Republican Manfesto by Akbar Gangi

8/14/2019 Republican Manfesto by Akbar Gangi

1/11

REPUBLICAN MANFESTO IIAuthor: Akbar GanjiPublisher: freeganji.blogspot.comPublished:June 18, 2005Type: Journal article

Boycotting the presidential election(2005) is a step toward democracyand open societyEvin Prison May 2005

Political activism and the critique of theruling system are important: Intellectualshave a moral obligation to reduce the painand suffering of human beings ([Karl]Popper, [Richard] Rorty). Dictatorships andtyrannical systems impose pain andsuffering on their people in various ways.The endeavor to rid people of the evil ofauthoritarian systems and to replace themwith free and democratic ones is valuablein its own right. In today's world,dictatorship has become so infamous andthe appeal of democracy so universal thateven tyrants try to present their systemsas a kind of democracy (indigenousdemocracy, religious democracy, Asiandemocracy, African democracy, people'sdemocracy).

Intellectuals and the elite should notexcuse themselves from their moral duty.The intellectual elite have been injectingdisappointment and hopelessness,passivity and indifference into Iraniansociety during recent years, whereas onemust create hope and inject life andpassion and exuberance into the society.Doing this demands self-sacrifice,boldness, and intrepidity. History has

shown that giant steps have been takenonly by men who were brave, idealistic,and self-sacrificing...

Yes, it is true that all problems anddilemmas are not going to be resolved bypolitics alone or solely through democracy.Neither is the ruling political system theonly, or even the biggest, problem ofsociety, so that by changing it all

problems would be resolved. Culturalproblems have cultural solutions.Economic problems have economicsolutions. Social problems need socialsolutions. It is also clear that neither ourpeople nor our intellectuals are democrats[in the true sense of the word]. But fromnone of these correct premises can one

deduce the false conclusion that politicalactivity is useless, that fighting tyranny isa waste of time, or that the endeavor toestablish a democratic system is futile.The same goes for the conclusion that,even if a democratic system were to beestablished, it could not achieve muchsince not all our problems are of a politicalnature, cultural tradition is the root causeof all our problems, and as a result onemust instead change and correct the

corrupt and incorrect aspects of ourculture.

When we become disappointed andhopeless, we try to find excuses for ourpassivity. This goes so far that evenprevious struggles for freedom areregarded as those of mere dreamers.Anyone who accepts the ruling system inits totality and participates in the Iranianpresidential elections has supposedlystepped out of this world of dreams, whilethose who pursue radical goals throughnonviolent methods are just walking onclouds. So anyone who boycotts thepresidential elections is supposedly adreamer.

Some are of the opinion that people arethrough with politics and no longer payany attention to the political battlesbetween those in power and theopposition inside and outside Iran. Peoplewant to live, have fun, be comfortable.They want to be left alone. They do notwant to be bothered. It is not important forthem which system or which individualsare in power.

Let us suppose that this description of thesocial situation in Iran is accurate. What

1


2/11

conclusion are we to deduce from it? Is theduty of the intellectual, the dissident, andthe political activist to be a follower of thepeople on the street? Would such anapproach not turn them into merepopulists (those who follow theobservations, beliefs, assumptions,suspicions, illusions, and imaginings of the

masses)? What argument has been putforward that says all the thoughts andactions of the populace are correct? Arenot all men full of faults? Then why are weto suppose that the masses arecompletely innocent and infallible? Theirmodes of behavior must be challengedand criticized in the same way thatpolitical systems are criticized. Not allproblems come from the political system.One must criticize and judge the people

(an intellectual is also one of the people).We must not look for what people like ordislike, but must defend freedom,democracy, and justice for the sake of thepeople. In this sense, one must be anidealist instead of a populist. If populism iscondemned, as indeed it is, then the flagof political activism cannot be left in thehands of the masses who, in times ofcrisis, have no goal other than to destroyor take vengeance, and who think only ofpunishing former rulers instead ofestablishing and consolidating ademocratic system.

