 | ||||||||
 | | You are in: World: Middle East | ||||||
| Wednesday, 6 June, 2001, 19:18 GMT 20:18 UK Profile: Mohammad Khatami  Mohammad Khatami: The promise of radical change BBC News Online profiles Iran's President Mohammad Khatami, the overwhelming favourite in the country's presidential elections on 8 June. Mohammad Khatami arrived on the political scene in Iran with a stunning victory in the 1997 presidential elections. Until then a little known cleric, he captured almost 70% of the vote, humiliating the conservative candidate.
Unlike the dour, unsmiling ayatollahs Iranians had become accustomed to, here was an Islamic leader of a very different kind. "He didn't just charm me, he charmed the whole country - and that's why he was elected in 1997 in that stunning victory," says Elaine Sciolino, a writer on Iran for the New York Times . "This is a man who went on public buses. He's the kind of baby-kissing politician we're used to here in the United States. He rolled up his sleeves publicly and gave blood. He tries to straddle the world of Islam and Islamic clericalism, and the world of the people." Iranians were struck by the new president's openness to fresh ideas. Opposition and achievements At the end of his first term, Mr Khatami has not been able to put his reformist programme into practice.
Much of the press that backs Mr Khatami's reforms has been silenced, and many of the president's supporters have been jailed or face charges. But there have been some notable achievements. "First of all, there's a change in ideas, and that's very important. Khatami's discourse of civil society, democracy, transparency, rule of law, and all this - which were quite absent in the 1980s - became dominant concepts, so that even certain segments of the conservatives tried to speak a similar language," Iranian sociologist Asef Bayat argues. Gradualist Mr Khatami believes in gradual change, despite the pressure from his own supporters who want faster and more radical reforms.
The disappointment of his reformist supporters has led many to question whether the president can deliver even gradual reform. Announcing his candidacy, Mr Khatami described himself as a "reluctant" candidate because of his failure to deliver what he promised four years ago. Despite all his difficulties, Mr Khatami is still expected to win by a large majority. Most Iranians agree with their president that, sooner or later, change in Iran is inevitable despite the rearguard action of the conservatives. | |||||||
Thursday, November 5, 2009
BBC on Khatami
The following BBC article was written two days before Khatami was elected as President for a second term. Note the support the article gives him and think about how his Presidency actually played out, remember the students at his farewell speech?
taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1373476.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Khatami, as a president, had good intentions but did not satisfy the Iranian people in the way that he had proposed.
He offered help in the political and economic sphere, allowing discussion, helping the economy, bringing Iran into a better light for the rest of the world to see. But Khatami did not try hard enough to bring political attention to the internal social problems he initially address that won the hearts of so many people.
People were misguided when they believed that Khatami wanted change, for it seems that he did not want change, but rather, slight reform. He did not want to change the system, he wanted to slightly modify that. And from there, one can begin to argue arbitrary linguistics. I can't fathom as to why he was reelected when he didn't give the people what they wanted the first time. And let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he needed more time in order to implement the social changes the people desired. Shouldn't have those policies been in question long before the re-elections? Khatami believed in gradual change, and why was two years short of a decade not enough time to make the modifications.
And suppose that the Supreme Leader was the reason he could not make the changes the people wanted. And if not him, than the conservatives in other offices. Then what is the point of any of this? What is the point of a checks and balance system if there is no balance? What is the point of voting for someone who can't get anything done in a rigid system? Is no change better than drastic negative change?
"Most Iranians agree with their president that, sooner or later, change in Iran is inevitable despite the rearguard action of the conservatives". The poetic irony of this statement still lingers years after the presidency of Khatami.
I think your bog is fantastic and have been following it for awhile now. However, I'm an avid reader of the British broadsheet newspapers and BBC and have noticed that much of your posts are cuttings from these sources or other sources. However, I'm sceptical of what I read. There's much mis-information out there, journalists don't always tell the truth, especially when journalist are government funded.
I had worked in the British Military when US & UK troops first invaded Iraq in 1990. The media coverage of this invasion and accounts of certain incidences did not coincide with what returning officers said. There were lots of cover ups and massive incidences which were not even reported.
Bottom line is; don't always believe what you hear or read .
