Discrimination as a Factor of Injustice
Discrimination as a factor of injustice was once again highlighted with the selection of Pezeshkian, bringing up the issue of religious and ethnic discrimination in Iran’s current political structure.
The mere raising of this issue and observing it is a positive thing. Pezeshkian, who was elected with the slogan ‘For Iran’ and with an emphasis on the discourse of rights and justice for all Iranians, stressed the issue of eliminating discrimination among different ethnicities and religions residing in Iran during his election campaign and managed to gain some votes from these ethnic and religious groups.
Naturally, this created expectations among these segments of the Iranian population.
During the task forces for selecting cabinet ministers, the issue of ethnicities and religions was raised again, with Javad Zarif, as the head of this task force, announcing the interpretation of positive discrimination in their favor.
Initially, we must accept the reality that in the political structure and administrative bureaucracy of the country, there are at times certain discriminations, particularly regarding religions other than the country’s official religion.
On the other hand, due to geographical reasons and some historical events, in certain regions of Iran, such as Kurdistan and Baluchistan, there is a feeling of compounded discrimination due to economic and infrastructural underdevelopment.
Another issue is the center and periphery dynamic, which naturally, when accumulated, increases the feeling of discrimination. Moreover, in recent years, with the proliferation of diverse media, this constructed sense of discrimination has intensified.
But is the principled solution to eliminate discrimination and also to resolve the feeling of discrimination merely giving a few ministerial or gubernatorial posts to a few specific political-religious activists from among these ethnic and religious groups residing in these areas?
On the other hand, in a society like Iran, without considering the real situation and balance of power, is even raising the issue of positive discrimination a solution, or could it later become a problem?
To answer these questions, we must return to some fundamental principles. In the modern era, when we have moved from traditional ethnic and tribal relations towards forming a modern nation-state and the concept of modern citizenship, we must choose appropriate solutions to eliminate real and even abstract and media-constructed discriminations.
The principle should be based on the rights of the modern citizen.
This means that every Iranian citizen, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, and even political views, has a set of fundamental rights guaranteed by law and the state. All Iranian citizens should benefit from these rights without discrimination.
If this matter has been neglected until now, the Pezeshkian government is responsible for reviving it. On the other hand, not all issues are related to the government and the ruling structure.
Part of the issue should also be entrusted to civil society itself.
To clarify the issue, does a certain Sunni political activist or a certain religious leader with specific political leanings in Kurdistan truly represent the entire population of that region, so that giving them a position would create a positive feeling for all the people of Kurdistan, indicating a step towards eliminating discrimination? Or in Baluchistan, does a certain respected cleric truly reflect the real demands of all Baluch youth, especially in today’s world where human identities are very complex and diverse?
Perhaps that young Sunni Kurd or Baluch feels more affinity with a peer from Tehran with a modern lifestyle than with that elderly and traditional religious leader. Therefore, I believe the Pezeshkian government and Mr. Zarif should look at the issue with a bit more precision and subtlety.
It is certainly natural that in political exchanges with active movements in Kurdistan and Baluchistan, considerations must be taken into account, especially after the events of 2022, with efforts to calm these areas. However, the complexity of identity issues should not be overlooked, and a reactive approach should not be taken.
For this reason, I believe that the discussion of positive discrimination here is not very helpful. If I were to explain the discussion with classical literature, I would return to the discussion of rights in Hegel’s philosophy as one of the founders of the concept of modern citizenship.
Here, people, due to their human nature and citizenship in a modern nation-state, should all have equal rights before the law. The issue of ethnic and religious identity should be removed from the realm of the state and enter the discussions of civil society.
Marx, as another serious thinker who critically complements Hegel’s discussion of rights, expands this discussion and points out that even citizens who have equal rights in law still face discrimination in civil society and economic relations, and real, especially economic, relations should be made more just.
From this perspective, if the Pezeshkian government is truly based on the principled discourse of rights and justice for Iran, instead of giving special privileges to certain political, religious, and local currents as discrimination, it is better to implement our own constitutional principles, which emphasize the fundamental rights of all Iranian citizens without any identity discrimination.
Alongside this, a platform should be provided for such discussions to enter the realm of civil society, where they can be critically debated, so that the existing feeling of discrimination subsides. However, the more serious work is to provide a platform for balanced and fair development for Baluchistan, Kurdistan, and other peripheral regions of Iran.
Due to the unique geography, there has been less opportunity for investment and infrastructure development. War, insecurity, and other factors have combined to make sustainable investment and balanced development less likely in these areas so far.
It seems the more correct approach for the Pezeshkian government should be to have a fundamental view of these issues.
Naturally, utilizing local elites and even local political and religious forces is also a positive thing, but it is not the whole solution.
Perhaps later, insisting on these identity policies itself might not be a solution but rather become an issue. Therefore, it seems that we should approach the topics more comprehensively and not view the issue solely with a top-down perspective.
To eliminate real discrimination and, more importantly, to eliminate the feeling of discrimination, it is better to start from the grassroots level of society, seeing the youth, women, and all segments residing in Kurdistan and Baluchistan, even considering the internal diversity of those societies.
The aim is to make them also see themselves as Iranian citizens with equal rights as all other Iranians.
This is contingent upon stepping out of the circle of local political and religious activists.
Certainly, having a few Sunni, Kurdish, and Baluch ministers or governors is a positive thing, but it is not everything.
The main task is the real revival of the concept of a modern Iranian citizen with all its complex and intertwined characteristics, citizens who, despite cultural diversity, have maintained territorial unity for Iran and feel they have equal rights with each other in this geography.