Reformism: From Hope to Denial
Reformism: From Hope to Denial. According to the report by Iran Gate, conservatives consider them the architects of the current situation and, pointing to their long presence in power, view the current chaotic situation as the political handiwork of reformist thought.
However, the overthrowers and opponents of the entire Islamic Republic view reformists as political opportunists who have tried to deceive people, gain votes, and maintain power by making promises they knew from the beginning were beyond their capabilities, all to enjoy the benefits of power and wealth.
Of course, the silence and stances of some reformist leaders like Behzad Nabavi and Saeed Hajjarian may have also contributed to this anger and attack. However, what needs to be discussed precisely is why many political activists are distancing themselves from the label of reformism.
Being a reformist is a political sin. Why does Zaidabadi disavow reformism?
Ahmad Zaidabadi has had a unique position over the past two decades. He gained social fame by writing in newspapers that emerged from the people’s vote for Khatami’s presidency, but in 1997, he preferred Nategh-Nouri to become president. In 2000, he also called for Mohammad Khatami’s resignation, yet he wrote for the Shargh newspaper, the most important reformist newspaper, during Khatami’s second term.
Overall, it can be said that Ahmad Zaidabadi has been a journalist and sometimes even a reformist political activist, but he has always preferred that reformists step aside from the power structure and conservatives seize power.
This strategic stance, though it seems strange, probably stems from Mr. Zaidabadi’s inclination towards democracy, which prevented him from working in right-wing media. Secondly, he says his positions have always been distanced from reformists. Thirdly, Zaidabadi does not believe that conservatives will suddenly become democrats once reformists are entirely removed from the power structure.
Rather, the essence of his argument is that in the absence of reformists and the continuation of the current unfavorable conditions, conservatives will sooner or later face a moment of truth—a moment that will lead them to seriously step into the realm of pragmatism and abandon their ideological ties, resulting in internal and external political compromise. This mutual compromise will usher Iran into a new historical phase, as perceived by the desert man of Iran’s press.
In response to the question that you are always considered a reformist by society or close to this political faction, Zaidabadi answers: I have never specifically been in the reformist camp, and my positions have always been distanced from them. In fact, throughout the flourishing years of reformism, my criticism of reformists has always been ongoing and sometimes reached sharp points. Being seen, even if there is motivation for it, is not achieved only through this one path.
If these friends were attentive, they would realize that I do not particularly want to be very visible. Being seen these days, thanks to the virtual space and the development of the communication industry, is very easy, but I more or less avoid it. I shy away from Twitter, rarely accept requests for interviews and speeches, and escape from controversy in any field. Nonetheless, if they want to think this way, let them; freedom is for this, after all.
Critique of Reformism by Thoughtful Conservatives
Individuals like Emad Afrough, a conservative representative of the seventh parliament, sociologist, and university professor, are among the few thoughtful figures in the conservative movement who always critique based on principles and academic theories and offer solutions.
Afrough, due to what he calls intra-discourse critique and based on internal criticism and scrutinizing the performance of his own movement, has also faced the wrath of the powerful conservative faction. He makes a significant critique of the contradiction between the slogan of freedom and the presence of security personnel in Khatami’s inner circle.
Afrough believes that individuals with a security background surrounded Mr. Khatami, and they could not be advocates of freedom. In general, security personnel have a structure where others should not hear, see, or read. Such forces cannot carry the flag of freedom. Someone without a history of advocating for freedom cannot be a freedom advocate.
This critique also applies to Rouhani’s government, even more so, because not only in his first circle of managers but he himself has a complete security profile. Of course, all conservative critiques are not limited to the reasons for the lack of success in political development and socio-political freedoms.
Rather, many of them, by attacking the economic policies of what they consider liberal governments, hold them responsible for the current situation, while the performance of so-called justice-seeking governments like Ahmadinejad’s and Raisi’s locomotive of progress government has also been disastrous in key economic indicators. What is certain is that the critique by hardline conservatives is focused on competition for power and is much mixed with destruction and defamation rather than statistics and evidence.
Overthrowers and Some Foreign Media Against Reformism
Another part of this critical space against reformists is shaped by media influence. During this period, especially by foreign media, efforts were made to direct protests towards reformist figures, parties, and organizations, and to portray reformism as fruitless because the alternative to reformism is overthrow, and they wanted to promote overthrow.
Here, a part of the criticism should be directed at official media inside the country, which by not performing well, practically handed over their role to non-official media. It is clear that society and media-independent elites rely more on networks and virtual media, and fake news is very influential in this virtual and networked space. As a result, the role of reformists and reformist groups should be seen both in the media attacks that had tendencies towards overthrow and in the necessity of adapting themselves to the new conditions, which are naturally difficult and different from the past.
The entry of criticisms towards reformists due to their support for their affiliated governments is a reality. Reformists are politically positioned to propose and pursue demands in this regard, in a situation where there is a critical relationship towards reforms and a critical relationship of reforms towards these governments.
We must also consider that the main option for Iran to overcome current problems and open horizons for comprehensive development in the future is through the path of democracy, and the democratic program involves strengthening civil institutions, parties, empowering society, and focusing on new sectors like youth, women, and ethnic groups that are entering the scene in society.
At the same time, reforming structures and making the executive, economic, and political system flexible is proposed in a larger package called reforms, and if we accept that this path can solve today’s issues in Iran and open a horizon for the future, we must accept that reformists, civil society, and the people should be placed alongside each other.
Eliminating or piling up any of these parts or projecting will not bring us closer to the destination, meaning reformists should help governments or even ask or force governments to respond to the people’s demands and their promises. However, wanting to separate their fate from the fate of governments and make their own separate expenses is not correct. People do not accept these separations, which is why we must move towards a government and entire governance system that shows new approaches in line with protests, demands, and the people’s requests.
Now, none of the propositions regarding demand-making, activism, and participation have any relation to the discourse of overthrow, and it is natural for them to stand against this model of political behavior.
The attack by overthrowers to eliminate and declare the end of reforms is perhaps the most vital step for this movement on the path to overthrow because, as mentioned earlier, the only alternative to reforms is overthrow, and of course, conservatives, as the other edge of the scissors in the fight against reforms, play a significant role in fulfilling the overthrowers’ desire for the death of reforms.