15 June 2009. A World to Win News Service. Following are reports sent to Bazr, which describes itself as a Marxist Iranian student organisation. These reports have been selected, excerpted and edited slightly for clarity, but they are basically "raw footage" from students and others active in the political turmoil preceding and especially following the 12 June elections. They are in reverse chronology.
Saturday 13 June
Fatima Square was tense starting this morning. People who were there then say that many were viciously arrested. The special police were controlling all the streets leading to the Interior Ministry. They were everywhere. Passers-by were not allowed to stop. Anyone who made the slightest objection was arrested or hit with electric batons. But not many people had gathered yet. Chants of "Death to the dictator" rang out from every street corner. Motorists responded by honking; the police responded to any gathering with batons, kicking and beatings. Shops had pulled their shutters halfway down, and the owners were allowing people to take shelter there. A police loudspeaker ordered all the merchants to close down completely, warning that everything was being filmed and that anyone who failed to comply with orders would be in trouble.
After office hours more people rushed to Fatima Square and Vali Asr Street. First on the sidewalks and then in the street people were chanting "Death to the dictator". [There was some ambiguity as to whether the “dictator” was Ahmadinejad or both him and Khamenei – the plural of dictator doesn’t rhyme in Farsi.] When the police attacked, people ran, then stopped and went back to shouting slogans, but there still was no coordination among them and they were scattered. The support local residents gave demonstrators was amazing. The people in the area sheltered escaping protestors in their homes.
Amidst all this we heard that a contingent of a thousand demonstrators was walking from Vanak (northern Tehran) towards Fatima Square. This news encouraged the protesters around the Interior Ministry and many of those watching from the sidewalks joined them. People blocked Vali Asr Street waiting for the marchers to arrive. They sat on the street and didn't let cars go north. After 20 minutes the marchers arrived and more people joined the protest. Then the police charged into the crowd, but the crowd counter-attacked. Several police were beaten and four police motorcycles and three police cars were burned. From this moment the crowd moved with more courage and determination. Teargas grenades were streaming toward the crowd but people kept chanting slogans and shouting. They broke bank windows, burned city garbage cans and pulled down fences along the street while marching towards theInterior Ministry. Two city buses were also set on fire. Gunshots were heard everywhere [although at that point the police were apparently firing into the air].
Later we heard many stories of arrests and vicious police attacks, including against young kids and elderly people in the crowd. The fighting continued until 8 pm when the fully-armed special forces were brought in. It was announced that they would have the right to shoot. At first they tried to scatter people and lure them into the side streets. They never attacked alone. Instead, groups of them, armed to the teeth, would all attack one person at a time. Soon they had scattered the crowd and were not afraid any more. They took back control of Vali Asr Street.
Many youth didn't expect such brutality from the police. Some even refused to believe that they were really Iranian. Despite the many witnesses and cameras the police broke the neck of one young woman, beat up an elderly woman with an electric baton and committed many more crimes. But people helped each other. They didn't let the police ambulances grab the injured and took them to local clinics and hospitals themselves. There were rumours that some soldiers were overheard speaking Arabic and turned out to be Lebanese [a total fantasy]. Some of the soldiers, in response to people protesting their viciousness, would say: "Your time is up, now it's our turn."
A young student: Everybody is flabbergasted. The text messaging system has been shut down since two days before the election and half an hour ago (about 18 GMT 13 June) the whole mobile phone system was cut off. The [state-run] TV is not saying anything about the protests, but the Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] said in a broadcast, "Our enemies want to rob the people of the sweetness of their victory. Be vigilant." Nobody else is being shown on the telly. We are getting information through Facebook (filtered during the elections but clear for the last two days) and Web sites (most of which are filtered too). Where I live, many people are depressed, but in Vanak and Zartosht and Vali Asr (downtown Teheran) as well as in front of the Interior Ministry, things are moving…
Latest news: the police have attacked the hospitals in order to arrest the injured. And there have been altercations between the police and the nurses and doctors who resisted this.
"The Hope of the Hopeless" – A leaflet some worker activists distributed 13 June
The deceiving presidential elections ended with predetermined results: Ahmadinejad's victory. The people who in the last few weeks marched in the streets with many hopes and small dreams and who thought "This time is different" are flabbergasted and disillusioned. The organized security and law and order forces and a part of Shiite clergy who have put their outrageous and lying peons in power as planned are in a state of readiness. Anyone looking with open eyes at what was going on behind the scenes in the campaign, anyone not resting content with the expressions of naïve enthusiasm of young women and men, could predict the enormous fraud. The Islamic Republic's intelligence services were assured that Ahmadinejad would be the victor. Intelligence agency rumour-mongers and those organising the government's opinion poles over the last two weeks were saying, "the Leader is with Ahmadinejad, so he'll be the winner for sure." The threats against unauthorized demonstrations issued by the commanders of the repressive forces – even before the election – were a powerful clue that a fraud was being organised.
Isn't what is going on in front of people's eyes yet more proof of the regime’s illegitimacy? Do the conciliatory forces and reactionaries turned "democrats" – who bombarded the people's minds in the last two weeks and drew many people to the ballot box by giving them hope of change – have anything to say today? The reality is that, as usual, the ruling system was the winner of elections. The vast participation of the masses was taken as legitimising the system. And this was the main goal of the election game.
Convincing or pushing the discontented masses to vote in this reactionary game was the common point agreed upon by not only various factions of the IRI but also the imperialist powers. They tried to convince the masses who had not trusted the regime for a long time that they should chose between the lesser of two evils, and be happy that one of those evils would win. It's enough to pay attention to the propaganda broadcasts of the Voice of America and the BBC Persian service to see how they helped heat up the oven of the elections and convinced undecided and distrustful people that by taking their hopes to the temples of Mousavi and Karoubi [the two reform candidates] things could change for the better. Now, after the results have been announced, we see the same imperialist media trying as hard as they can to persuade angry youth from expressing their dissatisfaction and revolt. Has the influence of reformist thinking and illusion-creating policies been so strong that it saps the strength of the system's opponents and dampens the fire of struggle against these outrageous oppressors?
All these events should at least have the positive side of dealing a blow to illusions and pipe-dreaming among the people. The youth who were chanting slogans, singing and dancing night and day with the hope of breaking the wall of oppression and suppression – will they accept such injustice? Amidst all this, the question we struggling workers and activists related to the workers' movement want to pose is this: Can one be the vanguard of change by staying aloof from events? The positions and scattered leaflets here and there of worker activists against the election farce are far from enough. There is danger in this. The situation must be understood and correct slogans and politics developed rapidly and taken to workplaces, neighbourhoods and streets. Once again this fundamental truth must loudly resound throughout society so that bewilderment and disillusionment does not lead to demoralization: Revolution is the hope of the hopeless!
Reports from the days leading up to elections
Ever since the campaign started, the debate was on among the people. Many youth wore [Islamic] green headbands or armbands to show allegiance to Mousavi. The colour of Karoubi was off-white and Ahmadinejad supporters wore black (but later started carrying the tricolour Iranian flag). Everywhere we go, in taxis, bus, the tube, even street corners, there is talk about the election. Almost everybody expresses an opinion. Even people wearing green ribbons are saying, "We know it's a matter of choosing between two evils, that Mousavi is not our man, but we'll vote to keep Ahmadinejad from being re-elected."
I was on a bus. At one stop a young man came on and started distributing green ribbons. When he reached me, I didn't take it. He said, "What's wrong with you? You're young, aren’t you?" I said, "I'm young but my brain does work. I don't want to vote." After he left debate raged. A middle-aged woman said, "Who the fuck is Mousavi? We haven't forgotten that when he was prime minister the Sarollah [Islamic morality police] patrols cut young women's faces and lips because they were wearing makeup, and cut women's hands or legs for wearing short sleeves. Now he pretends to be our saviour?" A young woman said, "Mousavi is not my candidate but I'll vote for him anyway since I don't want Ahmadinejad. The country should be fixed through reforms. See what happened when you made revolution once?!" It was a great bus trip.
The next day in the tube I heard a young man screaming, "I don't want to vote, nobody should vote, they're all the same. Nothing changes." Somebody responded, "If you don't want to vote, don’t, but why create a bad atmosphere?" Another young woman said, "We vote because we want freedom." A woman asked, "What kind of freedom is Mousavi going to give you?" The other answered, "They say Iran will be like Turkey; the veil will be voluntary." I was shocked. At one point Mousavi said that he would discontinue the morality police patrols, but he stopped even saying that. The same kind of discussion was repeated in taxis…
A week before the elections: from some worker activists
The night of the televised debate between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, a lot of people were watching their TV sets. The candidates' mutual insults and boasting had filled the newspapers for months. The day after the debate, the discussion among the people was hot. Even people not usually interested in politics took part in these passionate arguments. Ahmadinejad made some sharp exposures of Mousavi, Khatami [the ex-"reform" president], Rafsanjani [Iran's richest man, a pillar of the Islamic regime and a powerful backer of Mousavi, widely hated for his personal corruption], and many others in such a way that made many people change their mind about who they were going to vote for and even incited people who didn’t want to vote to go and vote anyway. The reality was that these exposures did not reveal even a thousandth what is really happening and yet Mousavi had nothing to say in response.
Night. Street. Constant honking and the voices of people shouting slogans. I went out. There were supporters of Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, and some people watching. This was the result of last night's TV debate. The slogans were ridiculous. People were out until 3 or 4 in the morning. The forces of order were only watching. They were trying to be polite, asking people to go home. I asked myself if they were thinking: "Wait until the election is over, we’ll show you, just wait."
The streets are filled with women and youth. The colour most visible is green…. The Ahmadinejad-Mousavi TV debate produced contradictory results. Some people really liked the exposures Ahmadinejad did of Rafsanjani and Nateghnouri and they completely forget who was saying these things. It shows you how over the last 30 years these questions of "self-enrichment", "theft" and "privileges" have created such complex hatred in the society that even Ahmadinejad can manoeuvre in it. Many people liked Mousavi's poise… Ironically a backward sentiment about a man’s "honour" acted against Ahmadinejad – some people didn't like his disparaging treatment of Mousavi's wife….
Now a lot of people who were cursing and promised they wouldn't be fooled into participating in the elections ever again have changed their mind and are saying that it's different this time. They're not just saying that we have this Ahmadinejad problem, they’re saying we can win this time. They've started having hope.
The situation is really different from previous elections. The last time the sentiment for boycotting them was strong. And you didn't see this enthusiasm in the streets. But now a lot of people come out and argue against boycotting the elections. I can firmly say that the schools for these various arguments against the boycott are the satellite TV stations! People are mouthing the same arguments voiced over the BBC or VOA by the various reactionaries and vacillating forces these media invite… What's interesting is that the forces of repression have been deliberately taken off the streets. The few officers you see here and there just observe.
- end item-
On the Iran elections: statement by the CPI(MLM)
15 June 2009. A World to Win News Service. Following are excerpts from a statement by the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) issued shortly before the elections.
Participating in the present presidential election campaign under any pretext or excuse has no meaning except expressing contempt for the workers, toilers, women, students and teachers who have been repeatedly suppressed and continue to be suppressed and oppressed by this regime.
Settling for minimal demands and low expectations and staying away from any kind of high aims and targets in political and social struggles will trap the people in the useless cycle of choosing between one or the other of the regime’s factions. The method of choosing between the lesser of two evils in this regime will only help prolong the system. They are two sides of the same coin and both protect the same interests against the people's interests.
If we recognize the real nature and meaning of any political action or position, or in other words if we specifically understand the real meaning of participating in this reactionary system's elections, then not only we will look for effective ways to confront this pathetic election show but also we can perceive the ugliness and hopelessness of the reformist approach we're being asked to endorse. We must scientifically recognize that the only way to radically transform the situation is revolution, the seizure of political power by the working class and the oppressed masses, so as to move towards a society where the exploitation of human beings and oppression and class distinctions have no place...
Elections serve a particular function under all class systems. It may be that in corrupt, despotic political systems, elements such as cheating and force play a much greater role in the outcome, but even then two factors basically decide the fate of the votes: the basic interests of the whole system, and the balance of forces among the contenders in the major spheres of political power. In a class system where political power is held by a minority (the exploiter class that exploits and oppresses the majority), elections are a mechanism to turn the truth upside down. These elections portray the rule of the minority as the choice of the majority of the people. Even regimes such as the Islamic Republic of Iran that mainly rely on the suppression and repression of the people need electoral spectacles to legitimise their rule and spread illusions among the discontented people. Elections are also a mechanism to carry out controlled contention among different factions and gangs within the ruling classes to prevent cracks in the power structure and possible resulting storms of mass rebellion...
Boycotting the election is the least that the majority of the people can do to express their position. This majority has been subjected to the most extensive and broad propaganda by various factions of the power structure and the reformist forces. This propaganda has several aims.
The most basic aim is to defuse the deeply-rooted mistrust and discontent within the main body of society and raise a wall between the "silent majority" and the idea of social revolution and a revolutionary approach. The next aim is to draw sections of the people into becoming electoral foot soldiers or turn them into pawns to be used by one or another faction in their election competition. The bombardment of electoral propaganda spewed by the radio, TV and imams after Friday prayers demonstrates the role that elections can play in keeping the people away from the idea of social transformation. The media repeatedly broadcast interviews with people saying things like, "I vote because I have national zeal," "I take part in the election to exercise my democratic right and have an effect on the fate of my country" and "I vote in order not to let the enemy feel happy."
Contrary to the media-hyped argument by groups promoting electoral participation that to boycott the election is to help re-elect Ahmadinejad, the entire system is making a full-force effort to divert the discontented masses away from this minimum resistance [of boycotting the election show]. The regime aims to show the world powers that it still has a political base within the country by drawing the masses into the electoral process, but more than anything else it seeks squelch the spirit of struggle and resistance among the discontented majority by making them do what they actually do not believe in because they know that its result will be the legitimisation of the ruling class.
Cooperation, compromises and elections
The people of the oppressed and exploited classes have been bombarded with reasons and justifications for taking part in the election. The people are told about that this election can bring opportunities and hopes. During the 1997 elections, electoral advocates such as the religious–nationalists [as they call themselves, claiming to be representatives both of the historical nationalist trend in Iran of the Mossadegh era and the Islamic trend] found the situation favourable and actively took part in the self-styled "reformist" coalition grouped around Mohammad Khatami. Although Khatami was elected, these religious-nationalists were never really allowed into the government or even the parliament. Nevertheless, they remained hostile to any mass upheaval that might endanger the existing order. They have always demonstrated their loyalty to the Islamic Republic. During the July 1999 student movement they stood alongside the repressive forces of the Khatami government against the students and militant youth.
The religious-nationalist activists put forward their analysis, reasoning and strategy for this current, tenth presidential election in their January 2009 Manifesto, which has been a model for various reformist trends and forces in the election campaign. What is now known as "demand-centred" politics originated in that Manifesto. This shows a new political mood among the ranks of the middle strata; it is an indication of new hopes awakening among them. These hopes have been kindled by cracks within the ranks of the power structure, even among the most conservative sections as well as the others, and even more importantly by the changes in U.S. policies with Obama in the White House. The analysis of the religious-nationalist forces is that the ruling political system in Iran should be subjected to gradual but effective political pressure from both inside and outside the country in this period. They argue that favourable ground exists for creating a political coalition around limited but real changes to the Islamic Republic…
The January 2009 Manifesto reflects the illusions and concerns of this part of society. The religious-nationalists who wholeheartedly backed the winning Khatami coalition in the 1997 presidential election now have been faced with the question: Why, after Khatami's terms in office, did someone like Ahmadinejad replace him? The Manifesto asks that question, but has no answer for it. Such people cannot understand that the fundamental interests and survival of the reactionary system require the existence of both state-dependant "reformists" and state-dependant "conservatives". The purpose is to squeeze the life and soul out of the people between the two of them. The religious-nationalists have not forgotten to devote the first section of their Manifesto to a call for re-establishing diplomatic relations with the U.S. When they talk about rights and democracy, they only include those "groups committed to the law". That means the communists and the anti-system forces should not benefit from these rights…
The arguments of the "demand-centred" activists
The advocates of a "demand-centred" movement put forward several arguments to convince the discontented people to take part in this election.
The first is the danger of the re-election of Ahmadinejad and the dominant faction. It is true that he is widely and deeply hated. But what this argument conceals is that even if Ahmadinejad were not re-elected, this would not be the end of this faction's corruption and crimes, nor still less the end of the anti-people functioning of the dominant system as a whole. They would continue to be a powerful gang and faction within the same power structure, and undoubtedly their role in orienting the regime's policies would be much more decisive than the religious-nationalists and other compromisers working for their limited peaceful demands from outside. Moreover, whether Ahmadinejad is elected or not depends on the balance of forces among the gangs within the power structure and its various spheres, specifically among the ranks of the military and security forces whose job is to suppress the people. The number of votes [reported for any particular candidate] will only be an indication of and at the same time a cover for this balance of forces, as was the case during the 1997 elections.
These forces' second argument is that it is necessary to take advantage of the current favourable environment for putting forward our demands and putting pressure for the realisation of part of these demands on the day after the election. In the long list of the demands raised in the January 2009 Manifesto the nationalist-religious did not dare raise the most important demands, such as the separation of religion and state and the abolition of the compulsory hijab [head covering].
We must mention that today those putting forward "demand-centred politics" include not only nationalist-religious forces but also groups such as Hamgaraii (Convergence) of the Women's Movement (a coalition of women inside and outside the power structure), the Bureau of the Unity Consolidation in the universities, sections of the Tudeh party [the revisionist party that support the USSR during the period when was a capitalist country in socialist guise] and the Fedayeen (Majority) organization close to the Tudeh party, the Republican Nationalists and individuals such as Mohsen Sazegara [one of the founders of Revolutionary Guard, now cooperating with the U.S. and especially the Voice of America Persian service] and Ali-Reza Nourizadeh [a veteran UK-based journalist known for his pro-Western politics]. Convergence overlaps with the trend known as the Million Signatures Campaign, which focuses on two demands: That Iran sign the protocol for the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and that it change the parts of the constitution that specifically deny women rights.
First of all, laws reflect the dominant economic, political, social and cultural relations in society and at the same time they are a guarantee of the domination of the ruling class over the oppressed classes, and the Constitution was written to ensure this aim. Secondly, signing the UN Convention would not bring about any change in the oppressed conditions of women. The ruling class can always use legal manoeuvres and "exceptions" to maintain the existing relations (including women's oppression and gender discrimination). Even if it were to sign the UN Convention, the ruling power could explicitly subordinate it to the medieval male chauvinist system by adding a phrase such "taking local and cultural conditions into consideration" as other Islamic countries have done.
In fact formulising such demands and focusing on them means lowering expectations. Such an approach has no outcome except throwing this struggle into the useless cycle of attempts to achieve slow, gradual and reversible changes in the framework of the dominant system. This is the politics that considers it an achievement to trade the black hijab for a brightly coloured one, and that seeks the right for women to become ayatollahs...
A third argument of these advocates of "demand-centred" politics is mostly heard in the universities. They argue that there is no other way, that all the real ways forward are closed, that the whole society falling apart and edging toward chaos, so the only thing we are left with is the election and all we can do is replace the Ahmadinejad faction with another faction – let's not miss our one and only chance! The emphasis here is that social revolution is not possible. Some go further and say that social revolution is not needed and would even be harmful. It is no accident that such arguments are mostly heard in the university environment and in fact target revolutionary thinking. They are a reflection of the views and the interests of sections of the people who have something to lose who under this system.
Despite these arguments, the "demand-centred" reformists are confronted with a serious problem: the infamy and bad reputation of all the candidates. Ahmadinejad is known not only as an ex-member of the terror squads known as the Revolutionary Guards, but also as a vulgar liar who has brought the oppressed masses of workers, toilers, women and youth more poverty, misery, unemployment, oppression and suppression. The man who likes to give speeches about “the nuclear epic” and “national pride” is none other than the one who was waiting for the slightest U.S. hint to rush into its service in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on.
The name of Mir Hussein Moussavi recalls the memory of the massacre of political prisoners in 1988 and many other crimes that took place during his premiership. He is well known for his role as a key leader in the so-called Islamic "Cultural Revolution" in the early years after the revolution that led to the arrest and execution of communists and progressive students, the purging of independent-minded, progressive and leftist lecturers, and the three-year shut-down of all higher education. His conservatism and repeatedly announced loyalty to the Velyat-e-Faqih [the regime's foundational doctrine of "the rule of the Supreme Jurisprudent", currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is a sufficient self-exposure...
Perhaps one of the factors reducing the difficulties of the "demand-centred" forces in this election is that many of the young who support this policy have not had any experience with these reactionary figures. However in the last few weeks the revolutionary forces have extensively exposed the past crimes and current programmes of the candidates. In particular, this exposure has revealed what the economic programmes of all four candidates have in common. They all believe in the need for "economic reform" (bloody surgery), including abolishing subsidies for food and other basic goods and letting prices rise freely. Whoever becomes president, all the candidates are ready to increase the poverty and misery of the masses and oppress and more harshly exploit the workers and other toilers – the majority of the people – to protect the interests of the system of oppression and class exploitation.
The lessons of this election for the people
Due the competition among the candidates and their supporters and the moves of the reformist forces, the electoral process has produced a significant political situation. The whole society, even those who consciously oppose participating in the election show, has focused on the debates, campaigns and discussions going on in the streets and the media. In terms of this aspect and only this aspect, we can say that a favourable situation has been created for revolutionaries and freedom-lovers to express their views on the election and expose the role and functioning of elections in the life of the ruling system and its factions, and the aims of the power structure. They can analyse the class interests and outlook represented by the reformists and other electoral forces, and put forward the goal of social revolution, the fundamental interests of the various sections and classes of people, and the necessary methods and approach for achieving the demands of social movements.
The regime's publicity around this election and the persistent effort to draw the masses to the ballot boxes is testament to the people's strength and the ruling class' weakness. The regime’s advertising and other efforts show that the enemy is aware of the potential power of an independent movement of the people outside the framework of the power structure’s plans and programme. The enemy recognizes this potential and is terrified of it. The people should also recognize their power to achieve liberation. If instead of participating in the regime's electoral campaigns that mean nothing but electing one among the oppressors to rule us, we take the path of widespread opposition against these campaigns and find the independent ways to announce our goals and ultimately pave the way for their achievement, a totally different atmosphere would be created. Promoting a gradual, painless way forward gives people the wrong impression and prolongs the rule of the reactionary system.
- end item-
To subscribe or for back issues, go to www.aworldtowin.org or http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/AWorldToWinNewsService/
Write to us – send us information, comments, criticisms, suggestions and articles: news@aworldtowin.org
No comments:
Post a Comment