It would be interesting to get real accounts and views of Iranian people living in Iran. Though I'm aware that perhaps you freedom of speech rights are not as free as those in other countries.
It seems that president Khatami does have good intentions for Iran. I believe to succeed with the Islamic Republic it will take gradual change and president Khatami can only do some much with his power and with others who are in control at this time.
Maybe his exposure to people in the city will allow him to reaffirm his civic responsibility to the people. Allowing him to view society and first hand address the peoples issues.
Also, their are certain things that Khatami must do to please certain people in the Iranian government. So at the same time one can only trust him to a certain level, questioning his motives.
It's interesting to read this article at a time that a lot of newspapers complain about the lack of action of the U.S. president Obama. How Khatami is described made me think of several other presidents that embodied hope for the country, radical change and reformism before their election and then, had to cope with the difficulties of governing. "A leader of a different kind" is what both American and Iranian expected with Obama and Khatami. Of course, the two situations were very different nonetheless they both encountered a harsh opposition from the conservatives. They both had supporters for "faster and radical reform" but they were only able to implement gradual reforms such as limited healthcare reform for Obama. Ultimately and more importantly Khatami and Obama have one great thing in common,they gave hope for political change to people that were usually abandoned ( the youth, the women, or the ethnics minorities...).
Khatami's presidency is a real turning point in the Islamic Republic of Iran's history. The immense hope he triggered in the nation ended up being proportional to the disappointment that marked the end of his power.
Precisely, we can wonder what was his real power, his effective room of manoeuver. It appears to me, from this article and from the course, that Khatami, though he really wanted to bring about a radical change, turned out to be completely stuck and constrained by the domination of the conservatives over Iran's institutions. Thus, Khatami had to decide between implementing real change and, by doing so, taking the risk to distabilized the Islamic regime in which he believed; or staying on the beaten paths of his predecessor, and, by doing so, maintaining the stable (?) status quo.
Khatami was clearly supported by the people. But, because of the constitution of the Islamic republic, this was not enough. Because of this constitution, the regime itself seems biased towards the conservative part of the ruling elite. We can easily understand that Khatami didn't want to jeopardize the regime; as he himself said during a discourse that struck me: the Islamic regime is not perfect, but what could guarantee that a better regime would rise if this one was to fall? Khatami still believes in the numerous advantages of this regime, and didn't want to run the risk of a civil war.
Consequently, he had to reach compromises, and these compromies eventually prevented him from implementing the reforms he was elected to carry out. The general disappointment, and feeling of having been deceived, he left at the end of his mandate, was not without consequences, as it opened the way for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who had already been elected at the head of Terhan, as Khatami...), and sounded the death knell of the possibility for progressist reforms.
Musavi, supported as he was by Khatami in 2009, could have started this progressist dynamic over, but he and his supporters were defeated in the troubled conditions that we all know.
Unfortunately it is not shocking to hear one of the American news stations write an article that was mostly positive and attempted to explain why Khatami had failed his people. It is sad that the US will attempt to show the good side of a leader who had his own people jailed and killed.
Khatami in my opinion was almost worse than having a president who is clearly conservative. At least with a clear conservative the population knew where he clearly stood and that he was not trying to change things. Khatami on the other hand campaigned on a progressive campaign, and under false pretenses. He gave the younger generation a hope that was never going to be delivered, therefore people were left with a snake in disguise. The people were left unsure of where they stood and what could bring trouble. Khatami advertised change when he barely wanted slight reform. Then he even had the austenticity to accuse students who had been betrayed by him of not being loyal countrymen.
Khatami lack of inaction and respect towards his own people should have been a major point of this article instead of attempting to excuse his problems away. The article argued that Khatami had many obstacles to face from conservatives and while I do believe that, there were times he cowered behind the conservatives instead of standing up for those who had elected him(students). Therefore I believe that Khatami was aware of his failure, though I am sure he sees it as a succees, and was even content with his failure because he never had intentions of creating change. The people had wanted a revolutionary and he turned out to be a slight reformist.
