The Hindu Business Line : Change still eludes Iran

While educated and liberal Iranians, especially in the big cities, were hoping for a change from a fundamentalist government to a more secular and liberal administration, what about the silent majority, so important in every election, asks RASHEEDA BHAGAT.

For me, the predominant image from the hotly contested presidential election in Iran is that of women, bundled in black cloaks, queuing up to cast their votes. One picture of female voters forming a circular queue, all of them dressed in black robes and waiting outside the Masoumeh shrine in Qum, south of Tehran, was striking and narrated, more powerfully than any words could, the clampdown on Iran’s women by a repressive regime, and enforcement of a harsh dress code in a city that once pulsated with colour, fashion and, most important, freedom.

There is little doubt that not all of them were wearing those black robes out of choice. For a few years now, and particularly during the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regime, women have been threatened, brutally repressed, and advised to cover their heads and dress “appropriately” by Iran’s moral police.

A good section of Iran’s women had reportedly backed the comparatively more liberal former Iranian premier, Mir Hossein Mousavi. The western world, particularly the United States and the UK, had hoped “change” would come to Iran, and it would reject the present anti-western regime. Also, Mr Mousavi had offered to improve international relations. So the announcement of Mr Ahmadinejad’s victory was greeted with scepticism and charges of rigging.

Hotly contested

This was easily the most keenly contested election in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the high voter turnout indicated a “change”. Hence, the announcement of his “landslide” victory brought Mousavi’s supporters out on to the street to protest.

Most youngsters interviewed by the western media said that Mr Mousavi was certainly not their ideal but was preferable to the incumbent. As dissent at the election outcome has been crushed in Iran, only Iranians living outside dared to go on record to express their dismay. Max Moghadam, 30, who grew up in Iran and moved to Los Angeles a few years ago, was quoted by BBC: “The biggest problem is Ahmadinejad himself. He has ruined the country... economically politically socially, internationally, domestically.”

Robert Fisk of the British newspaper The Independent, and arguably the most authentic voice on West Asia, said a lot of people feared Mr Mousavi’s fate. Presenting the “good” and “bad” face of the winner, he said that, after the victory was announced, Mr Ahmadinejad addressed a press conference where he spoke in “soft” words, about the triumph of democracy and said: “We are a noble people, we are smart people and the Iranian people believe in right and righteousness. They hate lies and are satisfied with their lot... but we stand up to bullies and arrogance... the Iranian people will never be afraid of threats.”

Adds Fisk : “Clearly, Ahmedinejad had read through Barack Obama’s Cairo speech very carefully — indeed, he sometimes sounded grotesquely like the American president — and some of his ‘change’ motifs fit rather well with the new US administration.

Has the silent majority spoken?

Forget what the western powers wanted or had hoped for, the rest of the world is entitled to leaders of its choice, but through a free and fair election. Seasoned correspondents covering Iran for long years say they have never seen this kind of spontaneous protest on Tehran’s streets. But the fact remains that, often enough, the vocal, visible, forceful urban minority makes itself heard to the world, often sending out wrong signals on what the majority really want.

We have seen this in Indian elections too. The media tends to read the voices/signals emanating from the articulate and aggressive urban population, sometimes ignoring the views of the silent majority. But thankfully, in a democracy, however intelligent, rich and powerful you might be, every individual has only one vote. Both in 2004, and more recently, we in India too were led to believe that the vote was tilting in favour of the BJP-led coalition but the result was something else.

Of course, India and Iran cannot be compared; here the government can fall for want of just one vote in the Lok Sabha, as Mr Vajpayee discovered in 1999, whereas Iran has a tyrant-like President at the helm, who would not hesitate to crush protests or uprisings. And we too cannot be too sanctimonious about our democracy, where money and muscle power, criminal nexus, etc., can alter the outcome of any election. But while votes can be, and are, bought, massive scale rigging is not possible in a country such as India. In Iran, where the press is often censored, the reality is, however, very different.

We’ll never know how genuine Mr Ahmadinejad’s ‘landslide’ is, but some aspects of this election need comment. One, Mr Ahmadinejad has the backing of the all-powerful Ayatollah Khameini; very important in the Islamic Republic.

Two, while young Iranians in big cities — at least the liberal and educated among them — were hoping for a change from a stifling, fundamentalist and confrontationist social order to a more secular and liberal administration, what about the silent majority, so important in every election?

The poor, the illiterate in Iran’s villages, and that section of the population who have had about enough of the western powers telling them what they can do and can’t do... how did they vote? Remember, this section, not only in Iran, but Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and many other Muslim countries, feels that their religion is under attack from the West, which finds them “suspicious”, their values, their ideology and lifestyle “strange” and often regards them as potential terrorists.

For them a leader who shakes his fist at not only the US, but also Israel, is someone to be venerated. And so I was not surprised to get in my mailbox on Monday an Urdu translation done by somebody in Muscat of a French verse hailing Iran’s President and his victory.

“Jab ki sub ki zubaan pe tha tala, Aa gaya ek himmaton wala; Woh jo sir ko uta ke jeeta hai, sub se aankhey mila ke jeeta hai; Us ko izzat ki zindagee hai pasand; Chun ke laye jo is basher ko awaam, Un zaheenon se kahiye mera salam.” A rough translation goes thus: “When everybody was tongue tied, there emerged a courageous man, who could hold his head high, look at his opponents in the eye and aspired for a life of respect. I salute the people who elected this brave heart.”

Something has changed

But there is also this article written by ‘Marryam’ (name changed, of course) in The Independent, expressing sorrow for her country. She is not one who loves to wear flashy or fashionable clothes; she wears a hijab out of choice and is comfortable in it. And yet she wonders how her dear country will “withstand this man ruling us for four more years.”

“When I have wiped my tears away, I have something to be happy and proud of. Mousavi may have lost this fraudulent election, but people will not forget him, they will draw a line between him, what he represents and this government. We will never forget this event. People will not give up. They are being crushed into silence, but they won’t be silent forever. They have new ways to connect to one another.

“They, the regime, can block Facebook today but they can’t do it forever. Something has changed in this country, people have been cheated but they have seized more freedom. Now we are like caged lions, so taking anything from us will be harder in future. I will never lose my hope and as long as I live in Iran, I will do my best for it. America must try to negotiate with Iran.”

But then, isn’t democracy all about those who want change and those who dread it?

(Response may be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in)