A Conference for Displayed Unity
A Conference for Displayed Unity
I wish that among the researchers and professors who attended this conference, at least one of them had told Mr. Pezeshkian and other officials that truly the era of conferences is over. Such a conference, which is essentially a gathering and friendly meeting, is for those who are well-off and can breathe the air of unity among like-minded friends on the hills of Abbasabad. It neither relates to the people nor addresses any societal issues.
Our country would definitely be labeled as the country of conferences if someone from outside sees the statistics of conferences held in Iran and wants to give us a label. Regarding any event or issue, the first thing that comes to our mind is to hold a conference. Being easy and yet very loud is one of the reasons why a conference is chosen as the first and often the last action for any phenomenon or concept.
This way, we send a message to others who are supposed to know that we are busy with that issue or event, saying ‘Look, we are really busy working.’ It’s the same old tale of the ‘two hundred words’ that are easily said compared to the ‘half-action’ that is truly exhausting.
While it involves little effort, it generates a lot of noise. It suffices that good media work is done on that conference and celebrity faces are invited, then it becomes the top news of all official and unofficial media.
Part of the strange inclination towards conferences in Iran is a legacy from the time when the country’s institutions and departments didn’t know how to spend the overflowing oil money, and they quickly organized conferences so that their budget wouldn’t remain by the end of the year, and they could also generate income for their friends. The abundance of conferences has led to the situation where even if a conference is held properly, it is not a matter of curiosity except for the organizers themselves and cannot be impactful.
A conference, in its true sense, either wants to address an issue or wants to raise a fundamental matter. Over the past 20 years, from my student days and later working in media, I have attended hundreds of conferences, and except for a few, I neither remember what happened in those conferences nor what the issue was. Because of this background, I am not optimistic about the recent conference on unity and its function.
First of all, the fundamental question for holding such a conference is which issue it is supposed to address, and then to whom this answer is supposed to be given. If the unity conference was supposed to be a theoretical explanation of unity, the question arises why now and for whom this explanation is supposed to happen. The government that has recently been established means that people, at least some of them who still believe in elections, have trusted its discourse and want its slogan to be realized. After establishment, for whom exactly is the explanation of the slogan? If it’s for more than 50% who didn’t vote, it’s a futile effort.
They don’t believe in Pezeshkian or anyone else in this structure to want to see the result of this unity. The hopeless part of that 50% will only be hopeful with tangible change. If it’s for that rigid and dialogue-resistant part of the political structure, they already sent the message that ‘how much is unity worth’ by imposing an illegal ban on the former president. If it’s for those who voted for Pezeshkian’s government with a thousand doubts and disappointments, they too break out in hives at the name of a conference, fearing that everything will remain superficial and mere lip service.
Besides which issue it addresses and for whom, the respected speakers of the conference are also worth considering. All the speakers, most of whom are genuinely concerned about Iran and its future, share one commonality: they are among the most vocal individuals in Iran. Search any of these friends’ names, and if their latest speech or words weren’t from the day before the conference, they certainly had a speech, interview, note, or article in the week before it. Coincidentally, most of their words have been in support of or explaining unity.
I wish that among the researchers and professors who attended this conference, at least one of them had told Mr. Pezeshkian and other officials that truly the era of conferences is over. Such a conference, which is essentially a gathering and friendly meeting, is for those who are well-off and can breathe the air of unity among like-minded friends on the hills of Abbasabad. It neither relates to the people nor addresses any societal issues. Many people in society are so anxious and worried that it seems everyone is waiting for a terrible event to happen. If Mr. Pezeshkian’s slogans aim to improve these people’s living conditions, the path to that is not through these conferences and gatherings of intellectuals, but through experiencing it in their daily lives.