Reforming Reforms
Reforming reforms after the elections and in a space where the 14th government cabinet has been fully formed based on the national reconciliation slogan and ministers are introducing their deputies, Abbas Abdi wrote a critical letter to Seyed Mohammad Khatami on the fifth of Shahrivar. In the letter, he raised two major suggestions and four criticisms. After the publication of this letter, it sparked reactions that led to a detailed response a few days later defending his criticisms about the letters from his perspective.
Abdi and the Letter to Khatami
Abbas Abdi, in this letter titled ‘A Word with Mr. Khatami’, which was published, at the beginning of the matter, explains the reason for the public release of this letter in official newspapers as follows: ‘I decided to publish it publicly because the subject is public, and I hope that public discourse on this matter can be more constructive.’ He then presents his first suggestion and says, ‘I consider this text as an opening for dialogue and hope that similar discussions will be raised with other forces and political tendencies, leading to the benefit of the country.’
I find this conversation necessary in the current situation because my analysis is that we have entered a new phase and the methods and approaches of the past are not responsive to the new conditions, and the need to change them is completely evident.
After Abbas Abdi presents his proposal, he writes introductions for his criticisms and brings up my criticism regarding the overall trend of reforms, which is centered around the reformist front.
Although the reformist front is not formally affiliated with you, it is perceived by the public and in reality attributed to you. It then enters the criticized space and presents its first criticism. The dominant political literature among them is something I have repeatedly mentioned directly and indirectly in my writings.
It is clear to me that there is a clear contrast between your political literature and some political forces within the reformist movement. However, ultimately, the voices of those recognized as the main voices of reformism, which are prominently found in some members of the reformist front, are noted for having a radical and militant language that, in my analysis, does not align with the reformist ideology and strategy.
I have no intention of making a mistake or rejecting the combat policy here, but literature, whether correct or incorrect, is not proportional to reformism. This approach, rather than seeking reform, aims to defeat the opponent and replace it. It is trapped in the duality of good and evil and therefore unable to create empathy and mutual understanding.
In the second critique he raises, he targets the reformist front and writes that their second problem, which is somewhat influenced by the first problem, is the lack of an effective and constructive analytical approach. Just to mention that the analytical framework of these individuals is more trapped in the past than focused on the future. Analyses that focus on the personalities and psychology of individuals are often incorrect and do not pay attention to social structures and factors. Analyses that serve the politics of struggle rather than the service of understanding reality see courage in being imprisoned and standing firm on a position and fighting, not in flexibility and advancing public affairs and welfare.
In a section of the third part of the critique addressed to Khatami written by Abbas Abdi, it is mentioned that the third problem is that this movement is turning into a closed group with limited growth and frequent declines.
One factor is that their positions, alongside official constraints, have prevented the younger generation from replacing them, and on the other hand, they have closed their relationship circle and limited it to the network of friendship and family relationships.
But in the same paragraph, he also suggests the second proposal and writes, ‘It seems to me that the traditional dichotomy of reformist vs. principlist has become irrelevant.’
They have become more than just formalities, they have turned into labels.
We must collaborate and assist with new forces of principlists within the power structure and beyond them with forces that are in the realm of society and beyond both traditional factions, in order to take action and help the country exit this situation.
And finally, he also presents his fourth critique and writes that the fourth problem, arising from previous issues, is the lack of adaptability power in conjunction with a retrospective view, the absence of a comprehensive socio-cultural analysis, and the predominance of friendly and affiliative bonds over political connections. This has led them to, on one hand, turn a blind eye to each other’s mistakes due to mutual interests and, on the other hand, be unable to renovate and expand themselves, as well as attract and dismiss efficient forces and thoughts. The main concern is that they may not be able to create a positive impact during the period of reconciliation and fail to seize and deepen this historical opportunity.
I believe it is the duty of all of us to be more explicit in critiquing the incorrect behaviors and statements attributed to this front.
Abdi and Criticisms
After Abdi’s letter addressed to Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, the leader of the reformist movement, was published, some members of the reformist front began responding to him.
For example, Hassan Rasouli, a member of the Reformist Front, in response to this letter initially suggests that Abdii should have written this letter to the leadership of the Reformist Front. He further emphasizes that he also suggested to the leadership that they should attend the official meetings of the Reformist General Assembly and open up this dialogue. Not only Mr. Engineer Abdii, who is a well-known and respected reformist, is not hidden in his views and effectiveness among the reformists, but this approach should also apply to others.
Basically, a dynamic reformist movement, if not subject to criticism and evaluation, cannot maintain its dynamism and stability. Even during the elections of 1402, when several reformist friends raised ideas under the title of ‘enlightenment’, my suggestion as a genuine member of the Reformist Front was to have sincere and positive interactions with the proponents of these ideas as part of the diverse capacities of the reformist movement, and to invite these dear ones from the past and present like a brotherhood such as Mr. Engineer Abdii, so that the reformist movement can enhance its diverse capacities.
Another response given to Abbas Abdi was by the spokesperson of the Reformist Front, who had said in an interview with Khabarfoori that Abdi can make any decision and criticize any individual or organization, and we welcome that, but he must accept that the positions of parties and a political movement reflect the decisions and opinions of organizations, not just one person or even one party. Khattami and others in the Reformist Front have not shown any reaction to the letter, and in fact, before Abdi’s remarks, the issue of reconstructing the reform discourse in line with today’s society and the need to strengthen civil society and make political parties and people-oriented institutions more active has been put on the agenda of the Reformist Front.