I think this article touches on some of the true main points. Mohammad Khatami was a charming and charismatic and had a gift of appealing to the people. This is what helped him win the election, because people felt as though he related to them, as if he was one of them, and would fight for them, but as the article started to point out, he far from reached this mark. The article obviously laid on the criticism pretty light, without giving any real facts or insight into how he failed or the opposition he faced. What we saw in class portrayed Khatami much more negatively. From the video in class in almost seems like things got even worse for radicals under his rule. Papers written by or favoring radical ideas were disbanded by the government, and students and radicals were not allowed to protest peacefully without severe ramifications. Khatami is another sad case of a politician wooing the people and failing to hold up any of promises. It seems as though he gave into the pressure of the conservatives in the system to protect himself instead of stand up for the rights he claimed to believe in. It is sad to see that the Iranian people have had such a difficult time finding a ruler who would listen to them and work for them.
Like so many leaders before him, Khatami aggregated much support from the people because of the progressive plans he seemed to be bringing. And also with so many leaders, he fell short, and in so many ways did not meet the expectations people held for him.
It is true that Khatami did have accomplishments within his presidency, including opening up the relations between Iran and many other countries, something that in this modern day and age, is a necessity when running a country.
Even with what he did accomplish, Khatami can only be viewed as a man of a failed plan. He eventually did not appeal to the liberals of the country and he angered many of the conservatives, leaving himself as an awkward moderate. His policies did not enact change, but instead opened the door for gradual change, extremely slow and gradual change. In a sense he almost set the situation up so that he would not be the leader to enact the changes people expected of him (the more liberal people) leaving that a task for a future leader.
It is extremely difficult to categorize Khatami as a person, a leader, a politician because he did not seem to have a solid stance on what it was he truly stood for. Had I been an Iranian youth who voted during the first election, I do not believe I would have voted for him in re-election because he did not follow through on his platforms, he did not accomplish what he said he would, and as history shows, he did not do it during his proceeding term.
I think this article satisfactorily sums up Khatami’s ideaology about Iran when the author says: “Mr. Khatami has no interest in destabilising the state.” Khatami wanted to reform Iran from inside the system. Since it proved impossible to produce the great reforms the citizenry voted for him to produce while still pleasing the Supreme Leader, Khatami decided to abide by the Supreme Leader’s wishes and continue to be meek. Considering how the power structure of Iran makes it impossible for any true revolutionary to even run for office since they must be “approved” by the Guardian Council beforehand, it should surprise nobody that Khatami is not the true revolutionary who will dismantle the theocratic system.
When the Iranian voters failed to re-elect him, to the contrary of what the BBC believed would inevitably happen, I believe it shows how frustrated the people were with the system in general, not with Khatami in particular. The system is designed for stability and keeping the religious aristocracy in power, rather than truly exercising the will of the people.
Even though I may not agree with Khatami in every thing, I think that he points to something very important: gradual change. Too many times has nations tried to change their political system over one night, Iran in 1979 is one example of that, with catastrophic consequences. The most obvious example is seen in the former republics of Soviet, they tried to change their countries political and economical system, 20 years ago today, from authoritarianism and command economy to liberal capitalist democracies often with disastrous results.
I believe that the government plays an important in directing the change, but also, and maybe more important, altering the rate of which change occurs. Too much change, even though the direction is right, often leads to social and political unrest, and thereby undermining the good intentions of the reforms.
However, the problem with Khatami seems to be that he didn't succeed enough change. Even though this can't be blamed entirely on him, he seems to have disappointed many of the progressive forces within Iran, which may be one of the reasons for why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in power today.
It seems that Mohammad Khatami had good intentions for Iran, but just wasn’t able to completely follow through due to time issues and restrictions set upon him. In the beginning of his presidency, Khatami had the support of most of Iran, especially that of the young people and the women. I think that the reason that people supported him so much was because they felt that he was the key to change and progress, not only because of what he promised but also because they felt that unlike the other past presidents, Khatami could relate to the people, since he had lived like most people in Iran and not like the rich. Even though Khatami was pressured to make changes, he believed in gradual change so in that aspect he wasn’t able to please all the Iranian people by making changes as fast as the people wished. Also we must take into consideration that he faced a lot of opposition from the conservatives in the Iranian government. The way that the Iranian government was set up, even though Khatami was president he did not hold absolute power and there were still older conservative government officials that held more power that he did.
