Watch A Death in Tehran on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
Watch A Death in Tehran on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
After you finish watching Neda's story and read the linked article on Iran's middle class today, blog your comments on the legitimacy of the Iranian regime and the current political culture in the theocratic republic.
Iran's middle class on edge
19 comments:
It seems to me that there is a divide between the average Iranian citizen and the government on a number of levels. The video about Neda's death demonstrated that there is political conflict concerning what is best for Iran as a nation on the global scale and what is best for the everyday people. The article revealed that middle class Iranians don't care about a show of strength to western countries, instead focusing on their livelihood. Meanwhile, the Iranian government's actions has resulted in consequences that are hurting the people of Iran instead of successfully sanctioning dangerous activities.
Quran or Koran?
BTW, I noticed some of you smirking when today's PPT had dual spellings of Koran, or Quran. Well as you know, I used to be a print journalism and well how to refer to this holy book has been tricking for secular scribes:
(From the American Journalism Review, Jan. 2007)
For nearly 25 years, the Associated Press Stylebook adhered to "Koran" and "Mohammed" as the correct way to spell two commonly used Arabic words. Then, in 2000, it opted instead for "Quran" and "Muhammad," and in the 2003 print edition it added an entry for "al-Qaida." The changes reflect a balancing act taking place not only at the AP but also in newsrooms around the country. In an e-mail interview, Stylebook Editor Norm Goldstein wrote: "We try to come up with a spelling that is understandable to United States readers and as close as possible to the actual pronunciation." But as editors from San Antonio to Detroit explained to AJR, the arbiters of style don't necessarily agree.
Dan Puckett, copy editor, the San Antonio Express-News:
New variations create confusion, says Puckett, who disagrees with the AP's decision to change some of its established spellings. "I've heard people get bogged down in 'Quran' with a 'Q,' saying, 'How do you pronounce this?'" Puckett, a former chairman of the St. Petersburg Times' stylebook committee, feels Americans are less likely to mispronounce "Koran" because it's more familiar.
Kay Siblani, executive editor, the Arab American News:
Siblani, who runs a bilingual paper serving the Arab American community in Southeast Michigan, dislikes when people refer to the Islamic holy book with an emphasis on the first syllable, as in "Koe-ran." "It's like saying 'A-rab' or 'Sa-dam,'" she says. "It's sort of like an intentional denigration." As for the spelling, she says newspapers should use one that better reflects the original pronunciation — Qur'an.
David Jrolf, night editor, the Boston Globe:
The Globe, Jrolf says, uses a range of criteria — "what we see in the media, public documents, what our foreign desk tells us" — to determine its style. It uses the "Koran" spelling because "we have an American audience," Jrolf says. "We have to use what would be most common to our audience." The spelling of "Shi'ite," however, relies on a different rationale. "We were told it's more accepted in the Middle East with an apostrophe," Jrolf says. And "Al Qaeda" went through several incarnations before 9/11, when it appeared at different times as "al Qaeda," "al-Qaeda," and "Al-Qaeda." The paper finally opted for Al Qaeda.
Ray Hanania, freelance columnist:
Hanania, a Palestinian American who writes a syndicated column on the Middle East, would like to see an industry-wide standard for the spelling of Arabic words to alleviate misunderstandings. "If I spell 'Mohammed' [as opposed to 'Muhammad'] in my story as a non-Arab columnist," he says, "the readers who happen to be Arabs or Muslims or both are going to take a meaning out of it that the writer didn't intend." But given the diversity of the Arab-speaking world, he acknowledges that a universal style would be difficult to achieve: "Nobody in the Middle East is going to start..an Arab World stylebook."
COPY EDITED FIRST GRAPH
BTW, I noticed some of you smirking when today's PPT had dual spellings of Koran, or Quran. Well as you know, I used to be a PRINT JOURNALIST, and well, how to refer to this holy book has been tricking for secular scribes.
I think that the government must have some legitimacy if even after prices have been doubling for many products over the past year, there has not been massive protests from the people of Iran. There must be some faith in the government to restore order since the dissent has not been very public. At the same time, although previous protests like those after the presidential elections have failed, in a few years I believe the government will be weak enough and the people will be angry enough to truly change the government. Tensions are clearly rising and as the middle class is hit harder by the economic stagnation Iran's legitimacy will be called into question much more.
I believe there is little legitimacy in the Iranian government. The protests after the presidential elections show that people do not have a lot of faith in the government. As the economic situation gets worse for the middle class I believe the people will continue to lose faith in the government and protests like they did after the elections. The article states that the middle class salary is not enough to pay for basic necessities like food. These are the kinds of problems that lead to lost of legitimacy in the government.
While the shooting of Neda's death and the disputed election results brought uproar in Iran, there was still legitimacy of the election and the regime by Ahmadinejad supporters and the Ayatollah who called for the protests to end. However as Iran's economy continues to slump forcing many of the middle class to use western currency, I see in the near future that the blame for the economic struggles will be placed on the government as food and medical prices become higher. While many Iranian citizens question regime legitimacy due to high rates of capital punishment and media censorship, many middle class families are struggling to buy food and other goods with a weak currency while the wealthy are still making profits. As stated in the article, "Iran's economy has always been sick, now it's even worse" I believe around next year's presidential elections Iranians will show their frustration with the current regime and clamor for a change for a candidate that will boost economic growth amidst sanctions with the west.
