#IranElection Green Movement - Moment of Decision

With regards to its objectives and methods, the green movement has reached a critical point. The initial popular reaction, when the election results were revealed, was of skepticism and the demand for the cancellation of the results. This goal was to be accomplished via silent and peaceful protesting that, at times, included humorous slogans.

However, with the passing of time, a disagreement has arisen pertaining to the final goal of the movement. Anything short of a total fall of the regime will not be sufficient for some, while others have returned to their decade old reformist slogans. For the latter, the ultimate goal should be free elections and freedom of press. When it comes to its methods, however, the crisis is deeper. All of us have become increasingly excited at the organizational possibilities opened to us by social networks, and we want to promulgate our ideas to others.
Such organizational methods, despite their wide reach and efficiency, cannot, in the long term, lead the movement, and their creativity remain superficial. At their best, they can only bring a large number of supporters to the streets at a given time and place (meaning official occasions such as 13 Aban); however, they also inform the repressive forces of the venues and timing of the protests, allowing the latter to arrest a large number of people, and even killing some. It should also be noted that we all have a hidden tendency to play the victim. Killing us will only awaken the nation. These days, given the unlimited violence caused by the repressive forces which has been combined with religious blackmail used by the government, no one wants to take responsibility and lead the people to protest.
Taking to the streets, as a tactic, is superficial at best, only serving to remind us that the movement is alive, and it cannot, in itself, lead to change. The movement does not exist for the sole reason of allowing us to claim that some of us are martyrs, imprisoned, or are being held hostage; a goal must be decided upon, agreed upon, uncompromisingly supported, and carried through.
In the past, I have written that we can have two road maps for advancement. The first is to decide upon a long term and broad goal, but to be compromising and flexible in our methods, moving forward when the times are right and retreat when they are not. The second is to have a specific, attainable, and short-term goal that we never compromise on.
Every movement, for the sake of its own survival, needs a measurable and specific goal. Let’s assume, hypothetically, that the goal in Iran should be to implement democracy. To this, the current regime will respond with an endless stream of superlatives, stating that the government in Iran is, at its core, the purest and best democracy in the world. This response is repeated if we make the demand for freedom of press and election. But if our goal is the annulment of the election results and the removal of Ahmadinejad from power (which was the principal demand of the movement prior to Moussavi’s 17^th statement), then we have put forward a specific and clear objective that the government cannot rule out with its usual demagogy and misinformation campaign, and one that can be universally understood and measured by the supporters of the movement.
With the passing of time, the removal of Ahmadinejad and the push for new elections, as movement goals, have lost their relevance, and the movement now has two possible routes ahead:

1. The movement’s political presence must be reduced, and faith must be put into achieving a long-term goal and structural changes. To create the framework for these structural changes, there must be a focus on cultural and educational activities, or;
2. The movement should agree on a new short-term objective and stick to it.

The lack of a specific new goal, along with the lengthy and weary nature of the fight with the government, may result in some of the more conservative supporters of the movement, who, in general, think about their own interests first, to part ways with the movement; whereas a fresh perspective and a new goal might make these same conservative supporters more eager to take risks to achieve the objective.
The green movement, at least when it comes to its slogans, has defined some short-term objectives. Slogans which, at an earlier point, consisted of calling Ahmadinejad a liar or questioning his 63% share of the vote have now become more direct and confrontational, addressing the dictator himself and wanting an end to the dictatorship.
Why is it that, when the demand of the main body of the movement has evolved to such an extent, the leaders, namely Moussavi and Karroubi, refuse to announce it openly? Why is there no mention of this demand in the statement issued by Bazargan, Soroush, Kadivar, Ganji, and Mohajerani?
The demand for the removal of Khamenei is, in reality, a demand for fundamental change; it is tantamount to the negation of his policies for the last 20 years, but at the same time, it does not equal the overthrow of the regime. This demand does not even mean the negation of the supreme leadership as a principle. Even the most conservatives groups within the green movement can remain loyal to Khomeini’s ideals (that is, loyalty to the supreme leader), while simultaneously agreeing that Khamenei is not competent for the position.
Khamenei’s ruse has always been to equate himself with the regime as a whole, implying that the preservation of the regime is fundamentally hinged on his existence; anyone attacking Khamenei and his ways is, therefore, fundamentally attacking the system. A great portion of intellectuals who focus solely on the matter from a structural perspective fall for his trap, stating that the problem lies with Islam, the Islamic Republic, and the supreme leadership, not Khamenei.
But structures do not exist outside human society and social relationships. One way to change the structure is to change the people. The majority of people in society do not relate with such an abstract intellectual debate that depicts the struggle as one of traditionalism against modernism. For them, this intellectual debate is eternal, like the fight between good and evil. Nothing can, therefore, be done, and history will decide who the eventual winner is. Even if they come to believe that good will prevail, this way of this thinking will only result in passivity and fatalism, which, at their best, can lead to ineffective activities.
Turning the movement into an intellectual debate is tantamount to recklessly destroying the hopes of the thousands of people who have believed in this movement and its victory.

"Ankabot"

Posted via email from Liss's posterous