The Tough Mission of Pezeshkian in Pasteur
The Tough Mission of Pezeshkian in Pasteur – Masoud Pezeshkian, as the ninth President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has a very challenging task ahead.
He faces numerous problems: rampant inflation, poor economic conditions, poverty, unemployment, widespread corruption, international sanctions, political, social, and environmental crises, inefficient managers, and a variety of large and small issues that require national determination and willpower across all sectors of the country to resolve.
At the same time, he is also confronted with other issues that the public is particularly sensitive about, such as internet filtering, the morality police, the opposition of many Iranian women to compulsory hijab, and demands for social freedoms.
Pezeshkian stands before a society that feels discriminated against and is at its wits’ end.
It has lost its sense of belonging. Pezeshkian deals with people who believe their rights have been taken away and that better privileges, conditions, resources, and opportunities have been given to individuals who possess no particular moral superiority or distinct scientific competence over others.
Those who have obtained their administrative, social, and economic positions not due to their merit and capabilities but through unethical means.
In fact, the elected president is facing people who have lived for years with anger, resentment, frustration, and despair, resulting in a tired and distrustful society where interactions among individuals have significantly decreased.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the message of this election is change. In fact, everyone who voted for Pezeshkian and also those who boycotted the election are demanding a change in governance policies, not just minor and temporary changes, but fundamental and substantial changes desired by large segments of society.
Regardless of whether Masoud Pezeshkian has the necessary powers to implement the people’s demands, the people want change.
Thus, whether Masoud Pezeshkian wants it or not, he is forced to consider new priorities in the administration of the country’s affairs, which not only were not accepted by the previous government and some power institutions but these very individuals and institutions have imposed numerous restrictions and limitations on the accumulated demands of the people and, if possible, will continue the same path.
So the question is that Pezeshkian is facing a wide range of people’s demands, but which part of the people’s demands falls within the powers of the elected president? Can he fulfill the accumulated demands and expectations of the angry and frustrated people?
The point is that he has to demand the people’s wants and demands from parties that have abundant money and power, making the situation more difficult. So what is the solution? Perhaps in the first step, it is necessary to hold a series of meetings with the country’s elites about ways to fulfill the people’s demands.
Time passes very quickly, and people who are eager for progress in the country’s affairs and are attached to Pezeshkian’s promises will become disappointed again, especially since there is a possibility of obstruction in the president’s programs and activities.
Let’s go back to the debates just a few days ago when all the candidates of the fourteenth presidential election opposed filtering in the debates, considered sanctions to have an impact on the economic situation of the people and the country, rejected the treatment of Iranian women regarding the hijab issue, and alongside various covenants and pledges promised to lift filtering, respect Iranian women, and strive to improve the economic situation.
Some of the candidates belong to the hard-line conservative spectrum, but they also made similar promises to attract voters’ attention.
From this perspective, perhaps holding a national dialogue between factions is a suitable solution to address some of the country’s problems and limitations. Masoud Pezeshkian currently, as the President of Iran, has the capacity to initiate a national dialogue.
A dialogue between all political, cultural, and social figures of the country with any type of political and factional thought and taste, where some of the society’s issues can be resolved and the people’s demands gradually advanced.
Currently, the level of distrust in society is very high.
Distrust in governing institutions is undeniable, creating a social contradiction. The recent election proved this issue once again.
Due to this widespread distrust and hopelessness and lack of a clear outlook for the future, the level of productivity in society is very low, preventing social cohesion and national solidarity from forming.
While the country needs social cohesion to solve its problems, the recent election showed that excluding part of society is not possible.
So perhaps a window has opened where, with lower costs, through challenging and critical dialogues with the presence of society’s elites from various spectrums, some of the desired changes of society can be implemented. These dialogues can create hope.
It can cause part of the people’s feelings and emotions, which are a combination of anger, frustration, a sense of discrimination, and reduced sense of belonging and loyalty, to give way to hope.
Of course, this is provided that the power groups and influential individuals in governance agree to these dialogues and the implementation of the people’s demands.
Otherwise, this limited and weak social vitality will once again give way to anger, resulting in the weakening of the bonds between the people and the political organization of society and social values.