MULLAHS DREAM OF EXPORTING THE KHOMEINIST REVOLUTION
by Amir Taheri
Gulf News
January 21, 2004
Together they form the largest bloc in the Iran parliament where, with their allies, they command a two-third majority. So, why are 80 members of the 290-member Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Iranian parliament, behaving like an opposition and threating mass resignation?
The reason is that the next general election, to be held on February 20, could end the parliamentary career of many of them, not because of rejection by voters but because they won't even be allowed to stand.
A couple of months ago Richard Armitage, the number-two at the US State Department described the Iran as "a sort of democracy". Well, he was sort of right if by democracy we mean the holding of regular elections without bothering about their quality and purpose.
In a normal democracy, anyone who does not have a criminal record and meets basic qualifications such as citizenship is allowed to stand for elected office. But this is not the "sort of democracy" that Iran has had since the mullahs seized power in 1979.
In Iran, all candidates must be pre-approved by a body known as the Council of the Guardians of the Constitution, a 12-man, mullah-dominated organ appointed by the "Supreme Guide" and answerable to him. These "guardian angels", as they are known not without irony, can decide who is a good Muslim and who is not. Good Muslims are allowed to stand for elections, and bad Muslims are pushed aside. But even that is not the end of the story.
Good and bad
A man regarded as a good Muslim and allowed to stand as a candidate may be re-classified suddenly as a bad Muslim after the election. In that case "the guardian angels" have the power to cancel the election, kick the newly discovered bad Muslim out of parliament, and even send him to jail. The same man could enter one parliament as a good Muslim but be excluded from the next as a bad one.
The story does not end there either. Even a parliament composed entirely of good Muslims cannot legislate as it deems fit. The "guardian angels" have the power to annul any piece of legislation they do not like. The current crisis started when the Guardian Council rejected the applications of 2004 men and women, among them scores of incumbents, who wished to stand in next month's general election.
By doing so, the "guardian angels" have already determined the shape of the next parliament, making sure that it would be dominated by a new majority. And that has outraged the present majority. But what are the key points of difference between the two sides? The short answer is: not much.
For purposes of simplification, the western media refer to the two sides in Iran as "reformists", supposedly led by President Mohammed Khatami, and "conservatives", whose leader is identified as another mullah, Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic's "Supreme Guide".
The terms "reformist" and "conservative", however, mean little, if anything, in the current context of Iranian politics. The supposedly "reformist" bloc has controlled the presidency for the past six years and parliament for the past four years. And yet it has implemented absolutely no reforms of any significance.
Nor has it even proposed such reform. For its part the "conservative" faction bases its ideology not on the need to conserve anything but on the necessity of exporting the Khomeinist revolution first to other Muslim countries and then to the entire world. The so-called "conservatives" have a coherent discourse that one may like or dislike.
Put simply, it runs like this: Islam is the only true faith, all other religions have either been abrogated by God or were man-made concoctions from the start. Today, the only country in the world that has a truly Islamic system is Iran.
It is, therefore, Iran's duty to help replace all other regimes in the Muslim world with truly Islamic ones. Once that has happened, a powerful Islamic bloc should be formed, led by the Iranian "Supreme Guide", to convert the whole of mankind to the Khomeinist version of Islam, if necessary, by war.
In the meantime, no deviation from the established rules should be tolerated inside Iran. Women should cover their heads, and men should grow beards. The "polluting" culture of the west should be kept out. Such ideas as pluralism, democracy and human rights, all inventions of the Jews and the Crusaders, must be kept out of the Dar Al Islam (The House of Islam). Elections should still be held, but only as a periodical re-confirmation of the people's devotion to the system.
The discourse of the so-called "reformists" lacks similar clarity. Khatami, for example, has become a master in the art of ambiguity and double-talk. When addressing the Europeans he talks of reason and science and cites Aristotle and Hegel. But when talking in Iran he claims that women should cover their heads because their hair emanates a dangerous ray that drives men wild.
As far as foreign policy is concerned the "conservative" faction is not suicidal. It knows that it cannot take on the "Zionist-Crusader" bloc, led by the US. It admits that it can never develop friendly ties with the "Zionist-Crusader" bloc but is prepared to accept a period of peaceful coexistence in the name of détente.
The so-called "reformist" faction, however, is bedevilled by its contradictions. It knows that women's hair does not emanate deadly rays. But, at the same time, it opposes the repeal of the law imposing the hated headgear.
The so-called "reformist" faction knows that it is possible to be a Muslim without growing a beard. But its members grow substantial beards and continue to spread the lie that those who shave will end up in Hell. What is happening in Iran today is a power struggle between two factions within the same Khomeinist establishment.
The so-called "reformist" faction is not objecting to the principle of vetoing candidacies by the "guardian angels". It is objecting to the fact that its own members are vetoed.
The so-called "reformist" faction is not calling for a constitutional amendment either to abolish the Council of Guardians or to lift its veto over candidacies. What it really wants is to gain control of the council for itself and use it as a means of preventing its rivals from standing for election.
Fail to understand
What is astonishing is that many in the democratic world still fail to understand the reality of the Iranian situation. The European Union, for example, has just appealed to the "guardian angels" not to veto so many candidacies. The EU is only asking for a reduction in the dose of the poison, and not an end to the poisoning of a nation's political life.
Even if the Council of Guardians allow all the so-called "reformists" to stand as candidates, the forthcoming election would still be far from democratic. The reason is that no one who is not a Khomeinist of one sort or another is allowed to stand for election to anything.
As long as the current constitution remains in force the Iran shall remain, at best, only a "sort of democracy", and, at worst, a tyranny that holds fraudulent elections to confuse the EU and people like Richard Armitage.
Amir Taheri is an Iranian author of 10 books on the Middle East and Islam. He's available through www.benadorassociates.com
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/1364" a tyranny that holds fraudulent elections to confuse the EU and people like Richard Armitage. "
Apparently, they're easily confused.
