Iran-protests
was uploaded by Yassamine Mather
Protests challenge the regime..
Across the whole
country, in every city, in every town, there is revolt. But does
‘post-nationalism’, rather than class politics, provide the solution?
Anti-government
protests in Iran following the ‘morality police’ killing of Mahsa Amini, who
was arrested for nothing more than wearing her headscarf too loosely, have now
lasted two weeks. They have spread across all 31 provinces and almost every
city and town is affected, despite the use of military force, including the
Revolutionary Guards. The government has also closed down parts of the internet
in an attempt to avoid coordinated action and the reporting of the rash of
protests and demonstrations.
Both
in New York, where he was speaking to the UN general assembly, and on his
return to Tehran, president Ebrahim Raisi blamed “conspirators” for inciting
unrest and pledged to crack down on “those who oppose the country’s security
and tranquillity”. I doubt he is stupid enough to believe his own conspiracy
theory, yet I see some western ‘anti-imperialists’ are repeating the same
nonsense: apparently there are no demonstrations in the wonderful Islamic
Republic - it is all western propaganda!
In
reality tens of thousands have taken part in protests, often risking their lives,
as they faced state forces using live ammunition, tear gas and pepper spray. So
far dozens of demonstrators have been killed and hundreds have been injured,
while journalists, students, labour activists, social media users who have
defended the protests have been arrested. Yet the protests continue.
All
this amounts to a serious challenge to the Islamic Republic, but we should not
underestimate the strength of the forces of repression - the regime will use
everything in its power to suppress the movement.
Supreme
leader Ali Khamenei has so far failed to issue any statement in response to the
protests and there are rumours that he is unwell. However, I am always
suspicious of such claims and it is likely that, sooner or later, he will
appear on TV to condemn it all as a dastardly conspiracy. But the good news is
that the protests have created further divisions amongst all the factions of
the regime. The ‘conservatives’ are blaming former president Hassan Rouhani for
the more liberal attitude to the wearing of the hijab in some urban areas
during his presidency, while others are calling for the relaxation of the rules
about head covering for women - and, of course, the hard-liners know that any
retreat will cost them dearly.
Slogans
The
demonstrations are largely spontaneous - no-one takes seriously those who claim
they are leading them. Such claims have come from rightwing groups, such as
Mojahedin e-Khalq - the loony Islamist grouping supported by sections of the US
neocon Republicans - as well as individuals who support the son of the ex-shah
(he is also backed by neocons). As many Iranians have pointed out on social
media, it is ironic that opposition groups who are financed by anti-abortion
rightwingers in the US are showing concern for a woman’s right to choose their
dress code in Iran.
Some
of the slogans, such as ‘No shah, no sheikh!’, are very good - especially
useful when the ex-shah’s son tries to take advantage of the protests. One of
the most popular slogans on recent protests is ‘Death to the oppressor, be it
shah or “leader”!’ (a reference to Khamenei), and another is ‘Death to the
dictator!’
All
this is positive, but spontaneity has its limitations. Some comrades inside
Iran have pointed out that these protests are ‘post-nationalist’, meaning that
the murdered woman, Mahsa Amini, was Kurdish, but protests are occurring in
Farsi-speaking towns, in Azeri and Baluchi cities, with the same fervour as
those where Kurds form the majority, and, of course, this is highly positive.
But other aspects are more problematic. For example, another of the main slogans is ‘Woman, life, freedom!’, which was originally used against Islamic State in Syrian Kurdistan by the YPG - the darlings of the soft left and sections of the anarchist movement. In my opinion, however, it is not a progressive slogan - which class of women, for example? As I wrote last week, the issue of policing the hijab in Iran is a class issue. And ‘life’ for whom? Capitalists, clerics, landowners or the working class? Even if the reference to freedom relates to very superficial forms, such a call is meaningless in a developing country without dramatic economic changes. Otherwise, after a short period of tolerating some liberties, the new order could well impose repression and another dictatorship to control economic unrest.
However,
as the protests continue, new forces are now joining them. Some university
lecturers have cancelled classes, announcing they will not resume teaching
until arrested students are released. The Iranian teachers union is calling for
strikes, and on September 29 university staff and students announced a
nationwide strike of the higher education sector. Workers in the Haft Tapeh
union have issued statements in solidarity with the protests and there are
calls for a ‘nationwide strike’ - although at this stage it is not clear if
those calling for such a strike have anything concrete planned.
Another
positive aspect is the fact that women who themselves observe the rules on the
wearing of the hijab have joined the protests. This shows that the protests are
not just about the hijab, but a woman’s right to choose what she does in every
aspect of her life, after 43 years of political and religious oppression.