In a way I believe that he sort of resembles our view of Obama in the American government. Like Khatami, Obama was a very popular candidate and was greatly supported for his ideas of change. For many people Obama was the key to change and the president, which unlike the ones in the past, people felt they could relate to. I think that that was the opinion of the people in the beginning of Khatami’s presidency; however as time progressed Khatami was not able to make changes as easily and that frustrated the people making them turn against him.
seeing how much the students were disappointed with Khatami brought back so much memory. With all the disappointments, he is still a very popular politician in Iran and people don’t hate him. Yes, most of his reform plans failed. Yes, many people were jailed and some were killed, but I think he helped expose the regime for what it really was. At that time, Reformists had the majority of seats in Majlis and they couldn’t implement any changes because Guardian Council would say it’s against Islamic laws, that simple.
This system of government was there before Khatami got elected and people familiar with the system knew he would not be able to make any notable changes because he did not have the support of the supreme leader. Khatami’s presidency was the beginning of the rift between clerics who were once so united. During his presidency and after the attack on Tehran University, he got scared and he let his supporters down. However, I think he is trying to make up for his mistakes by being alongside Mousavi and Karoubi. Time will tell how Khatami will be remembered.
The article exactly mirrors what happened, at least as we learned it. He was elected on a platform of change and reform, but then because of political careerism and a roadblock of conservatives, he was unable to carry out those proclaimed ideals...Does this remind us of any US politicians, perhaps? His presidency was classic in this respect. I would question his real desire for change, however. It seems significant that he openly stated that he had no desire to reform the system, just tweak it. And there is definitely a certain amount of power that comes with his role--at least, according to what his predecessors did. Therefore it seems that had he been more willing to take serious risks (it was said in class that he was threatened politically if he tried to push through liberal reforms) he would have been more able to create lasting change. The students in the clip we watched seemed to feel the same way. That being said, his election on a platform of ideals is significant, and shows a shift. There seems to have been a real drive by at least a certain section of the population to see things changed.
It seems that back in 1997 when Khatami was first elected and/or campaigning to become elected many progressive Iranian citizens saw an opportunity for real change/reforms and honestly believed Khatami was the man to deliver them.
However, as history plays out and it becomes clearer and clearer that without approval from the religious leaders (non-secular branch of the government), things are not going to change very much at all.
The Iranian people seem like they were almost fooled in a way, given false hopes and promises by Khatami. Didn't Khatami (whose father was a well-known cleric) understand that much of his rhetoric would never turn into action because of the lack of approval?
Despite the many constraints reformist leaders and their followers have suffered, I think it's equally important that at least over the past 12 years "there has been a change in ideas and political discourse...which was quite absent in the 1980's." With the outbreak of violence and protest this summer, it has become evident that this 'discourse' continues to grow stronger and the reaction from the conservatives proves this momentum could open the floodgates for change.
This whole issue reflects a structural problem with Iranian politics. Although politicians can give a voice to reform and attract public support in the short term, there is little that can be done in the long term. People vote for change, but government structures such as the primacy of the Ayatollah mean that the President really cannot do much. How can a Presidential candidate that has to be approved by the Supreme leader really challenge the structure of the regime in any effective way? Why would people even expect Khatami to have done much?
What does become clear is the frustration of the Iranian voters at not being able to get what they want through elections. Although people were disillusioned and perhaps rightfully resentful of Khatami, recent elections have not brought about more positive results and change. Frustration over the imprisonment of political leaders and lack of transparency continues to this day. Khatami may not have been very good but ultimately its a structural problem in Iran's government that needs to be resolved.
The government created in 1980 was built to stay the same. It is fundamentally intractable regardless of who happens to be in the presidency. Regardless of Khatami's intentions or hopes of change, he lacked any real power to achieve change. I do not think that meaningful political change can be accomplished through Presidential elections at this time.
I think that Khatami's intentions for the country of Iran could have potentially been successful had he not been silenced by the conservatives. Although his ideas of civil society, democracy, transparency, and rule of law were promised in a gradual time frame, I think that the public overlooked the fact that the conservative Mullahs were the true people preventing the change from occurring.
I can understand why the people of Iran became so frustrated with why the change was taking so long, especially because such rapid change was introduced into the country during the 1979 revolution. His charm and appeal made it seem like change could potentially be near for the people of Iran, and in a way gave them false hope.
