Right now in Iran, there are two momentous historical events happening. First, equipped with the slogan “women, life, freedom”, Iranians are contributing another chapter to the global history of feminism. This is not the first time that a phalanx of Iranian women is spearheading a movement with global significance. Even in the so called “Islamic” revolution in 1979, women played a major role in demanding “independence, freedom, Islamic Republic.” It is no coincidence that “freedom” remains the goal. The 1979 revolution delivered the long sought independence from imperial intrusions into Iranian affairs, whilst the Islamic Republic failed to deliver on the centuries old quest for freedom as a democratic right, especially for women.
The female body had become a battle field in the service of patriarchy in Iran, at least since the first monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty (Reza Shah) banned the veil in 1936. This was an ill-fated attempt to emulate the secular policies that Kemal Ataturk implemented in Turkey on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire in the 1920s. The Pahlavi monarchy used such gender policies to westernise the country from the top-down. In 1979, the veil became a symbolic attire to protest against that forced conversion. And yet again, the movement was hijacked in order to discipline the Iranian population into submission and to enforce another authoritarian system. After 1979, it was the veil that was used as a method to project the power of the state and to suppress and control the (female) population.
In both cases men were victims, too. During the Pahlavi monarchy (1921-1979), a deeply religious strata of Iranian society had to accept the preference of the state for European attire, which translated into various forms of discrimination and exclusion. After the revolution in 1979, the suppression of their mothers, sisters and partners, curtailed their freedom to interact with them. Various forms of gender separation were enforced by the morality police in the public sphere and sometimes even at Iranian homes. This gendered history explains where the slogan “women, life freedom” comes from and why it is chanted right now by both women and men across the country.
The second historical event that is happening in Iran right now has global significance, as well. Again, history helps to understand the dynamics. In 1979, like the Russians, Cubans and Chinese before them, Iranian revolutionaries wanted to change the world in the name of a new “identity”. As I have explained fully in “What is Iran?”: The revolution was driven by identity politics, by communism, Maoism, Islamism and other ideas that are premised on a strict us-versus-them logic.
In many ways the process was successful in bringing about the revolution, as political Islam mingled with other ideologies with a global mandate for the first time in modern history. However, over four decades after, Iranians are connecting with a totally new global struggle for emancipation from authoritarianism, with a language of sisterhood, love and empathy. In a reversal of the Cartesian premise “I think therefore I am”, Iranians are saying “I am, only if we are.” It is this cosmopolitan emphasis on solidarity, community and national cohesion with a global consciousness that is so endearing, refreshing and loving in the most beautiful sense of the term. A Persian embrace, indeed.
The current resistance was fuelled by the death of Mahsa Amini, a 21 year old Iranian-Kurdish women. As I am writing these lines, the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRCG) is launching military operations against Kurdish rebels across the border in Iraq. Yet, despite this ethnic dimension, the protests have not degenerated into identity politics exactly because of the universality of the demands. Freedom doesn’t know any boundaries. It connects us, as it is innate to our nature as human beings. So Iranians proclaim the universality of their struggle in terms of goals that are dear to all of us. The events in Iran are a stark reminder of how important it is to resist oppression all over the world in the name of love and community, rather than ideology.
The first question journalists from all over the world ask me is the same they asked in 2009: Is this another revolution? Will the Iranian state fall? In 2009, the “Green movement” galvanised hundreds of thousands of Iranians and brought them onto Iranians streets, pretty much in all the urban centres of the country. At that time, too, the killing of a young Iranian women by the name of Neda Agha-Soltan enraged the populace even further.
At the height of the events, I wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian. The editors entitled it “Iran: This is not a revolution”. I would choose a similar title for these events, with the slight amendment that Iranians demand by far more than mere reforms. My studies into techniques of power and resistance force this conclusion. The 21st century will not deliver the massively total political changes that the revolutions of the 20th century brought about. There are several simple analytical reasons for that. First, today states are by far better equipped through technology to control the population. So the nature of power has changed to the detriment of the governed.
Secondly, the mechanisms of resistance have changed. In particular, there is a visible absence of “charismatic” leadership, the point of fixation of the masses, the “magician” for whom they are ready to die (the Lenin, Mao, Castro, Khomeini effect). Furthermore, the scattered nature of political protests between the virtual and real world, prevents the explosive effect that leadership can channel into the revolutionary process. Democratic, pluralistic, non-hierarchical forms of resistance partially unfolding on social media, have proven to have a hard time overcoming deeply entrenched states, as the Arab Spring demonstrated.
Finally, and more specifically with reference to the Iranian case: Our analysis would have to be revised, if one senior general of the IRCG steps out of line and supports the protestors or orders his garrison to refrain from violence. This would indicate a fracture in that deep state. It was this reluctance of the army to commit mass-murder which aided and abetted the revolutionary process in Iran in 1979.
One thing is for sure: The demand for freedom and democracy cannot be contained anymore. The rebellions of Iranians are becoming more and more frequent laying bare the deep fault-lines in the country. History has shown that if push comes to shove freedom wins – Iran will be no exception to that rule.
Prof. Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, The European Institute for International Law and International Relations
