This week consisted of Khatami and the reform movement in Iran. For this post, you will need to answer at least one of the following three questions:
1. Describe some of the impediments Khatami experienced during his presidency. Why did the reformists "fall," so to speak? What is it about the Iranian power structure that hindered his efforts?
2. Do you feel that the "dialogue of civilizations" is an idea that can succeed in the world we live in? Does it deviate from our Western mode of thinking? Use citations from Khatami's text, located in the reader.
3. Do you think Khatami made the right choice by not overtly supporting the student uprising of 1999? What could have been some consequences?
8 comments:
Warning! Protection: here or here
From what I understand of the student uprising and the "Almost Revolution" I believe that Khatami did the right thing if his interest was self preservation. The "Almost Revolution" did not appear to be a movement that was going to gain any real political traction and generate true change in Iran. The reason the students were upset was because the Iranian government was closing down a newspaper that had printed a letter of a dissenting viewpoint from Emmani. It was clear to President Khatami that the Supreme Leader and others in the Iranian government would not move from their position on the press.
Many people felt that President Khatami should have sided with the students after their was a midnight assault on the dorm at the university. Hezbollah stormed the dormitory killing students in their rooms and throwing them from the windows to their deaths. This horrible act is obviously something that should be condemned, and would be in many countries around the world. But the politics of Iran restrain the power of the President and he answers to the Supreme Leader. It was clear that this assault was ordered by the Supreme Leader or someone under him. Because of this it became inherently dangerous for Khatami to comment on the situation. By not saying anything he protected the other students, himself, and his followers from harm. Khatami's silence saved him politically too because he was able to continue as President. People were upset that he did not act, but because he did not he was able to govern another day and continue to make change in Iran.
Many reformists must have been crushed by Khatami's response to the university uprising in 1999. However, Khatami's decision was necessary for his own survival. If he had come out in favor of the students, he and the 'revolutionaries' both would have been soundly defeated. Khatami's power was dwarfed by Khamenei's, and despite popular support in the universities the revolution was not nearly organized or large enough to put up a fight against the rest of the country. Khatami would have been vilified by the state-run press and would have probably been tried, convicted, and imprisoned or killed. Any demonstration would have ended in more bloodshed. Khatami's decision, while probably against his true feelings, saved many Iranian lives and saved his presidency, allowing him to continue to try to improve the country.
It seems to me that Khatami made the only choice he could have made by not overtly supporting the student uprising. This uprising was not large or strong enough to change too much what was going on and for Khatami, even though he wanted to support it, he couldn't because not only would it have ended his career and most likely put him in jail. It would have made it not possible for him to continue and fight to improve the country. He went against how he felt deeply inside for the good of his people.
Khatami brings forth some ideas that I agree with, but I'm uncertain about how successful they can be in today's world. He talks about transforming the world to develop more humane societies, but goes on to say that "development is a Western construct." Although Khatami strives for a peaceful dialogue between Iran and the West, this statement can be perceived as an attack on Western values. Certain parts of Khatami's text seem to blame the West for many problems, which could be offensive to Khatami's Western audience. For the most part, however, his ideas are positive can be appreciated by both Iranians and Americans.
Student Revolt
I feel like Khatami made the right decision in not overtly supporting the student uprising. At first glance, his silence may come off as cowardice, but when one actually thinks about the political environment of Iran, it becomes apparent that his decision demonstrated more pragmatism than fear.
Its simple to get swept up in the romanticism of the situation. The intelligent youth with boldness and bravado rising up against an unjust, semi-tyrannical regime. However, all emotions of admiration aside, one realizes that this was NOT a movement, compared to the revolution itself this was a small-scale street march. It did not have the zealous support of the masses. On the contrary, the adult population, still weary from the war with Iraq, would most likely have shown mass opposition to the movement. So...It wouldn't seem like a legitimate political decision for Khatami to risk his reign (and the liberalism which he brought to the government) for the sake of a student movement, that was inevitably going to lose steam and die. Hence, as much as I admire the students' passion and as much as I lament over their misfortunes, I do not think Khatami should have pledged full-steam support for their movement.
However, the actions of the Hizbollah thugs should have been condemned with severity. They definetly SHOULD have been given greater attention, however we do not know the internal workings of the government. Whether the supreme leader or a high-ranking mullah ordered the assault. Considering Khatami is restricted in his power and is outranked in the government, the blame for this cannot lie squarely upon his soldiers.
While I do not fully agree with Khatami's lack of support for the student uprising, I can sympathize with his desire for self-preservation and the reality that pledging support may not have made the movement any stronger and might in fact have hurt it by provoking stronger retaliation. That having been said, I think that a stronger denouncement of Hezbollah actions towards the students was in order.
As far as his ideas of a dialogue of civilizations, his reaction towards his country's place in the movement towards technological advancement reminds me of Bernard Lewis's in "What Went Wrong" which i had always understood to be a very orientalist portrayal of eastern envy for western modernity. He makes a convincing argument for this dialogue, but I think his main achievement through a lack of support for the student uprising was to keep the peace, and not foster better international relations.
I think that Khatami missed a great opportunity to support the student up rising of the 90's and support a trend towards the political liberalisation of Iran. Khatami is no doubt a man of faith and a believer in the islamic republic but by not acting to support the student uprising and instead issuing a veiled rebuke of the students he missed an opportunity to improve the relations between the west and a moderate islamic republic, i understand the motivations however of wanting to protect the islamic republic and the possibility that he would have face rebuke from the supreme leader and others within the government, however by not supporting the students at least on principle and denouncing the violence hezbollah entering the dorm rooms he sabotaged his own argument against the united states and his calls for discussion between civilizations.
Post a Comment