Criticism or Praise, That Is the Question
Criticism or Praise, That Is the Question 1 Voting in foreign lands was not an easy task for Iranians. The very small number of Iranian expatriates who participated, and the tense and pressured atmosphere around the Iranian embassies, consulates, and polling stations, clearly demonstrate this.
We have about 8 million Iranian migrants, and the votes cast were just over 80,000. Anti-participation boycotters were stationed in front of the Iranian embassy in Madrid, welcoming those who wanted to enter with the most obscene insults.
It didn’t stop there. The group, although only four people, would grab cameras and take videos and photos of the voters, insulting them while filming to create comprehensive evidence to publish on Iranian Telegram channels and social networks, to tarnish the reputation of us ‘mercenary’ voters and disgrace us worldwide. It was a strange and painful scene.
In today’s world, hurling insults due to political disagreement is considered a primitive and savage act.
I know some of these compatriots from afar and up close. They mostly consider themselves civilized and adorned with Iranian manners and are critics of the behaviors of other compatriots.
They say ‘Dorood’ instead of ‘Hello’ and wear a Faravahar pendant around their necks, but at least in speech and behavior, they do not much follow the ancient Iranian customs.
Years of living in Western democracies and witnessing political campaigns, parliamentary debates, and the like have not taught them the ways of respecting others’ opinions, and they only accept tolerance and leniency when it is directed towards themselves.
Let’s move on; I’ve probably shared these grievances before.
2 Although this election was accompanied by more pressure and tension than before for the migrants, it had many other blessings.
This time, the Iranian community took a big step in observing the subtleties and finer points of political interaction with each other.
Rationality, reflection, and dialogue were seen more than in previous periods.
Although the gaps and distances increased and society took on a bipolar appearance, both sides listened to the opponent’s words more than before. Rudeness and disrespect were less observed.
Tolerance, patience, leniency, and respect for opposing views and votes were observed like a common etiquette by the majority of people I conversed with. No one asked me if I was voting or who I was voting for.
In my opinion, the adornment of our society with rationality and the etiquette of political activism was the greatest achievement of this election period. No one got overly excited, and the day after victory, no one expected the country to be turned upside down or the gates of wealth and prosperity to be opened.
Voters knew that this was just an effort to improve conditions, to solve the problems of the people, and to address Iran’s issues.
An effort that has no hundred percent guarantee, with a thousand ifs and buts ahead, but the hope and pragmatism that emerged from it was the lost element that returned to Iranian life.
3 During the campaign period, media and writers made great efforts to persuade their audiences.
Journalists and media people who agreed with Dr. Pezeshkian’s views had a great impact on public opinion and ultimately succeeded, along with other factors, especially the reform-minded people, in placing their desired candidate at the head of the executive branch.
The continuation of that rational action and the deep understanding we experienced in the elections is the correct action after the start of the elected government’s work. The job of journalists and media people is not to idolize and sanctify the elected president and to write a list of their moral merits and virtues.
Historical experience shows that we Iranians have a long history in such matters.
The duty of journalism requires us to monitor the actions of the elected government accurately, without stuttering and without considering political reformist inclinations.
With the blade of polite criticism, we should remind them of their shortcomings and inform the public as well.
Our criticism may not be fair, and our information on a subject may not be complete, and we may write a critique on that subject. If we do not step out of the circle of politeness, what harm is there? The government’s explanation will clarify the matter for the public.
The work of reformism begins with precise monitoring, polite criticism, and staying away from extremism of the desired government.
At this stage, we must not forget that the journalist is the watchman of society. We must not become infatuated, nor should we overlook deficiencies and errors due to political inclinations and fall into expediency.
