Last month, Global Comment published an article by Simin Fadaee, which is about the killing of Mahsa Amini and the widespread protests of Iranians after this incident. The writer has made references to the historical, social, and political events of Iran that I do not agree with in some parts. I have been given the opportunity to express the reasons for my disagreement.
By recalling the 1979 revolution, Fadaee begins the article and mentions the coalition between all different ideologies to overthrow the Shah and the monarchy system, as if the Pahlavis had no popularity among the Iranians. She points out that some Iranians abroad want to return the monarchy system, and she concludes that Iranians change the system from within. She also underestimates – or ignores – the role of Iranians abroad in determining the system of their country.
Over the last hundred years, a great battle has taken place among Iranians, which led to social polarization. This battle has been mainly between two groups: traditional-religious people and people who want to be modern. This difference of opinion has always created tension among Iranians, which continues today.
When Mahsa Amini was killed by morality police six months ago, the main reason for the protests was this difference of opinion because the Islamic Republic always ignored millions of Iranians and always imposed its ideology. Of course, social deprivation and bad economic situation also led to the spread of protests.
These protests did not only take place inside Iran, and Iranians abroad also had a significant presence in Germany, England, the United States, Spain, and other countries and protested against the regime and supported their people to be their voice in international and human rights organizations. And why should they not protest? Every Iranian, anywhere in the world, has the right to play a role in determining the system of their country, even if we do not accept their ideology.
Simin Fadaee writes about Iranians as if they are all from a single group with the same ideology. Currently, Iranians are about 85 million people, and it is clear that they have different political tendencies, just as they have different religious beliefs (during the Islamic Republic, the religious beliefs of Iranians have undergone significant changes and the number of Muslims has decreased).
The Pahlavi era had many shortcomings, but many positive things also took place, so whatever our political-social point of views are, we should not ignore the facts or forget the poor social conditions of Iranians in the last century. For example, during Reza Shah’s era, the number of educated people was about 10%, many Iranians could not read and write and were heavily involved in superstitions. And it was this large group that opposed the modernization of Iran.
During this period, many universities and schools were built, encouraging women to be more involved in society than before. On the other hand, the Akhunds and their followers rejected these changes with violence and even threatened to kill girls and women who wanted to go to the schools. Despite such obstacles, the number of educated people reached 15% in 1956, many of whom were children and teenagers.
After Reza Shah, one of the most important social and historical events in Iran is related to the White Revolution, launched by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, in 1963; it lasted until 1979. It was a series of reforms in modernizing Iran. Its influence has remained until today. Several years before the White Revolution, the Shah had taken measures to reform the laws, always facing the opposition of Islamic extremists, especially Khomeini. They stubbornly convinced their followers that these practices were destroying Islam and told Muslims not to accept them.
The White Revolution, in spite of the objections that have been mentioned, had various elements that were meant to expand literacy and health corps and improve people’s living conditions, but there were two elements that Khomeini strongly opposed, and many Iranians welcomed them. One was extending the right to vote to women and to have equal rights between women and men, and the other was to end feudalism and hand over the lands of the masters to the farmers. Although these changes were not carried out evenly across the country, they increased the Shah’s popularity among the people, especially the farmers.
Now, who are the Iranians who wanted to rise up against their “hated monarchy” in February 1979? Are they the communists who care for the interests of the Soviet Union more than the needs of their fellow countrymen? Those who wanted to make Iran part of the Soviet Union, as Ahmad Kasravi, an Iranian writer and intellectual, said? Or the Islamic extremists who were followers of the Akhunds and fundamentally opposed to modern ideas and called women with no hijab prostitutes?
Is it possible that the Shah was not popular among 35 million Iranians in 1979? Why, after 44 years, do many Iranians support the Pahlavis in their slogans or daily conversation and want them to return?
During the Shah’s governments, the number of educated people reached about 50%. Apart from children and teenagers, many of these educated adults were not familiar with Western ideologies, let alone the large population who had no education and did not know what terms like communism, liberalism, and socialism meant.
When we talk about the 1979 revolution, we should not forget the propaganda of the Islamic Republic before and after it came to power, because the media has no meaning in dictatorial governments. Such governments use propaganda to turn facts upside down. Khomeini always tried to show the Islamic Republic as the choice of all Iranians and the only possible option for the new system.
Fadaee mentions the coalition between different ideologies and their help in creating the revolution, but such a coalition was not officially formed. There are some important reasons:
- Khomeini believed in Islamic government, and always rejected Marxism or democracy in his speeches and interviews when he was in Iran or in exile
- After the 1979 revolution, the Council of the Revolution was formed to manage the revolution. All the members of this council were Akhunds and close to Khomeini, and other parties had no representatives. The Akhunds accepted other representatives only after ensuring the stabilization of their power and the establishment of their Islamic government
- When Karim Sanjabi, the General Secretary of the National Front, visited Khomeini, Khomeini refused to sign the three-point statement as the representative of the Islamists, because he did not want to be registered next to the representative of the National Front, or other parties. In this statement, the opposition announced the end of the Shah’s rule, the establishment of a system based on Islamic standards, democracy and people’s votes
Khomeini sought benefits from other groups and tried to show his superiority. The name of such a procedure is deception, not coalition! If we believe there was such a coalition, it was mainly between Islamic extremists and communists, because these two groups were against the imperialist policies of the United States and did not want it to be present in Iran.
This was the reason why they went as far as capturing the U.S. embassy, and this led to the severing of the relationship between two countries.
A few months after establishing the regime of the Islamic Republic, Khomeini began to suppress other ideologies and considered opposition to the Islamic government to be opposition to Allah, saying opponents should be killed and abolished.
Yes, Mahsa Amini’s death triggered a progressive revolution, but it is clear that this is not a continuation of the 1979 revolution. The revolution of February 1979 ended after Khomeini came back to Iran. The new generations of Iranians have other demands: Woman, Life, and Freedom.
Image: Pro-Shariatmadari (Muslim People’s Republic Party) Demonstration in Tabriz, 1979 by unknown photographer