If there is some rightful claim, it must becommunicated to the people. If thestruggle against authoritarianism in orderto establish an open society and ademocratic system is just, then even if allthe people of a country happen to be infavor of a tyrannical system or indifferentto its existence, a freedom-lovingdemocrat still has the right (nay, the duty)to stand against such a system, alone andby himself. The struggle for freedom isalways initiated by a few people. Otherswill eventually join them. A politicalactivist cannot give up with the excusethat the people are not politicallymotivated or do not support the fight for

justice and freedom. The dissidents in thesecond half of the twentieth centuryconstituted a small minority, in allnondemocratic societies. But that smallminority by its steadfastness and braveryin the face of suffering, opened up thedifficult road to democracy.

On the other hand, even if the demands ofthe people are the ones proclaimed here,who says that the people have chosen theright way to attain them or that they canever achieve their goals within theframework of the current system? In moretechnical language, who says that the bestunderstanding of the collective actions ofhuman beings is the one that theythemselves have of their actions, and notthat of the observer? Is not the meaning of

pragmatic rationalism the proportionalitybetween methods and means on one side,and goals and objectives on the other?

We must show the people that byadopting some kinds of methods andmeans they will not be able to achievetheir goals. We must bring the people ontothe scene. We must show them thatrunning away from political struggle is notthe remedy for their despair. The publicarena is very important. Politics is a nobleendeavor and all the people should beengaged in it, when it is understood tomean the creation and distribution ofpolitical power, the critique of the rulingpower, collaboration in the public arena,and judging the ruling system and those incharge. A political activist and intellectualknows that he should not make a rashanalysis of the public arena and should notexpect tyranny to be overcome easily andin a short span of time. Democracy is aprocess that needs people who not onlyare democratic-minded themselves butcan help others become democratic-minded as well.

Yes, democratic people build democracies.But history shows that democraticsystems were not the product of societies

2


3/11

whose members were all democrats."Tolerating the other" and "trust" arenecessary conditions for building ademocratic system. But only out ofnecessity and after many wars andconflicts throughout history did humanbeings learn to tolerate each other, toacknowledge cultural differences and be

respectful toward them, and not to denythe humanity of others because of theirbelief systems. So we should not believethat democracy is impossible until all thepeople become democratic-minded...

A democratic political culture is thenecessary condition for the establishmentand consolidation of a democratic system.The sum of fundamental values andbeliefs that give the political process its

shape and structure is known as thepolitical culture. The political cultureestablishes fundamental principles fordoing politics. It determines the commonbeliefs and visions that shape the mainfoundations of a country's political life. It isimpossible for the political culture of allthe people to be democratic, but theculture of the political elite, who push theprocess of democratization forward, mustdefinitely be democratic. A political culturebased on mutual trust, tolerance ofdiversity and difference, and readiness tocompromise is a precondition for a stabledemocracy. According to learned opinions,a set of accidental historical and economicchanges created such a culture in theWest, and democracy appeared upon thebasis of this culture in Western countries.

Our intellectual elite agree on democracyand freedom now more than at any othertime in our history. Everybody wants ademocratic system. But the point ofgreater importance is that all of themshould agree to resolve political conflictsthrough democratic methods andprinciples. They should give greatersignificance to the democratic process ofresolving conflicts than to the outcome ofthat process. Seymour Martin Lipset says:

"In the democratic political culture,processes and institutions give legitimacyto their outcomes, even if the outcomesare unfavorable." It is clear, of course, thatthe process of getting rid of a tyrannicalsystem does not need to have ademocratic character or political culture.But establishing, consolidating, and

stabilizing a real democracy needs aconsensus of the political elite ondemocracy. Most scholars concur thatagreement among the elite on democraticinstitutions and constitutional rules is themain condition for a stable democracy.The political elite must accept freedom ofspeech, freedom of assembly, freedom ofreligion, and freedom of the press.

The process of creating a democratic

system needs a program with its mainsteps laid out clearly. In our opinion, giventhe current state of affairs, the boycott ofthe presidential elections by the politicalelite and the people is the first necessarystep in any program that will finally leadus to a democratic system.

