Jalili’s Lawsuit Against the Middle Class

Jalili’s demand for punishment against the middle class

Why are conservatives and stability-seekers afraid of the middle class?

According to Iran Gate’s report, Jalili’s demand for punishment against the middle class seems to have attracted more attention and criticism. The clear anger and hatred are evident in the second sentence of Vahid Jalili’s statement. However, the important point is the first sentence: we don’t have something called the middle class.

The late Karl Marx also believed that we don’t have something called the middle class, meaning we only have two classes: the capitalist class and the proletariat class. But Marx raised this claim in his critique of Western European societies.

Denying the existence of the middle class was necessary for the revolution in Western European societies, because accepting the existence of the middle class would hinder the necessary social and political polarization for a revolution. The middle class implied a misrepresentation of Marx’s description of the capitalist system, as Marx claimed that in the capitalist system, the poor become poorer every day and the capitalists become wealthier every day.

While the existence of a middle class and the possibility of its expansion meant that the proletariat could be hopeful for the future, as any proletarian could improve their standard of living and become a member of the middle class, when there is a chance for a better life, there is no need for revolution and bloodshed.

When Vahid Jalili says that we don’t have a middle class in Iranian society, it actually means that those who defend the existing political system are the ones benefiting from it. If there is no middle class, then Iranian society is essentially divided into two classes: the poor and the affluent.

And since the country’s economic conditions dictate that the majority of people are not among the affluent, it means that the majority are poor. Naturally, the majority of the poor have no interest in voting or gradual positive changes through reforms, as their lives have reached a breaking point and their bread has turned to bricks. The protests in December 2017 and November 2019, as well as the protests in Khuzestan and Isfahan in 2021, and even the recurring and persistent protests of the people in Sistan and Baluchestan in recent incidents, all had strong economic motivations.

The increasing visibility of protests signifies the shrinking of the middle class. Those who were part of the middle class until yesterday have now fallen below the poverty line and become members of the lower class. One of the reasons for the growing violence of protesters in recent years is their loss of patience against economic pressures.

The foreign policy that Vahid Jalili and Saeed Jalili have in mind does not involve any efforts to alleviate poverty in Iranian society. Saeed Jalili is a proponent of continuing confrontation with the Western world, while Vahid Jalili advocates for the necessary cultural changes to motivate and empower the increasing number of poor people in the country, so that they no longer bear the burden of the West’s economic policies.

According to Vahid Jalili, anyone who is not a proponent of such a policy of continuity is considered aimless and influenced by the West. The concept of being influenced by the West has been so widely expanded by right-wing extremists that the rational demands of the majority of the Iranian people are labeled as Western-influenced.

But aside from these points, the main point is the shrinking of the middle class in Iran. This trend allows Vahid Jalili to claim that we do not have a middle class in Iran. Certainly, Jalili could not have made such a claim during the Khatami government.

The gradual decline of the middle class in Iran began with the Ahmadinejad government, which Vahid Jalili defended until 2011. The middle class in Iran, after the revolution, voted for at least two decades and did not achieve the desired results. The increasing economic difficulties naturally reduced the number of middle-class members. Therefore, if Mr. Jalili thinks that the exaggeration of the supporters of the West-oriented movement by drawing a dichotomy of poverty and wealth is happening in the country, he should know that many of those who voted for Khatami in 1997 or Rouhani in 2013, and showed through their votes that they support a normal foreign policy that promotes economic growth and development, are now considered part of the lower classes.

These individuals, whatever they may be, are not Western-oriented or radical right-wing. They are the same people who, in the 1970s or in the early 1990s, were considered Western-influenced and aimless by Mr. Jalili. But the ideals of these individuals were democracy, and now that they have come, they should not be subjected to the misconception that they have been added to the radical right-wing system.

The slogan ‘Long live the spirit of Shah Raza’ was often heard during the protests of December 1996 and November 1998. Therefore, the lower classes, especially the newly emerged lower class, have not turned towards the desired direction of Mr. Jalili, even if they claim to support democracy. The question of how much the middle class, especially in the 2010s, has been analyzed is a question that economists must answer. But certainly, we still have a middle class in Iran.

However, if Vahid Jalili’s claim is correct, its meaning is the continuation of protests that create a semi-revolutionary situation in the country. In fact, Vahid Jalili’s incorrect claim benefits the supporters of monarchy. The Pahlavi supporters rightly claim that the Shah’s economic policies in the 1940s and 1950s were beneficial to the middle class, especially the new middle class. However, they mistakenly accuse the new middle class of betrayal.

Betrayal of the middle class is a situation that modern dictators sometimes fall into. Such a situation arose in the 1980s in Brazil, South Korea, and Chile, leading to the downfall of dictatorships in these three countries. Modern dictators strengthen the middle class through modernization, economic growth, and development-oriented policies, but because their modernization does not encompass the political sphere.

It means that they are not willing to contribute to democracy and political development because of the uprising of the middle class from the lower power of the ruling class. The point is that in 1979, the middle class was the main force of the Iranian revolution.

The audience of Dr. Shariati at the Arshad Husseiniyah and also the associates of Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris were mostly members of the middle class. According to Vahid Jalili’s claim, the middle class has been eliminated by the policies of recent years.

According to economists’ definitions, the lower class makes up fifty percent of society. Deciles 1 to 5 are also part of the middle class. Deciles 6 to 9 make up ten percent of the upper class.

The target audience of Vahid Jalili are naturally part of the upper class because he describes them as prosperous. So, if we don’t have a middle class in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 90 percent of the Iranian people are poor and belong to the lower class. Even opponents of the Islamic Republic regime do not make such claims. Jalili probably knows that the middle class in sociopolitical sociology, especially in literature, is a progressive and respected social class that has been at the forefront of democratization in many countries around the world in recent fifty years.

Therefore, in order to say that the respectable title of the middle class does not reflect the opposition to the current situation, a minority of them have labeled themselves as privileged and sent the dissatisfied and protesting citizens to the upper class, so that the respectable title of the middle class does not fall into the hands of the westernized people.

As a result, someone who should lead the programs of the state radio and television in the direction of the interests of the Islamic Republic has almost identified 90% of the Iranian people as part of the poor and low-income lower class. Does such a claim indicate good governance or is it a confirmation of the statements of those who defend the necessity of a revolution against the Islamic Republic?