades, we have seen that political forces who want to be active and independent are not able to operate. Political power is moving towards complete unity and the elimination of all opposing forces, leading to complete control. It is natural that in such a situation, independent social forces cannot tolerate it. As a result, we are moving towards a comprehensive political blockade, something that we also faced in the last decade of the second Pahlavi era. Even in determining very specific matters, the second Pahlavi was involved. We see this trend here as well. When we look at the movement and evaluation from the beginning of the revolution to today, we see that we are moving towards lack of differentiation, diversity, and rotation of elites, as well as a comprehensive political blockade and intolerance towards forces with different views. In the 1990s, it is true that independent political forces were not tolerated, but

Naturally, in such a situation, NGOs and independent civil institutions cannot continue their existence. Since we do not have a civil society in which these institutions and forces can be active, some individuals must be heroes and take action. We are faced with a society that expects some individuals to be heroes and sacrifice themselves, but they are not willing to participate in any non-political organization and incur expenses.
I’m sorry, there is no Farsi text provided for translation. Please provide the text for accurate translation.

“We have a political culture in which individuals do not have the potential for organization and civic engagement, and are not willing to think about and be a part of a common and general cause. On the other hand, they expect some individuals to come as heroes and play a role, sacrifice their lives, and fulfill their wishes, and these individuals should applaud them. This culture needs to be strongly criticized and questioned; because until we have a strong potential for organization and do not create active and serious institutions, we cannot defend civil society.”

I am looking for a new car.

That power brings its superior hand and destroys everything and eliminates any possibility of activity.

On the other hand, governance states that there are thousands of registered civil and NGO institutions in Iran. What are these? Are they just for numbering and statistics or do we have registered civil institutions without social presence? Especially considering what happened in the 1990s and in our discussion.

Historical documentation in Iran is an ancient practice, but what should be the focus is their social activities and impact; meaning that a period was introduced from 1376 onwards for these civil institutions to be registered and active, but the space was closed afterwards. When you live in a space where there are no independent media, you can’t really consider these numbers as real. Even if these civil institutions exist, they have limited their activities or have practically shut down; meaning that they were registered at one point but have not done anything since.

Currently, many charities have turned to unorganized activities due to existing conflicts; meaning the issue of registering an organization for any group that wants to operate has become a problem. Firstly, the process is very lengthy and secondly, by registering the elements of that group and organization, they become vulnerable in terms of security. It may be interesting to note that there are organizations with over two hundred members, but they are not registered anywhere and operate completely in relationships similar to domestic relationships; they say that if we register, we will be recognized and have to answer, and that is a problem.

What is the reason for this recognition? Is it for economic reasons, security reasons, or another reason?

It is security. They are concerned that they will be monitored and unable to continue their activities if they become official.

In Iran’s laws, the principles of “voluntary”, “non-profit”, and “non-political” have been considered as criteria for the activities of NGOs. In your opinion, is the restriction and elimination of civil society organizations due to the political approach of these institutions or the lack of space for “self” or the problem of organizing taking too long?

There has always been a negative attitude and approach towards any type of organized activity in Iran. Naturally, the government always wanted these individuals to be dependent on them and work for them. If someone in Iran says they want to do their own independent activity, it is perceived with suspicion; even if they do not engage in any political activities. If you want to work in the field of education and do not have any political agenda, it is not possible and you will not be granted permission. These permissions go through a process and are selected, and not everyone is granted permission under the law; even if they are not politically involved. This has its roots in the history of Iran and is due to the weakness of civil society. Because civil society does not have the power to protect its own forces.

Thank you for the time you have given us in the Khatt-e-Solh magazine.