Moderates in a Limbo State
Moderates in a Limbo State Ahmad Zeidabadi has bid farewell to political activism. This, of course, seems to be the situation for most reformists or activists who do not want to stand on either side of the polarized political landscape of Iran these days and have their own critiques and perspectives on issues. Zeidabadi, who wrote and was active more than anyone else, was also attacked and assaulted more than others. His and other reformists’ limbo state is exactly this.
A state where they are accused by protesters of playing on the conservatives’ field and defending the status quo, and by conservatives of spreading hatred with reactionary ideas, calling violence a movement, and fueling street activities, leading to their summons and interrogations. Others who think and reflect like Zeidabadi have probably retreated sooner.
They have realized that in today’s Iranian society, where politics has been driven to the extreme poles, being moderate on one side accuses them of eating from both sides and on the other of opening a double-ended shop in politics. Ultimately, they end up like someone who eats the onion, takes the beating, and finally pays the money, so they prefer silence to speaking.
If there was a time when reformists were between the two poles of 100% supporters and 100% opponents of the status quo, these days the ‘with me or against me’ situation has left no room for sitting in the middle. That’s why Zeidabadi published a piece titled ‘The Moment of Goodbye’ on his Instagram page and Telegram channel, which received a lot of positive and negative feedback. He seems to have made this decision especially after writing an article addressed to Hamed Esmaeilion.
Sensitive Politicians
Writing to Esmaeilion, especially in a critical tone, according to Zeidabadi’s own writing, subjected him to vulgar insults and even threats of murder and sexual assault. He wrote that he never imagined that some people in this land would reach this point, a point where, in his view, there is no longer a place for him. The essence of Zeidabadi’s words is that he cannot withstand the pressures coming at him from all sides and feels so alone and alienated in this situation that he prefers death over being compatriots with such individuals, ultimately deciding to say goodbye to a political scene that does not match him at all.
According to Zeidabadi, moderate forces, however, due to their cultural, civic, and intellectual nature, are generally sensitive and, in other words, thin-skinned. They cannot endure insults, slander, and unjust accusations and leave the scene with deep disappointment and sadness, allowing supporters of the two hostile poles to spill so much of each other’s blood that one side is exhausted.
What Supporters Say
Those who defend Zeidabadi’s approach and method, or at least, if they do not think like him, defend diversity and oppose the elimination of others because of different thinking, say that insulting intellectual opponents or those who warn of future dangers, especially journalists like Ahmad Zeidabadi who have paid the price, is neither fair nor beneficial to the protesters’ cause.
Some supporters of Zeidabadi’s perspective, who are accused by critics of playing both sides or hitting the nail on the head, say that this accusation is a consequence of truth-telling and truth-seeking. Because, in their opinion, telling the truth is bitter, and ears that flee from hearing the truth are averse and evasive.
Those who are deeply disturbed by this created polarized atmosphere believe that thanks to internal and external ill-wishers, the polarization of people in the political and social realm has been so precise and deep that expressing any thought, taking any stance, and choosing any action offends a group and provokes the army of supporters.
For this reason, they believe that Zeidabadi, because he has practiced truth and devoted his life to giving life and mobilizing thoughts in search of truth, has been targeted by battalions and armies of truth-killers to extinguish his enlightening light. They advise him to stay and persevere so that the scene of confrontation between ideas and arguments does not become devoid of the wise and the rational.
What Zeidabadi’s Critics Say
Apart from those who reacted to Zeidabadi with insults and threats, those who tried to critique his writings and ideas believe that he does not play on the people’s field. They believe his perspective is arrogant and top-down and does not want to see the reality in people’s protests. In their opinion, not understanding reality is a form of deflection and blaming others for any future violence. Although Zeidabadi’s advice seems very calm, precise, and wise, this advice or counsel is no longer effective.
Therefore, according to Abdollah Momeni, reformists like Zeidabadi, who once claimed to be border activists, have now become ineffective, and this situation has caused confusion about their position and role. Not to mention that some have harsher criticisms of Zeidabadi and the likes of him, sometimes calling him too sentimental and sometimes believing that he and Hossein Shariatmadari are actually the same person.