Tyranny and Legitimacy

Democracy is a sign of the existence of astrong civil society that is based onvarious intermediary groups, fromwomen's associations and labor unions tocooperatives and trade councils. Suchgroups serve as probably the mosteffective tools for communicating socialdemands to decision makers. They canalso play an important role in explainingthe meaning of democracy to theirmembers. From the start, the theory ofliberal democracy considered voluntaryassociations as essential complements toofficial representative political institutionssuch as political parties, legislatures, andelected executives. The freedom ofcitizens to organize in civil societyprovides a framework that allows them toexpress their diverse interests andopinions, and makes a multipartydemocracy possible. A society of active,

3


4/11

independent, and organized citizens is aguarantee that the government will notexceed its boundaries and will not infringeupon the powers and freedoms thatindividuals should be able to enjoy withoutany governmental intervention.

This is what Iran's current establishment

does not allow and what cannot beattained through legal means, but only iftruly independent associations are formedthrough civil disobedience. That, in turn, isinconsistent with the reformists motto oflegalism [that is, remaining within thelegal boundaries of the current system].

The path that the reformists have takendoes not lead to a democratic system. Atransition from sultanism to democracy

requires the "delegitimization" of theruling system and "noncooperation" withthe personal ruler. But the reformists builddomestic and international legitimacy forthe tyrannical ruler by cooperating withhim. The tyrannical system can beweakened through "continuousnoncooperation," and in this way theconditions for a transition to democracycan be created. Democratic forces andgroups must consciously and deliberatelyspread and popularize within society theidea of noncooperation. The entire elitemust refrain from cooperating with thetyrannical system. There are thousands ofdifferent forms of noncooperation thatcould be effectively used in practice."Human resources" are one of theimportant sources of political power. Thenumber of individuals and groups thatobey and cooperate with tyrannical rulersis crucial for stabilizing the tyrannicalsystem. If noncooperation is engaged inby a vast proportion of the people, thetyrannical system will be faced withfundamental difficulties. Taking back"support" is the most important step ineliminating dictatorships.

In addition, the regime's moral andpolitical legitimacy must be questioned.

Any system should receive obedience andcooperation only to the extent that it islegitimate (has a right to rule). The morelegitimate a system is, the more reliable isthe obedience (submitting to its laws anddecrees) and cooperation that it enjoys.The rulers' right to rule and the citizens'duty to obey are central to the legitimacy

of political systems, so it is essential totake action to delegitimize the tyrannicalruler. The regime's level of legitimacyaffects its official goals and principles, itsway of policy making, and even itspolitical structure. Lack of legitimacyforces tyrannical regimes to use relativelycostly methods of commanding thegovernment and the society.Undemocratic regimes use two methods togain legitimacy: ideology and elections...

The supremacy of democracy in our agehas made the people's choice, the publicwill, or other democratic foundations theonly source of legitimacy for governmentsSemicompetitive elections are the mostwell-known method that a dictatorship canuse to claim electoral or democraticlegitimacy. Democratically disguiseddictatorships use semidemocraticelections to choose government officialswith very limited powers, all of whom areapproved by the regime. Riggedsemidemocratic elections provide thewindow dressing of democratic legitimacyfor tyrannical systems. Dictatorships thatput on a democratic mask abuse publicresources and state power to minimize thecompetition in elections. In fact, electionsin these regimes are played with loadeddice. Lack of freedom, fairness, andimpartiality in their conduct and executionis the main characteristic of theseelections...