Iran's primary system of rule seems to be through fear. Fear of the military, fear of God, fear of consequences. Although this does lend the government some legitimacy in the sense that it is adhered to, it becomes a problem in the sense that it is not a positive form of legitimacy. Eventually, as the film shows, people get fed up enough with the system that they do revolt regardless of the potential backlash. I think it's only a matter of time until the citizens try again for change, and to be honest, the government can't hold out forever.
Although I hate to say this about my own nation of Iran, all of these things that I have seen and studied over the last couple days seem to imply that Iran is not to legit and it may need to quit. The elections are highly contested and, hard to deny it, rigged. The youth in the country are being abused whenever they rally. And it just seems like Iran is doing stuff I would not expect an international power to do in today's society.
I think there is still some legitimacy in the Iranian government as there still is some popular support of the government, especially due to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, as well as its religious backing. However, it appears that as time goes on, the Iranian people are less confident in their government, as seen in the protests after the election, and the government is slowly losing their legitimacy. For now, the Iranian government is fine but I think in the long run it may not be able to depend on the legitimacy it gains from religion.
There are two things holding together the Iranian regime: fear and nationalism. Fear is brought by the Revolutionary Guard and the militia Basij, who rode through protestors on motorcycles, waving batons. However, fear alone can not hold together a regime. Nationalism is the second factor. The Iranian government is very skilled at instilling a sense of nationalism amongst its people. Many Iranians feel that the regime is autocratic, but at least it does not bend the knee to the US, Israel, and the UK like other Middle Eastern governments (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, etc) do.
However, this nationalism is not a guarantee. The youth of Iran does not remember the US-backed Shah anymore. They don't remember the Iran-Iraq War. All they see is an oppressive government trying to tell them how to live their lives. Eventually this will have to end. Probably not this year - probably not this decade. But eventually.
The fear that the Iranian people have of the military doesn't show legitimacy at all. The elections are obviously rigged and the revolts in 2009 after the most recent presidential election shows the rest of the world that the Iranian citizens are upset with their government to say the least. Legitimacy and Democracy should go hand and hand. Even though some Communist nations did have some ligitimacy over the years, the fear eventually proved to be too much for the people to handle and the governments fell. This will eventually happen to Iran, the will of the people will overcome.
Dating back to the Iranian revolution which established religious rule in Iran, I still believe there is a degree of legitimacy in the country. With the ability to blend religion and law under Shi'a Islam, some may obey the government in fear of god. Also, those who do want to express discontent, have a "viable" outlet in voting for the opposition. As long as they don't protest, at least these people are able to participate in an election. Relating to Neda, I think this does illustrate some of the cracks in legitimacy in Iran. The media, specifically western, has used Neda as a maurder for the country and is being seen as what is wrong with Iran. (The fact that innocent civilians like her are dying.)
I personally believe that the Iranian government doesn't really have any legitimacy. It is a huge problem with them suppressing the protests that have been going on since 2009. They also have a government that is causeing a lot of problems with other countries and that is probably hurting their economy. Pretty soon the people are just gonna get completely fed up with them.
Right now, I do not think that the Iranian government has much legitimacy. But to say that they will soon have that legitimacy, is questionable. I personally do not think that Iran will come to a legitimate government. It is full of corruption and power stuggles that will ultimately lead to a fall of the regime, just like it did in the countries that were effected by the Arab springs.
It's not fair at all that the consequences of the government's selfish decisions are being shouldered, for the most part, by the Iranian middle class. The purpose of government is to look out for the best interests of the people. Political leaders aren't supposed to get caught up in personal vendettas which have adverse effects on everyday people. However, this may just be a Westerner point of view. Being part of a Democratic nation, I believe in the ideas of government "for the people". The seperation of church and state is important to me.
I think it's hard to claim that the Iranian government lacks all legitimacy. While it may be a strange idea to most Americans, a theocracy in which church and state are inextricably intertwined is (in theory, at least) a strong form of government. Centering a system of governance around something that is so very essential in the lives of a given nation's citizens is (again in theory) a bona-fide method by which loyalty may be obtained. However, religious convictions aside, people don't like being told what to do or how to interpret things; they don't like being limited in an age of globalization and technology; and they don't like it when the change they seek to enact is quite literally shot down. The question is where the balance between faith and lack of liberties actually IS in Iran, if it even exists at all. At the moment, especially considering the state of Iran following the 2009 election and the current, odious position it holds with respect to most of the civilized world, it's hard to see such a balance, and easy to see that Iranian legitimacy is a proverbial Sword of Damocles; the slightest perturbation will mean the end.
I think that Iran has control and legitimacy for the time being. What threatens the regime the most is the growing social cleavage between the youth and the older population. At this time Iran has enough support from the population older than thirty to remain legitimate and in power. 20 years from now the story could be drastically different as the voice of the young population grows. If the younger population's values remain the same, which is not guaranteed, great change may come.
I believe that Iran does still have some legitimacy, although this may change in the near future. As noted in the article, "The rising economic panic has illustrated — and possibly intensified — the bitter divisions within Iran’s political elite. A number of insiders, including members of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, have begun openly criticizing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in recent weeks." Before, no one would have dared openly criticized the aforementioned supreme leader. However, with rising tensions that result from the declining economy, it is evident that Iranians are now questioning the legitimacy of the government.
It seems to me that in Iran, people are too daunted by the consequences of stepping out of line or opposing the status quo because of how strict and brutal the regime is. Legitimacy is very probably present in Iran--but not for the same reasons it is present in the United States or Canada or the like. It is probably present because of Iran's constituents' fear. The political culture is also dominated by fear. There is little outside input. I think that the political culture in Iran, due to its theocratic structure, is less focused on the inputs outside individuals can make and more focused on how well they can follow command.
Post a Comment