Abbas Ahoundi, one of the Reformist Front candidates for the presidential elections, also had a response to this letter on his Telegram channel, in which it is written that Mr. Abdi, in a note titled ‘A Conversation with Mr. Khatami’ that they published, believes that elections are not a factor for change.
The relative opening in the 1403 elections is the result of change, and Iran has entered a new phase.
By establishing the assumption of Mr. Engineer Abdi, the question arises as to what correct understanding of this transformation should be had if it is accepted that a change in the approach to the ruling system has occurred within the power. The question is what is the nature of this transformation, the reasons for its occurrence, the dimensions and depth of the transformation, its sustainability, and the possibility of returning to the previous state.
Fereydoon Darvishi, the Secretary of the Political Office of the Islamic Association of University Teachers, responds in a detailed note to the criticisms raised by Abbas Abdi. For example, one can refer to the point where he writes that it has been claimed that the dominant voice among reformists is radical and militant, it is not clear whether it refers to a specific individual, a specific political party, or the entire reformist movement in the country.
Mr. Abdi believes that Mr. Khatami’s statements or actions as the spiritual leader of reforms or the reformist front as the only legal and recognized organization of the reformist movement in the country have supported a confrontational and radical approach in the country’s political arena for at least the past two decades. On the other hand, he mentions that the victories of Mr. Rouhani in the 1392 and 1396 elections, the victory of the Hope List in the 1394 elections, and recently the victory of Mr. Pishkani in the 1403 elections have been clear indications of a peaceful approach and maximum use of minimal goals by reformists.
The series of criticisms directed at Abbas Abdi led him to respond in another note to address the criticisms and provide answers to his critics in seventeen points. For example, in part of his response, he said, ‘I do not condemn such literature; friends can choose however they like.’
My criticism is directed at Mr. Khatami for not being able to associate his literature with others’ literature at the same time.
This is something they definitely need to answer, and I am sure that they, if not to the same extent as me, more or less accept this statement. Therefore, we are not in the position of describing the reasons for the situation in Iran and its prevailing political literature. We are now in the position of choosing appropriate and effective political literature for reforms. I would also like to add that part of this radical literature is the product of the inefficiency of reforms that these forces have gone through.
From Abdollah to Tajzadeh
After the publication of Abbas Abdi’s letter addressed to Khatami and his response to his critics, Mustafa Tajzadeh, who is currently in prison, wrote a lengthy note analyzing what has happened in the country and what can and, in other words, should be better passed.
Analyzing this letter and the terms and conditions that Mustafa Tajzadeh raises is another report and file, but the interesting point is that Abbas Abdi and Mustafa Tajzadeh have a common chapter in analyzing what has happened.
In a note, the Crown Prince wrote that in the opinion of some, Ayatollah Khamenei has deliberately paved the way for the victory of the reformist candidate this time, unlike the elections in 1376 and 1392, to start a new era. He also writes that in the current situation, I do not know the strategic question of why the leader made or supported such a change, and what were the reasons and factors for approving the qualifications of physicians and making the elections competitive relatively. I don’t even find it important whether changes have occurred in the past few months or not. My answer is of course positive.
The common point between Abdii and Tajzadeh in analyzing the current situation can be found in a note that Abdii published on the seventeenth of Shahrivar in response to the criticisms made against him. In a part of the letter, he mentioned that since 2018, I have expressed to Mr. Khatami that in these conditions, the reformist policy of entering the power structure is irrelevant. This is in clear contrast to the analytical approach of friends in the Winter 1402 statement. However, the reason we moved from Esfand 1402 to Khordad 1403 was due to a change in the government’s policy, which I was fully expecting and had mentioned several times. I had stated that 1403 is a year of necessity for a change, and it is natural that we should have shown a positive response to the new approach. He then continues to write sentences similar to Tajzadeh’s words, stating that if the official policy did not change, we would still be in our place. The content of this letter was nothing new to me.
Closing Remarks
What has been mentioned in this report is a general overview of the suggestions and criticisms raised by Abbas Abdi, which, of course, this review can raise two important questions.
One of the arguments that the opposition to the Islamic Republic and believers in crossing the Islamic Republic raise is that reformists are the cogs of the system and the safety valve. They become active when the situation is on the verge of crisis and prevent the crisis from escalating further.
The perspective that one could possibly say that the presence and selection of Masoud Pezeshkian is also based on this impossibility. The expression of this sentence by Abbas Abdi, who has written, if official policy did not change, we would still be in our place, the content of this letter was nothing new to me. Can it not confirm the same opinion that advocates for overthrowing?
One of the points mentioned in Abbas Abdi’s letter to Khatami is that decisions of the reformist front are being attributed to Khatami whether he agrees or not. This raises the question of whether Khatami has deviated from the reformist front in recent years. In the last three years and a few months of the reformist front’s existence, has Khatami moved in a direction contrary to the reformist front? Except for the twelfth parliamentary elections where Khatami, like the reformist front, did not participate and did not cast his vote, after that, with the early presidential elections, Khatami officially stated that he would support the reformist front’s decision. Perhaps as a result of these decisions, an opportunity was created for the cooperation of reformists who are present under the name of the reformist front, and obstacles were prevented from their exclusion in these elections.