Holding free elections is a necessarycondition (but not a sufficient one) for thelegitimacy of democratic systems.Democratic systems are legitimatebecause they accept the judgment of thepeople in the public arena, allow freedom

4


5/11

of speech and assembly, respect humanrights, officially recognize the rights ofminorities and the separation of the publicand private spheres, hold free and fairelections, have extensive civil societies,exhibit tolerance, do not punishindividuals for their dissenting views andopinions, and so on. In these societies,

given the power and stability ofdemocratic institutions and the certaintythat citizenship rights will always berecognized, it is possible for the majorityof people to feel no need to participate inelections. Totalitarian systems, bycontrast, are illegitimate because theyviolate human rights, the ruling tyrant actslike a god, there is no responsiblegovernment, and opponents areimprisoned and tortured. These kinds of

systems and their tyrannical rulers needthe image of receiving favorable votesfrom the majority of their people in orderto legitimize their regimes. In suchsocieties, therefore, it is quite common towitness claims of electoral participation bymore than 90 percent of the population,all voting in favor of the ruling system. Asa result, in such societies not participatingin elections definitely constitutes an act ofopposition to the ruling system

Distinguishing Among Dictatorships

Undemocratic regimes are of variouskinds. In one sense, these regimes may becategorized as military, one-party, andpersonal dictatorships. In a militarydictatorship, the armed forces rule. In aone-party dictatorship, a dominant(communist, fascist, nationalist) partyrules. In a personal autocracy, the ruler isso arbitrary that he becomes a tyrant. MaxWeber called this sultanism. Sultanism is asystem in which the ruler enjoysmaximum authority and discretionarypowers. Juan Linz has identified four typesof political systems based on personalrulership: modern sultanism, oligarchicdemocracy, military paternalism[caudillismo], and supremacy of local

influentials [caciquismo] (rule of localpolitical chiefs). He considers sultanism tobe the most centralized and the mostarbitrary form of personal rulership.Modern sultanism is based on modernorganizations and officially or publiclyrelies on bureaucratic norms. In theopinion of some thinkers, the lack of

efficient political institutions results in thesupremacy of personal power, which couldonly be checked by another power and notby already existing institutions. Theybelieve that personal autocracy is asystem of personal networks based on therelationships of the ruler with hiscollaborators, followers, supporters, andrivals. In personal autocracy, governmentpositions and authorities are personal"properties" of the leader-for-life. In other

words, government is the leader's privatedomain.

Max Weber uses the term sultanism for astate in which absolute rule or supremacyreaches its maximum. Usually there are"structural" characteristics that result inthe consolidation of the leader's personalposition in the regime-for example, thegranting of vast legal prerogatives to theleader. Similarly, legal absolutismstrengthens the leader's position againstlegal procedures that could lead to hisdismissal. (In Iran, the supreme leaderpicks the members of the Council ofGuardians, who choose the members ofthe Assembly of Experts (that is, thesupreme leader indirectly picks those whoare supposed to supervise and impeachhim.) Moreover, the autocrat is thecommander-in-chief of the armed andsecurity forces. So he does not feelthreatened by the military. The rulingsystem in Iran is not totalitarian, butsultanistic.

In light of these considerations and thedistinctions among different kinds ofregimes, we must answer this question:How have specific kinds of regimesyielded to the democratization process?

5


6/11

Dankwart Rustow divides the transition todemocracy into three phases:

a. Long-term struggles between opposingpolitical forces that are equal in power;

b. Negotiations between the leaders of

political forces in order to reach acompromise agreement that leads to theinstitutionalization of democraticprocedures; and

c. Adaptation to democratic proceduresthat gradually results in an increaseddegree and spread of consensus insupport of these procedures.

The compromise agreement redefines the

rules of the political game but alsodepends upon mutual commitments andguarantees to protect the vital interests ofthe parties involved. In such anagreement, military leaders usually giveguarantees for citizens' rights to bereestablished and free elections to beheld. In return, the opposition leadersagree not to punish rulers who havecommitted extreme acts of repression (theprinciple of "forgive but do not forget")and to advance the democratizationprocess without violence and chaos. Infact, military and one-party dictatorshipscome to the negotiating table under hugesocial pressure. A negotiated transition isthe result of a situation in which the twosides are equal in terms of political power.Negotiated transitions in authoritarianregimes are the product, first, of majordifferences between extremists(conservatives) and moderates(reformists) inside the regime, and then ofa coalition of regime reformists anddemocrats outside the government toremove the regime's extremists.