I also thought it was interesting how Khatami was re-elected even though the public had been unhappy with how he had previously led.
I also do not understand why the religious conservatives allowed him to run on a certain platform when they jailed most of his advisors.
It seems to me that the Khatami of this article and the Khatami of presented in Sammy's lectures are two completely different personalities.
The author portray's Khatami as a sincere reformist who, had it not been for intransigent opposition from Iranian hard-liners, would have been successful in fundamentally reforming Iranian society.
Sammy made it clear that whatever gradual changes Khatami wanted for Iran, they fell far short of revolutionary reforms that would be applauded by Western Liberals.
Khatami shrank in the face of mounting opposition. Liberal columnists were assasinated, and their papers were silenced by the government. University students were beaten by the Basij and Khatami in the last case sided with the good squads beating up the students while calling the latter hooligans.
Clearly, whatever Khatami was he was not a reformer in the western sense of the word. In short, the author gives Khatami too much credit and exaggerates the extent to which the conservative opposition he faced while serving as president explains the failure of his promised reforms.
I believe that Khatami was just being strategic in his plans for "gradual change." I know that his peers who wanted reform wanted it to be more intense and quick. However, the Iranian government has had its theocratic connections for so long and so strongly that you cannot expect someone who is elected to completely secularize it immediately. He was voted in, so that means that there is a large amount of people involved with a wide range of opinions and views on how the government should be run. There are the extremely conservative ones and the extremely reformist ones. It is strategic for him to want to please the most people possible in his policies. That means bringing enough change to say "look, I did what I said I would; I reformed things" but without completely alienating the segment of the voters and politicians who are more conservative. It must have been hard to just walk the fine line between his reformist views and his connection to the conservative cleric portion of the Iranian government and population.
If Iran could have a continuation of gradual reformist leaders, then it could obviously slowly lead to a more secular government. It will take time. I guess that is why so many people got so angry at Ahmadinejad winning. One and a half steps forward with Khatami then two steps back with Ahmadinejad.
Yes I do believe that change in Iran is inevitable, however I do not know if it will happen soon. From an outsiders perspective, I see that those who disagree with the current state of affairs are the younger generation who are known to out number the old by many. And, It seems as if Iran's citizens have clashed with modernity. A question that is commonly asked is if Islam is compatible with modernity? There is no right answer as of now. However, those radical conservative Islamic groups happen to collide with modernity because of the pro-western ideology that it is built upon. I am not saying that Iran's youth collides with the older generation because the youth are all supportive of western ideology, but what I'm pointing out is that Iran's traditional political approach is going to have to change in a more diplomatic sense for their political/foreign affairs to reach a state of progression.
Iran's current government is ran by the traditional conservatives from the past. And, it is sad to see that the majority of Iran's current population do not identify themselves with this type of ideology. Overtime change is destine to happen due to this split in political spheres, but there will probably be bloodshed as the monarch is overthrown. I do believe that Iran's youth is on a road to prosperity as they educate themselves and diligently wait for their turn to reign politically.
Reading this article was interesting for me to read because I related it to much of what happened with the Obama election. Khatami was democratically elected and had great support from the youth and allowed for hope in reform and change to be made in Iran. This is similar to Obama's propaganda campaign leading with "Hope" as his main one-word slogan. The hope he inspired contributed to the disappointment of the people when he didn't reform as much as they had hoped he would. This brings up the question of how much power Khatami actually had in bringing about constitutional change, and for that matter how much Obama can do for this country. However, it seems that he was restricted by the religious and he had to constantly conform to their conservative/religious platforms.
Obama and Khatami have a lot in common. They both ran on a platform of quick radical change, but are and were only able to incurr gradual reform within the system. However, since Khatami didn't live up to his hype and didn't bring the people what he promised, his failure was all the more great. Will this happen with Obama?
This article was divided into three sections.
The first section described his platform and his successes in politics which led to his 1997 election. He was described as a "humble clergyman" who "kisses babies" and "rides on public buses". The article places responsibility for his success in getting elected president largely on his charisma.
