|
Khatami has lost his nerve, but there is still work to be done
2003-08-01 11:53:06
By Ahmad Sadri (Lebanon Daily Star)
July 30, 2003
Iranian philosopher and reformer Abdelkarim Soroush recently took Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to task in an open letter, blaming him for his inaction during the recent arrest of protesters and asking that he implement the constitution and prevent such actions in the future. It was not the first of Soroush’s open letters, but it was the first time Khatami deigned to answer in the same manner. The rhyming prose of Soroush’s scathing epistle was awash in poetry and pathos. So was Khatami’s response, and there was the rub.
In his response to Soroush, Khatami emphasized that at the time of his first election, he ran on more than empty words. He correctly stated that he was respected for resigning from his post in the Cabinet of former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani over his defense of artistic freedom. When Khatami subsequently ran as underdog against a generic right-wing candidate, he did so on his record, but also talked a good game about the rule of law, reform, constitutional liberties and democracy. He did the same after he was elected, and now as his second term approaches a disappointing end, he is still talking a good game. Iranians consider him (according to public opinion polls) a decent man who means what he says. Their problem is that all he does is talk.
The 69 percent of eligible voters who elected Khatami to his first term knew the flawed constitution of the Islamic Republic had stacked the deck against him. Everyone also knew that in confronting what he now calls “the gargantuan shadow government,” Khatami was in the unenviable position of having to be truly outstanding.
Yet Khatami was anything but outstanding at the end of his first term. He failed to counter the conservatives’ assaults on reform and reformers. Khatami rhetorically asked Soroush: “What would you have done in my place? Would a confrontation have served the long-term interests of reformers or those of the authoritarian establishment?” Fearing chaos and violence, Khatami merely watched as the right wing’s legal and extra-legal apparatus picked off his close associates, student activists, journalists and parliamentarians one by one.
Nobody expected Khatami to call his supporters out onto the streets. But based on his popular mandate he could have engaged in symbolic action. When his right-wing rivals shut down the reformist press and brutalized protesting students, could he have not gone on a political hunger strike? When the hanging judges of the conservative judiciary imprisoned his lieutenants and other reformists on trumped up charges, could he not have visited those prisoners of conscience? Was there no alternative to supine passivity or incitement to violence?
As long as Khatami’s sins remained those of omission, Iranians gave him the benefit of the doubt. His inaction was generously construed as a desire to pick his fights. He had shown courage in confronting the state-sponsored murderers of dissidents. Khatami was elected by landslide to a second term, but without making a single campaign promise. Given his weak performance, a genuinely democratic system would not have allowed this. However, the right-wing Council of Guardians, which vets candidates for all elections, wittingly or unwittingly eliminated Khatami’s reformist challengers and handed him the reformist mantle on a silver platter. Thus, Khatami was able to play the reluctant candidate and still win the highest elected office in the land.
In the wake of his easy victory, Khatami made real sins of commission. After his second election, Khatami simply could not ask his detractors: “What you would have done in my place?” He dismissed the plight of unjustly imprisoned journalists, asking, “How do we know they have not violated the law?” He chose a more right-wing Cabinet than he had during his first term, despite the fact that he had a sympathetic Parliament on his side and was no longer beholden to right-wing power brokers such as Rafsanjani.
At the apogee of his power, Khatami lost his nerve. He ignored the beckoning of Fortuna and chose the path of safety, mediocrity and appeasement. He abandoned his historical mission of legitimately transforming Iran’s decrepit political system. Instead, he let the clock run, hoping for a draw. In his letter to Soroush, he sat on his laurels.
Khatami must be given credit for where he succeeded. But he hasn’t yet realized the opportunity cost of doing so little. Khatami pretends not to know that his pedantically legalistic view of his responsibilities and his lack of political imagination led to his squandering Iran’s foremost opportunity to peacefully break free from religious tyranny.
What should Khatami do now? In his two remaining years in power he must campaign for ending the Council of Guardians’ vetting powers. He ought to call for a referendum on the issue and publicly announce he will resign if the right wing’s fetters are not removed from the electoral process. If the coming election is free from interference, this will open the door to the next generation of reformers whose discontents were crystallized in Soroush’s letter.
If Khatami fails, his resignation will underline the fundamental
unfairness of Iran’s election process, which is virtually rigged by the Council of Guardians.
Ahmad Sadri is a professor of sociology at Lake Forest College in Illinois. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
See full text of the original article
|