The transition process is very different,however, in personal autocracies.According to Samuel Huntington, leadersin personal autocracies are less likely to

relinquish their powers voluntarily thanmilitary or single-party leaders. GuillermoO'Donnell and Philippe Schmitter thinkthat the only way to change sultanisticdictatorships, such as the Somoza regimein Nicaragua, into democracies is anarmed insurrection... In Richard Snyder'sopinion, if the army lacks the necessary

autonomy to remove the personal ruler(military or nonmilitary), then the only wayto topple him is the formation of arevolutionary movement. Personal rulersnot only do not wish to give up power, butalso take lifetime control of it and use itarbitrarily. The problem of transition todemocracy in this situation differs a greatdeal from such a transition in authoritarianmilitary or one-party regimes. Here,cooperation with the personal ruler and

legitimization of his rule do not help thedemocratization process at all. On thecontrary, the democratization process isfacilitated by noncooperation anddelegitimization. Thus supporters offreedom must make it clear which kind ofregime they are dealing with in Iran, andwhat type of process the transition fromthat kind of regime to democracy requires.

Distinguishing Among Transitions

Observations of the countries that passedthrough the third wave of democratizationpoint to three types of transitions andthree kinds of dictatorships. Dictatorshipscome in three kinds: military, one-party,and personal dictatorships. Three types oftransitions from dictatorship to democracyhave occurred:

a. Abdicated Transitions: A weakdictatorship is forced to give up power toothers.b. Dictated Transitions: In this transition,the dictatorship is in a position of power,but widespread popular demonstrationsmake the regime think of consciouslypursuing a dictated [top-down]democratization process... Brazil, Taiwan,

6


7/11

and Thailand are instances of this kind oftransition.

c. Pacted Transitions: This kind oftransition has two importantcharacteristics. First, the ruling regime isdivided into two sides, extremists(conservatives) and moderates

(reformists). Second, the democraticopposition outside the regime creates abalance of power between itself and theregime through widespread populardemonstrations, strikes, andnoncooperation. If the struggle persists orbecomes costly and fruitless, the elites [onboth sides] will be more interested inreaching an agreement on their mostserious disputes. Eventually, throughroundtable negotiations between the

democrats outside the regime and themoderates within the regime, a pactedtransition takes place. The most importantinstance of this type of transition wasPoland's transition to democracy in 1989.

In the negotiation process, the mostpowerful and experienced leaders of themost important groups first mustcooperate in secret (or in public) to quicklyachieve a mutual agreement that isacceptable to both sides. Then each sideneeds to convince its supporters to agreeto the practical consequences of thisagreement. In the end, they must practicemutual self-restraint to ensure that thisagreement and this kind of politicalbehavior becomes part of elite politicalculture. The establishment of thedemocratic system is achieved in returnfor immunity from vengeful and retaliatoryactions.

Thus not all transitions are pacted(roundtable-negotiation) transitions.Second, a pacted transition does not meana pact between the two sides of the rulingregime, but one between the moderateside of the regime and its democraticopposition. Third, the agreed-upon freeand fair elections are held, making it

possible for the ruling regime to bereplaced by its democratic opposition, andnot as a mere show. Fourth, the situationin a personal dictatorship is completelydifferent from that of a military or one-party dictatorship.The governmental reformists in Iran thinkthat the only method of transition to

democracy is to penetrate into thegovernment, turn it into a dualgovernment, create a balance of powerbetween the two sides, and win anagreement on the transition to democracy.Even if this were true, the society musthave a strong democratic oppositionmovement in order to force the regime tocompromise and negotiate throughdemonstrations, strikes, election boycotts,and the like (pressure from below and

bargaining from above, to use SaeedHajjarian's metaphors). So even forreformists who want to play the role ofregime moderates by taking part inelections and, if the conservatives allow,creating a dual government, it would beadvantageous to let others establish astrong movement for demandingdemocracy through noncooperation,boycott, and delegitimization in order tomake negotiation and compromisepossible. Without pressure from below,there will be no bargaining from above.