The
veteran socialist, Ardeshir Mehrdad, in a short text written this week, tells
us:
A
woman takes off her hijab and stands on a wall surrounded by black-clad men. A
woman sits on a platform looking at heavily armed policemen wearing boots and
leaves her hair out with calmness ... A woman stands against a number of
special forces of oppression; without the slightest fear or trembling in her
voice, she calls them “murderers”.
No doubt women have been in the forefront of these protests and again this is very positive. Having said that, claims that this is a ‘feminist revolution’ are nonsense. This must be seen as part of the preparation for a revolution to overthrow the capitalist Islamic Republic of Iran, with all its factions - its clerical as well as civilian and military. The protestors are not just concerned about head covering. Of course, the death of Mahsha Amini initiated the current movement, but protests against this regime started in earnest a few years ago and they have since grown in size, duration and determination.
In
fact Iranians have protested against dictatorship and the oppression of women,
together with national and religious minorities, since February 1979. What
makes the current movement different is that it has a material base: there are
economic reasons for the way in which demonstrations are spreading and ordinary
people are showing unbelievable courage confronting the oppressive forces.
Protestors have also learnt from the riots of 2018 and demonstrations against
the abolition of subsidies in 2019. Today, they are prepared to confront the
armed forces - as opposed to the last two times, when they were much more
timid.
The
continuation of neoliberal economic policies by successive Islamist governments
(‘reformist’ and conservative), in a country faced with severe economic
sanctions, has created a situation where the gap between the rich and the poor
is increasing daily; where the rate of inflation often exceeds 40%; where
unemployment is growing and there seems no end to people’s daily suffering. In
such circumstance women’s equality cannot be achieved simply by a change in
government leaders. But the Iranian left seems incapable of coming up with any
strategy, any long-term plan.
Nationalism
Two
of the most important groups present in these protests are women and ethnic
minorities, and, in what can be considered the ‘post-nationalist’ approach of
these two groups, what we find is, in fact, nationalism - the culture,
language, history and rights of different ethnicities is strongly emphasised.
Basically, ‘post-nationalism’ interweaves with traditional nationalism.
It promotes equality that includes the presence of all nationalities and condemns any superiority of a particular group over others. This approach can strengthen the already existing unity of these currents, but it acts against the development of class unity. ‘Post-nationalism’ puts a strong emphasis on individuality, and this means it cannot consider any class over and above any other.
When it comes to the left in exile, we should not expect anything much from them - and, reading some of the recent articles written inside Iran, I am not sure there is much hope for the left there either!
Writing on the website, Naghd Eghetssad Siassi (‘Political Economy Critique’), Faegh Hosseini asks:
Can
you trust street protests that are not led by a particular organisation or
leadership? Yes! You can trust such protests, and political and social
activists have to show this trust. This issue has two sides: firstly, the
question is: can we hope in general to organise protests without any
organisation behind it? Secondly, what facilities and needs are there to form
these currents?
He
then proposes councils and ‘post-nationalism’.
To
quote a left group’s recent statement, translated from Farsi,
‘post-nationalism’
… recognises all people as equal,
including immigrants, citizens, professionals, workers, men and women, and any
ethnicity. Any socio-political thought that enters a region and culture must be
changed according to the needs and characteristics of the target society, and
the thought of post-nationalism is no exception to this rule.
The
confusion in the above text shows the triumph of capitalist liberalism even in
the thoughts of those who write on a left website. Class is equated with gender
and nationality, while the reality is that, both amongst women and national minorities,
class remains the most important defining issue. If we all unite with no
understanding of class, it is obvious who will benefit from any change in
government: those with economic power - the owners of land and capital.
Ex-‘feudals’
in Kurdish areas are nowadays either part and parcel of the current regime in
Iran or they are, in Iraqi Kurdistan, benefiting from Israeli or Saudi funding.
They are not part of the protests. Women associated with the leaders of the
Islamic Republic and women whose families are among the super-rich are not
protesting either. They have not suffered the oppression of the religious
state, living in suburbs beyond the reach of the Gasht-e Ershad morality
police. Then we have women associated with the many repressive organs of the
Islamic Republic or its propaganda machine - they are part of the enemy. The
officers of Gasht-e Ershad are often women and, for example, detention centres
employ women to beat up female prisoners. We cannot talk of participants in a
movement challenging the current order without referring to economic and
political power - and here class and class allegiance is absolutely essential.
State
forces might be able to suppress the current protests, but the ground beneath
the Islamic Republic is gradually slipping away with generalised
dissatisfaction, rising poverty, high inflation and neoliberal economic
policies, such as the abolition of subsidies. So the protests will continue in
some form or another and the Iranian people will surely succeed in overthrowing
the Islamic Republic sooner or later.
Clearly
the regime is getting weaker, but the question remains: who will replace the
current bunch of corrupt, lying and sanctimonious clerics?
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar