How long must we sing this song?

The human voice, a product of the lungs, the vocal folds within the larynx, and the articulators, a sort of sound machine, if you will. A radio without radio waves. A powerful weapon.

Then there's the brain part of it, that squishy mass of cells in a human head that somehow manages to produce thought (in some people) and sounds that represent objects and concepts, that great Babel of a thing we call language.

For several months now, an Iranian people fed up with the abuses of an oppressive regime have fought back with their voices.



The amazing thing about what's happening in Iran right now is that the people have kept it up. I can only imagine what it is like to hear the calls of "Allahu Akbar" ringing out from the rooftops night after night. There must be a divine presence in those voices, something felt deep within the soul, the proverbial good lashing out at evil. They have such strength and resilience to have lasted so long, to have not given up. Powerful thing, that Hope. Change can only come with patience and perseverance.

Change doesn't happen by complaining about something and then sitting around waiting for someone else to do something about it. Change is the result of action, of hardwork, of sacrifice. A protest chant can be a song of freedom. In countries like Iran, these songs of freedom are all they have.

Even in Iran, civil society works to bring about change, albeit with very tough restrictions. In places like Lebanon, civil society is much freer to work towards reform. Indeed, in many cases, civil society has replaced government in providing services that in other countries a government would provide. Civil society organizations are working with donor organizations to develop water maintenance systems, to clean up waste, and to fight forest fires, for example.

How long can they continue to do this without a government? No one knows. It's starting to feel like government isn't really necessary, like the Lebanese people can just go about their daily lives while the politicians squabble in their palaces. Much better to have squabbling politicians than a government that murders its own people, right?

Well, yes. But squabbling politicians have too often in history caused death and destruction.

People are talking about how Lebanon has been at peace for too long, that they are due for another conflict. They point to an arms shipment destined for Hezbollah and an increasing "paranoia" that has put Hezbollah on high alert. Beirut's prosperity masks the economic problems of the rest of the country - the high youth unemployment, the poverty, the lack of opportunity. These things cause unrest. These things cause conflict. Lebanon needs a government. (And Hezbollah needs to publicly come out with one English spelling if they insist on being in the news all the time.)

Which brings me back to the human voice, Lebanese version, a voice that sings in three languages. Once, it gathered at Martyr's Square, 800,000 strong, about a quarter of the country. I found this really cool panorama photo of it here. Powerful stuff there, to see all of those Sunnis, Druze, and Christians united. Seems to me the politicians have forgotten about the PEOPLE of Lebanon. Maybe it's time to use some voices to remind them.

Ghassan Karam from blog Rational Republic says this on Qifa Nabki's post about Aoun controlling the political weather:

I don’t expect the Lebanese “sheeple” to change anytime soon but the apathy and total inactivity is no less than a “scarlet letter” that we wear with pride. How , for the love of God or whatever you believe in, do we have the right to complain about an outcome and yet we refuse to make any effort to change it. The Lebanese “citizen” must be one of the least deserving of a responsible government of any people in the world but the sad thing is that we do not know it. We love to pretend that we are modern, educated, well informed, responsible and democratic when in fact we are just the opposite of each of the above. Healing starts by accepting reality and stopping the denial. A people get the government that they deserve.

Wouldn't it be grand to see a crowd at Martyr's Square - Sunnis, Shia, Christians, Druze - singing their protest songs to those who continue to block a government formation, see that sea of red, white, and green, feel the the change that Lebanon so desperately needs - unity?

Oh, sometimes being an idealist can be so...disillusioning. But hey, if idealists had never succeeded in the history of humanity, we'd all still be living in caves and eating raw meat and dying by age thirty.

Still, how long must we sing this song?

U2 - New Music - More Music Videos

Evan's Corner: Vanguard: Women in the Iranian Election Campaign and Protest

The Woodrow Wilson Center

Vanguard: Women in the Iranian Election Campaign and Protest

July 13^th, 2009

On Monday July 13^th, the Woodrow Wilson Center brought together a distinguished panel of female scholars to discuss the role of Iranian women in recent political turmoil. The panelists included founder and president of Eclectic Woman, Pari Esfandiari; former member of Iranian parliament and visiting scholar at Umass Boston, Fatemeh Haghighatjoo; vice president of innerChange associates, Jaleh Lackner-Gohari; University of Chicago professor Norma Moruzzi; and CSU Northridge professor Nayereh Tohidi. The discussion was moderated by the Wilson Center’s own Dr. Haleh Esfandiari.

Nayereh Tohidi began by arguing that women’s space in Iranian society has been growing for sometime. A decline in fertility rates, a growing female press, and incredibly strong female participation in higher education all reveal that women in Iran are extremely active in all realms of society. Tohidi asserted that women have always played an important role in Iranian history, but particularly in the past ten years, women have been reasserting their strength and influence. Tohidi also noted that many of the strict social restrictions imposed by the Ahmadinejad regime targeted women specifically, and this is part of why the reform movement has enjoyed such widespread female support. Tohidi further illustrated that reform candidates have been extremely cognizant of the female voting block, and as a result, many candidates involved their own wives more actively in their campaigns. This inclusion of Iranian “first wives” began in the 2005 elections, but was used by all four candidates in the most recent election to woo female voters. Even before the protests, the campaign itself represented progress by specifically highlighting women’s issues, a subject that had been marginalized in the past.

Jaleh Lackner-Gohari had a slightly different take. Gohari did not dispute the important role of women in Iranian history, but she did refer to their current political activism as, “unprecedented.” Gohari asserted that many women felt let down by the Khatami administration’s inability to implement positive changes for women. As a result, women began to believe they could not rely on politicians to institute social change, and they took on this responsibility themselves. This may have been the driving force behind large amounts of female-oriented press and much broader participation in the campaigns and protests. Gohari also pointed out that social and legal restrictions on Iranian women effect every class. Because of this, the women who are participating in the protests are from all different economic backgrounds. They are united by a collective dissatisfaction with their status as women.

Fatemeh Haghighatjoo discussed her time in the Iranian parliament and how she sees the role of Iranian women. Haghighatjoo referred to women as the, “agent of change in Iran.” Social restrictions on women relaxed slightly during the reform movement of the nineties. However, since Ahmadinejad became president these social restrictions have returned, and united women against the regime. In Haghighatjoo’s view, this is why the pictures of Iranian campaign rallies, and also the protests are dominated by images of women of all ages and classes. Haghighatjoo also explained that women have an incredibly powerful role in Iranian family life, and many women have been responsible for spurring their husbands, brothers, or sons to become politically active.

Norma Moruzzi has been traveling back and forth between the US and Iran since 1997. In her travels she has met activists from all walks of life, and believes that the current opposition movement in Iran has the broadest base of any movement since the revolution. In Moruzzi’s opinion, the current clashes in Iran are not reflective of battling elements of society, but rather a very “narrow” portion of the government vs. “everyone else.” Moruzzi agreed with the other panelists about the role of women, but wanted to stress the “universality” of the protesters. Moruzzi also felt it was important to note that the West’s image of Iran has completely transformed as a result of the election fallout. Images of women in full burkas and crowds chanting, “death to America” have been replaced with images of peaceful crowds asking that their votes be counted. Regardless of how the political situation within Iran shakes out, the Iranian people have been humanized in the eyes of the world.

Pari Esfandiari echoed Moruzzi’s point about the images coming out of Iran. Recently, a movie entitled, “The Stoning of Soraya M” depicted an Iran that was backwards and fundamentalist through the story of a young woman being stoned to death for adultery. Esfandiari pointed out the “irony” that this film should come out at the same time as pictures of young, modern women in Tehran leading protests, and throwing stones at militia troops. Esfandiari also noted that women were crucial in the nature of the recent political campaigns. Because so many young Iranian women are in college, they are at the forefront of technological and international fluency. As a result, women were central in developing a tech-savvy campaign, and contributing some of the art and creativity that gave the green movement such a potent and resonant identity.

The panelists were all asked how the Obama administration should handle relations with Iran going forward. The speakers all seemed in agreement that the Obama administration must not recognize the new regime. Right now, the Iranian population may be one of the most pro-American in the Middle East. However, the panelists all felt that if the Obama administration sat down with Ahmadinejad and gave his election more legitimacy, it would represent a massive betrayal in the eyes of the Iranian people. The United States has gained back some esteem only by staying out of Iranian political affairs, and must remain on this course.

Evan's Corner: The Iranian Presidential Elections: What Do They Tell Us?

The Woodrow Wilson Center

The Iranian Presidential Elections: What Do They Tell Us?

6.30.09

On Tuesday June 30^th, the Woodrow Wilson Center hosted a discussion entitled “The Iranian Presidential Elections: What Do They Tell Us?” The speakers included renowned journalist and WWC policy scholar, Robin Wright; independent scholar, Farideh Farhi; senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Fariborz Ghadar; and political editor for The National in Abu Dhabi, Emile El-Hokayem. WWC’s own Sam Wells moderated the discussion.

Mr. Wells prompted the speakers with a series of important questions regarding the accuracy of the media's presentation of recent events in Iran. Robin Wright spoke first about what is clear and what is still unknown.

Wright started by pointing out that the election itself and the peaceful protests following it were a “political showdown.” However, the following violence represented a “physical showdown” that elevated the stakes of the conflict from a disputed election to the legitimacy of the Supreme Leader. Wright noted the use of Twitter and Facebook by opposition members. Wright also pointed out that even before the elections, the internet had connected Iranians to the rest of the world and filled them with growing desire to be more economically prosperous and socially free. Wright argued that today’s opposition movement is “very distinct” from the student movements of the late 90’s. Wright asserted that the opposition has a broad base that cuts across class and age. Maybe most significantly, the opposition also has the support of many powerful clergy members. Despite this, Wright warned that the regime has an equally potent coalition and controls the para-military forces that are at their most powerful since the revolution. Wright went on to explain the vulnerability of both sides. The opposition is vulnerable because of its lack of leadership. Mousavi has always been an accidental leader and may lack the charisma to lead such the opposition. If Mousavi proves ineffective at capturing momentum, the opposition may have to look elsewhere for leadership. The regime's vulnerability is a lack of unity. Wright illustrated that there are fissures within the highest levels of clergy, and the revolutionary guard may also be split on which side to support. Wright summed up her assessment by noting that however long the regime can succeed in suppressing the opposition, “the genie is out of the bottle.”

Farideh Farhi began her analysis by saying that the events following the election have been “the most significant” in Iran since the revolution, surpassing the rise of reformist policies and even the Iran-Iraq war. Farhi stated very clearly her belief that the election was not merely manipulated, but “completely cooked.” In her view, the regime predicted a typical turnout of 60% of the Iranian electorate, with better turnout among conservatives. In this scenario, a 2/3 majority for Ahmadinejad might make sense. However, Farhi explained that when a much greater number of Iranians showed up to vote, mobilized by opposition rallies, the regime failed to adjust their numbers to account for such broad participation. Farhi noted key miscalculations on the part of both the regime and the opposition. The opposition miscalculated by believing that although there would be vote manipulation of a few million votes, a more massive manipulation would not occur. The regime miscalculated by believing that a cynical electorate would not show up and vote for a reform candidate. Farhi also stated that Khamenei’s Friday prayer speech was not consistent with his supposed tendency to stay out of politics. Khamenei’s endorsement of both Ahmadinejad and the use of violence against protesters has shaken the legitimacy of his leadership. Farhi argued that Khamenei’s legacy will no longer be about standing up to the United States, but instead about suppressing his own people.

In addition to his post at CSIS, Foriborz Ghadar is the founding director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Global Business Studies. Ghadar shed some light on the role of the economy fomenting discontent in Iran. Ghadar illustrated that crude oil production has increased in recent years, but not as quickly as domestic consumption has grown. As a result, much of the oil is not exported, and GDP growth has been “erratic.” Ghadar also argued that some widely reported statistics about Iran’s economy seem implausible. For example, unemployment has been reported somewhere in the teens, but Ghadar believes it really lies in the twenties. Coupled with 20% inflation this gives Iran a misery index somewhere in the forties, higher than it ever was in the United States during the Great Depression. Ghadar also explained that although the government directly accounts for about 35% of Iran’s economy, the government indirectly controls another 30% through patronage. Ahmadinejad has garnered some popular support by dolling out oil money to the poor, and reformers would like to distribute government revenue in other ways. Ghadar seemed to be saying that one of the things reformers are fighting for is the ability to get control of the government purse, and invest the money with their own allies and patrons. Ghadar suggested that control of this money is a crucial element of the current conflict in Iran.

Emile El-Hokayem was able to offer the perspective of the Arab states on Iran. El-Hokayem claimed that many Arab states have always considered Iran a military dictatorship, and recent events have simply “lifted the veil of Iranian democracy.” Gulf leaders had been disappointed in the past by Iran’s reformers, such as former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. El-Hokayem shared that many gulf leaders are wary of Mousavi, or any reform candidate that may improve relations with the United States. The American alignment with Sunni power structures and Israel has worked for many gulf-states, and a shift in this relationship may threaten their interests.

The speakers also addressed the nuclear issue and seemed to have some degree of consensus. Robin Wright argued that before the election, Khamenei had several “trump cards” to play against the United States in negotiations over the nuclear program. The speakers seemed to agree that Iran is already enriching uranium, and the United States would likely have to acquiesce to at least accepting nuclear energy in Iran. Wright also pointed out that Ahmadinejad might prompt negotiation with the Obama administration, putting the new American government in the excruciating position of choosing between progress on the nuclear issue and support of democratic reformers.