We must note, however, that the regime inIran is neither a military dictatorship nor aparty dictatorship (where a single party isruling). The ruling regime in Iran is apersonal dictatorship. The process oftransition in such a regime is different.This type of transition is often named bysociologists the "antipersonalist transitiontype." This transition usually requires thetoppling of the personal ruler (Marcos inthe Philippines, Ceauescu in Romania,Stroessner in Paraguay, Saddam in Iraq) orhis death (Franco in Spain). For example, apersonal dictator rules in Egypt. Thedemocratic opposition asks for Mubarak'sremoval. A free and fair election would beone contested against Mubarak, seeking

7


8/11

to bring him down, not to participate inpower under him. It seems Mubarak hasretreated and agreed to multicandidateelections. But in Iran, the supreme leaderwill not run even in a single-candidateelection, let alone against rival candidates.It is clear that he does not have thepeople's votes. Some personal rulers hold

single-candidate elections and makeclaims to have the support of 90 percentof the electorate, but here the supremeleader is not even ready to accept the riskof drawing his legitimacy through people'svotes.Revolution versus Reform

Some believe that boycotting elections,noncooperation, delegitimization, and theholding of a referendum are revolutionary

and destructive actions and are thusirreconcilable with reformism. It should benoted that one can be a revolutionary inone respect and a reformist in another.What is important is to separate these twoaspects from each other.

Human beings have goals, and to reachthose goals they choose certain methodsand instruments. Let us suppose that thegoal is to change the tyrannical politicalstructure and to replace it with ademocratic one that would recognizefreedom and human rights. To reach thismorally laudable goal one can use twodifferent methods: reformist orrevolutionary. Someone is called reformistin method if he uses peaceful methodsand instruments to reach his goals andobjectives and pursues social reforms thatare gradual, temporary, experimental, andtechnical. Someone is called revolutionaryin method if he uses violent andaggressive methods and instruments toreach his goals and looks for explosive andsudden changes. Using bloody methods toreach one's goals is morally unacceptableand should be condemned.

All that has been said until now aboutrevolutions and their negative

consequences is true for classicalrevolutions that seek holistic or utopianchanges through violent methods. Theclassical revolution was a completely newstory, new in its entirety, even in itslanguage. The goal of such a revolutionwas to change all political, economic,cultural, social, and military structures

through political means. In other words, allproblems were reduced to political ones,and the foundations of the society had tobe transformed by political means in orderfor all the problems to be resolved atonce.

But in the late 1980s, peaceful revolutionstook place in the Eastern bloc countries.The ice of totalitarian regimes was meltedby demonstrations of candle-holding men

and women, and the age of freedomdawned. Czechoslovakia's VelvetRevolution became the symbol of modernrevolutions without bloodshed. Then camethe nonviolent revolution of the people ofBelgrade against Slobodan Milosevich, andlater the Rose Revolution in Tbilisi againstEduard Shevardnadze. Subsequently, wewitnessed the Orange Revolution inUkraine and the Yellow or Tulip Revolutionin Kyrgyzstan. Two major differences setthese revolutions apart from the classicalones. One is that there was no trace ofviolence, bloodshed, or vengeance inthem. The other is that the aims of thesenew revolutions were getting rid oftyranny and gaining freedom, not aholistic change based on a totalitarianideology, which is an impossible and futileendeavor with a very high cost. Peacefulrevolutions, aiming at freedom and therule of the people, are both possible anddesirable, and the critiques directedagainst classical revolutions do not applyto them. For instance, Karl Popper, whowas against classical holistic revolutions,supported and defended the peacefulrevolutions in the Eastern bloc.

It might be argued that revolutions involvetwo sides: the ruling regime and the

8


9/11

people who are opposed to it. Modernnonviolent revolutions took place not somuch because the people adoptednonviolent methods, as because the rulingregimes showed restraint and did not useforce to crush the people. But in Iran, theleaders of the system have the will,power, and intention of using instruments

of repression, and thus any widespreadpeaceful demonstration by the people willbe brought to a bloody end by the regime.

This claim is based on two important butunsupported premises. According to thefirst premise, the ruling regime has thepower to inflict widespread repression,and the new international and internalconditions allow it to do so. According tothe second premise, the ruling system in

Iran is worse than those of the formerEastern bloc, Yugoslavia, and Georgia, andthe rulers of this system are moretyrannical and repressive than the rulersof the Eastern bloc countries andMilosevich. If the ruling system is sounreformable that it cannot tolerate evenpeaceful demonstrations by its opponentsand crushes them by bloodshed, and thusits opponents will not be able to expresstheir opinions and gradually bringeveryone over to their side, then the caseis clear even to a liberal person like KarlPopper:

I am not in all cases and under allcircumstances against a violent revolution.I believe with some medieval andRenaissance Christian thinkers who taughtthe admissibility of tyrannicide that theremay indeed, under a tyranny, be no otherpossibility, and that a violent revolutionmay be justified. But I also believe thatany such revolution should have as itsonly aim the establishment of ademocracy... In other words, the use ofviolence is justified only under a tyrannywhich makes reforms without violenceimpossible, and it should have only oneaim, that is, to bring about a state ofaffairs which makes reforms without

violence possible. [The Open Society andits Enemies, 5th ed., rev., vol.2, p.151.]

Based on what has been said, democratsadvocate nonviolent means (boycotting ofelections, holding referendums) for theestablishment of a full-fledged republicand do not believe in the use of violence

for reaching their aims. But sinceauthoritarian rulers are not willing to holda referendum, civil disobedience, which isa nonviolent method, is proposed. Aftervictory, the principle of "forgive but do notforget" must be adopted by truthcommissions. That is because democracywill not be established and consolidatedby seeking vengeance. The people of Iranknow that better now than they did in1979. The revolution of 1979 was against

modernity, but the current movement ismodern and democratic. The fight forfreedom and democracy is justified anddesirable, but sacrificing human life at thefeet of utopian ideologies andauthoritarian systems, which has no otheroutcome but fear and violence, is wrongand unjustified. Every single human beingmade of flesh and blood is an end inhimself, and the endeavor and struggle toprepare a free and democratic state ofaffairs, where individuals can reach theirideals by exercising their free choice, isallowed on moral grounds; indeed it is amoral obligation.

Theories, models, and ideologies aredevised or invented to solve theoreticalproblems and resolve practical difficulties.If a theory or ideology claims to be able tosolve theoretical problems or practicaldifficulties but cannot accomplish this,there are two options: One is to changethe world, society, and human beings untilthey fit that theory and ideology, and theother is to discard that theory or ideology.Theories and ideologies are devised tosolve problems. They exist in order toserve man, not the other way around: thatis, for men to be their servants and to be

9


10/11

obliged to sacrifice their lives for the sakeof the ideology.

Popper's methodology, which is adopted inthe present essay, is based on the"revolutionary use of trial and theelimination of error through criticism. Thuswe can get rid of a badly fitting theory

before the adoption of the theory makesus unfit to survive. By criticizing ourtheories we can let our theories die in ourstead. This is of course immenselyimportant." [The Myth of the Framework,p. 7. (Emphasis in original.)]

The revolutionary rejection of theories,doctrines, and schools of thought that donot succeed in practice in solving men'sproblems and resolving their practical

difficulties, instead of the violentelimination of humans, is rationality itself.The growth of rationality hangs on thecollapse of the most admirable andbeautiful theories and doctrines:

In this way we arrive at a fundamentalnew possibility: our trials, our tentativehypotheses, may be critically eliminatedby rational discussion, without eliminatingourselves. This indeed is the purpose ofrational critical discussion... If the methodof rational critical discussion shouldestablish itself, then this should make theuse of violence obsolete. For criticalreason is the only alternative to violenceso far discovered. It is the obvious duty ofall intellectuals to work for this revolution-for the replacement of the eliminativefunction of violence by the eliminativefunction of rational criticism." [The Myth ofthe Framework, p. 69. (Emphasis inoriginal.)]

The truth is approached through bold andgenial acts of revolutionary criticism of oldtheories, and bold and genial acts ofcreatively devising new theories: "This isnot only true for empirical sciences, but itis true for all fields of knowledge." InPopper's view, the most advanced form of

rationality is to be prepared to criticallydiscuss your beliefs, to correct them in thelight of critical discussion with others, andto eliminate in revolutionary fashion thosebeliefs that are not able to solve theproblems.