The second section lays out his overall inability to put into action the changes and reformed which he promised the iranian people both before and after he was elected. The article places the responsibility for this as largely being due to a conservative control of most Iranian infrastructure, even though Khatami and the reformers indeed had control of parliament. This section also laid out the positive changes in Iranian (reformist) political ideology, talking of Khatami as responsible for integrating such concepts as "civil society, democracy, transparency, and role of law."
The third section points out the virtue of his ideology which may have led to his downfall: he advocated for nothing faster than a gradual change. Thus, he could not put all of his promises into action at once, and had to add an element of timing into his actions as president.
In reading this article, I can't help but wonder if the radical change Khatami promised is possible in a complex and unusual political system that combines elements of a modern Islamic theocracy with democracy. In a country where those under the age of 25 make up roughly 75% of it's population, promises to make Iran a more free and democratic state are going to be very well received. After all, Khatami did capture 70% of the vote in his successful 1997 presidential election. However, Khatami has not been able to put his reformist program into practice. So why has he failed in delivering his promises? Why has this happened?
I can't help but explore the idea that perhaps the judiciary powers being controlled by the Council of Gaurdians who are appointed (not elected) by the Supreme Leader have had a decisive influence in a reformist political program. In 2000, Current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been referred to by the Committee to Protect Journalists as "one of the top ten enemies of the press and freedom of expression". How can a quick radical shift to a more democratic system of government take place when the Supreme Leader is arguably an enemy to freedom of expression-- a cornerstone to democracy ?
The article definitely gives Khatami a heavy amount of support in stating his popularity and his political agenda, however as we saw, and as the article foreshadows at the end, Khatami's presidency was a huge letdown. The failure of Khatami to complete the radical change he supposedly intended to take place could be blamed on the hard-line conservatives within Iran and the inability for Khatami to actually make these changes happen. However, the "gradual change" Khatami is claimed to have believe in only makes one think, as Shabnam says, that maybe Khatami only wanted slight reform. As we saw at the end of his Presidency, at his farewell speech, the people were fed up and disgusted at the events that took place during his presidency. It is a shame that he was so popular, and so charming, but could not deliver what he had once preached before he was president. The one positive side of all this that I strongly agree with is the fact that there was "a change in ideas", which definitely for me is the stem of political change within a society.
I think the article perfectly encapsulates the optimism surrounding Khatami. Although in the end he didn't manage to achieve much, we went into the presidency with the best of intentions. And for reform hungry voters, he was the option on the ballot. I like the comparison that another blogger made between Khatami and Obama. I think it helps put the mindset of Iranian voters into focus. Iranians wanted real change to happen, so they sure weren't going to vote for the conservative candidate, yet they still believed enough in the system and that reform could be accomplished through internal politics and governance. Ultimately, Khatami showed this wasn't possible in Iran, as hardliner's intervened and hampered him very step of the way, leaving, I think, many Iranian voters disillusioned with the whole government. Its easy to see why the reformers choose to boycott the elections after Khatami because Khatami's administration convinced many of them there is no legitimate means of reform through the system. So in their mind, reform will have to come from outside. That may explain the current civil unrest in Iran today, as many young people seek much needed reform through alternative channels.
It must have been exciting for Iranians to think that a common man, Khatami, was running for office. They mention in the article that he used to ride in buses to imply that. Perhaps that is why it was easy to believe that he would bring the change he promised. He didn’t bring the so long awaited reform that many Iranians had waited for, but it wasn’t because he didn’t wanted to. It was the unfortunate reality that faces a lot of developing countries like Iran: Corrupt politics. There are powerful elites who control what kind of changes can be brought about. And reformist put their lives in the line to bring small changes. Some reformers die for speaking against corruption before they can even bring any changes.
Khatami's promises of change remind me of Obama's. Although both entered office promising the common people change, they have not been able to deliver on their promises. Nevertheless, in both cases, both politicians have changed the mentality of their countries through their rhetoric; this is arguably even more important than legislative change. After all, legislation can always be repealed, but thought and emotion can never be truly contained.
One noticeable difference between the two politicians is that Obama seems to advocate rapid change while Khatami is a proponent of slow, controlled change. Both strategies have their cons and pros, and it ultimately depends on the politician implementing the strategy and the atmosphere of the nation whether the strategy can be successfully implemented.
Lastly, both politicians have been blocked by opposition in the government. In this case, the conservative opposition for both politicians.
The parallels between Khatami and Obama are intriguing to me because they relate these two men who are leading completely different countries, yet they have many of the same ideologies.
Khatami seems to have a very logical mindset about Iranian politics. The gradual change approach to avoid bloodshed seems like a great approach despite its inability to satisfy reformists who want change now. Nonetheless, as others have pointed out, even gradual change cannot take place when you do not have the final say. And this is what really, in my opinion, shows limited hope for Iranian politics. What's the point of getting excited and building support for someone to drive change when they do not have it within their power to do so. It's irrational. If anything it paints a target on those who dissent. By showing support for change when you knowingly can't affect it you only expose yourself as a dissenter and are now in an extremely vulnerable position.
I think the Iranian people thought Khatami would revolutionize the government in a major way and create change in terms of social rights and renewed relations with the rest of the world. Although I think he was a breathe of fresh air by at least promising change and not having a hardline stance he failed to deliver on his platform of change. I do not think that Khatami really wanted to address the problems of civil rights and other social problems that many Iranian people wanted. Rather I think he reverted to his religious roots as soon as he took office and did not really challenge the hard line stance of the religious elite in Iran's government. I do not think it was really Khatami's fault for not delivering on his ideas of reform but rather the deeply entrenched Islamic ideology in Iran's government. Khatami is only one person and is not the supreme leader who wields ultimate authority. Also the rest of people in charge of Iran's government were mostly fundamentally religious. It's not a true two party system as in the U.S. but rather overwhelmingly tilted to the religious side. Khatami did the most he could considering the opposition he faced. In order for true change there has to be a complete overhaul of the system.
I think the reason Khatami wasn't able to get the things he promised done is EXACTLY for the same reasons President Obama has been having trouble. Obama has lots of reformist ideas and plans just like Khatami, but, just like Khatami, he has to deal with conservative idiots who base all their ideas on their religious views and throw human rights and equality out the window. I feel sorry for Iran and Khatami for missing out on what could have been a great change to the country. I just hope Obama's presidency isn't going to end up in the same way. Bottle-necked by the conservative bureaucracy.
I would argue that although Khatami is a reformist leader, he is simply a reformist relative to other individuals running for the Presidency. As we have learned in class, every single person wishing to run for the Presidency has to be audited multiple times by the Guardian council and ultimately the Supreme leader Ayotallah Ali Khomenei. Even though Khatami ran with a reformist agenda, he had the full support of the Islamists in the country and thus it can't really be said that reform was to be expected.
However, he did bring instrumental changes to the country that weren't possible during the reign of other leaders. He attempted to help the economy and helped employ almost as many Iranians as have lost jobs under Ahmadinejad's administration. We have to remember that on a relative scale, Khatami may be a "reformer" but there is no way we can call him a true reformist because the Islamic council has the final say. Moreover, Khatami basically said sorry that he messed up in his first term and that things are going to be different in the second term. Unfortunately, there was still no reform because regardless of how many institutions are controlled by these "reformists", until the Council and Ayotallah want change, there will be no change.
I would argue that although Khatami is a reformist leader, he is simply a reformist relative to other individuals running for the Presidency. As we have learned in class, every single person wishing to run for the Presidency has to be audited multiple times by the Guardian council and ultimately the Supreme leader Ayotallah Ali Khomenei. Even though Khatami ran with a reformist agenda, he had the full support of the Islamists in the country and thus it can't really be said that reform was to be expected.
However, he did bring instrumental changes to the country that weren't possible during the reign of other leaders. He attempted to help the economy and helped employ almost as many Iranians as have lost jobs under Ahmadinejad's administration. We have to remember that on a relative scale, Khatami may be a "reformer" but there is no way we can call him a true reformist because the Islamic council has the final say. Moreover, Khatami basically said sorry that he messed up in his first term and that things are going to be different in the second term. Unfortunately, there was still no reform because regardless of how many institutions are controlled by these "reformists", until the Council and Ayotallah want change, there will be no change.