Being revolutionary in this sense has

different consequences in the field ofpolitics that must be noted. At this level,we face two problems, one theoretical andthe other practical:

-The theoretical problem: Is the regime ofthe Islamic Republic reformable ornonreformable (if the aim of reform is forthe established political structure toevolve into a democratic one)? Anonreformable system has to be set aside.

-The practical problem: What are themethods of transition from the currentsystem to a democratic one (the tacticsand strategies that would lead us to thatgoal)?

The theories and models that have beenproposed by reformists up to now in orderto solve the problem of tyranny andtransition to a democratic politicalstructure have not been able to solve thatproblem, and so it is necessary toreconsider them and devise new models.The topics of the boycott of elections,noncooperation, civil disobedience, anddelegitimization have been presented inthis framework...

Yes, violence is the red line of therepublican democrats. They will neverresort to violence. The limit ofnoncooperation is civil disobedience, notviolence. Civil disobedience is theconscious and deliberate violation of crueland unjust laws. One consciously acceptsthe punishment (cost) for breaking thelaw. Disregarding unjust laws in practiceand enduring punishment is a method thatfacilitates and strengthens thedemocratization process.

10


11/11

Democratic Diffusion

Samuel P. Huntington is of the opinion thatdemocracy has spread in three waves. Inthe opinion of Philippe Schmitter, thespread of democracy has beenaccomplished in four very compressed

waves. The third (or fourth) wave beganon 25 April 1974 in Portugal with a coupthat succeeded practically withoutbloodshed. The reach of the fourth wavefrom a global point of view has been widerthan that of previous waves. This wavehas affected more countries and has beenmuch more far-reaching in its localinfluence than its predecessors. Countriesengulfed by the fourth wave so far havehad to deal much less with the return of

tyrannical and totalitarian regimes thancountries affected by previous waves.

How is the third (or fourth) wave ofdemocracy to be explained? The moststraightforward hypothesis is that thewaves of expansion of democracy areformed through diffusion processes. Thesuccessful example of a country'stransition to democracy establishes it as arole model for other countries. Once aregion is saturated with democraticpolitical regimes, the pressure reaches itspeak and the remaining tyrannies areforced to adapt themselves to the newlyestablished norm. The advance ofsupranational communication systems hasbrought with it high confidence that themechanism of diffusion and spreading iseffective. Countries that join this wave lateare influenced more every day bycountries that are ahead of them.Latecomers can adopt the methods andvalues of their forerunners without havingto pay some of the costs of discoveringthem and starting everything from thebeginning.

Iranian democrats must not focus all theirattention solely on structural factors. Thetheory of diffusion presents us with a

different image. Recent developments inthe Central Asian republics demonstratethis. Similarly, Middle Eastern rulers havebeen forced, one after the other, to adopta "controlled reform from above" in orderto prevent Rose revolutions...

Some think that actions such as boycotts,

hunger strikes, referenda, and the like,must not be aimlessly wasted. They mustbe saved for a rainy day. But we shouldnotice that we will not achieve anything ifno hunger strikes are staged and mattersare left at the level of mere threats. Ifelections are not boycotted (I mean unfairelections, of course) and we participate inelections in the hope that we could usethis lever at a more opportune time, theweapon of boycotts will become useless.

One who does not play soccer will notlearn how to play it. Any sport is madeinto a skill only with practice. If the peopleof a country never play American football,they will never learn it.

The transition to democracy is like a gameof chess where dictators are sitting on oneside and democrats on the other. We mustenter the game and use all the pieces inorder to check and mate the opponent.Hunger strikes, election boycotts, protestsnoncooperation, and the like are tactics toattain the goal, not things never to beused...

The uneven path to freedom will beopened by our efforts. Freedom is not free.

11

Republican Manfesto by Akbar Gangi

Documents

Transcript of Republican Manfesto by Akbar Gangi