I would argue that although Khatami is a reformist leader, he is simply a reformist relative to other individuals running for the Presidency. As we have learned in class, every single person wishing to run for the Presidency has to be audited multiple times by the Guardian council and ultimately the Supreme leader Ayotallah Ali Khomenei. Even though Khatami ran with a reformist agenda, he had the full support of the Islamists in the country and thus it can't really be said that reform was to be expected.
However, he did bring instrumental changes to the country that weren't possible during the reign of other leaders. He attempted to help the economy and helped employ almost as many Iranians as have lost jobs under Ahmadinejad's administration. We have to remember that on a relative scale, Khatami may be a "reformer" but there is no way we can call him a true reformist because the Islamic council has the final say. Moreover, Khatami basically said sorry that he messed up in his first term and that things are going to be different in the second term. Unfortunately, there was still no reform because regardless of how many institutions are controlled by these "reformists", until the Council and Ayotallah want change, there will be no change.
I think when Khatami was first elected he couldn’t have anticipate the degree of difficulty bringing political reform to a system full of power struggles. Khatami won the election because he was able to establish a new image that the Iranian people had been waiting for, an image of a common person seeking to bring more rights and better life to the lower classes. He promised changes, and he did many things in front of the media that appealed to the public. However, his plans faced oppositions from those in power and wish things to stay the same during his first term. But as Khatami continued to push his ideas about reform, he gradually transforms the way things are in Iran. His approach of avoiding direct conflict with the traditional institutes set the tone for a peaceful and long term social reform was questioned by his active supporters, but I think this approach will benefit the Iranian people in the long run as it will plant the seeds of reform deep in the Iranian soil.
This article presents a great view of how Khatami’s presidency was supposed to run through, providing examples of him being a unique politician who was not like the other religious leaders of Iran. He apparently charmed his way through the election, reciting what the people wanted to hear. We have already seen what happened to Khatami at the end of his term, when he was bombarded by criticism by the students of Iran, but I could not help but draw a possible comparison to our current president Obama. Throughout his campaign, Obama constantly promoted “change” and it would be interesting to see what would happen if Obama did not deliver on his promises and if his destiny would be the same as Khatamis was. If this same author wrote a piece about Khatami four years later, he would have the complete opposite opinion about his candidacy.
In my opinion, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was LBJ, and Khatami was Kennedy (minus the assasination). I know that is in wrong chronological order, but let's face it...Pahlavi promised a lot, came through with some, but then was plagued with the ugliness of a bloody revolution. LBJ pushed through his Great Society, but the Vietnam War proved to be his downfall.
John F. Kennedy shaped a generation, noone forgot the reigh of Camelot, even if it was more talk, some mistakes, and little action. Khatami could be viewed as the same, a JFK of sorts in a theocratic Iran. He looks the part, much better looking, more charismatic, and charming then his predecessors. I bet most of the young people that voted for him, as they watched him campaign, forgot that he was even a mullah!
Unfortunately, Khatami faced some challenges in his presidency, as the article brings up. This is where the story differs from JFK, reform in Iran is not easy. For every reformist candidate, there is ten traditional reactionaries. One step forward, and they want to push you three steps back. There is no way that Khatami couldve brought about the kinds of reform he campaigned for, as certain conservatives with vested interests and a lot of power stood in the way.
So was he completely useless? I don't think so. He shaped a generation. Those who watched him campaign and become President a decade ago, came to understand that it was OK to expect legitimacy and honesty from your politicians. and that their voice could be heard. Those are the same people, I bet, who marched out and protested this past June.
Khatami was and still is a great politician. He understood that Rome was not built in one day. and I believe he laid down some of the foundation.
It seems that Khatami has not come through on his promises to the Iranian people. Seemed to have good intentions upon placement as president, Khatami portrayed his campaign as a change, similar to Obama. He wanted to change Iran in every manner possible, economically, politically, symboliccally when reffering to Iran's portrayal in the Western world. However these changes did not come to fruition. He instead incoporated a slight reform. Now if this article was published by American based or at least monetarily dependent on an American source I would have trouble believing some of the points and tid bits of information. However the BBC attempts to give the world a unbias view of current events. Therefore this article is true and unbias. So when reffering to Khatami, one can understand that he was a man of good intentions and yearned for Iran to be portrayed in a different light, however his political domestic policy did not affirm the same points.
Post a Comment