Moderates in a Limbo State
Moderates in a Limbo State Ahmad Zeidabadi has bid farewell to political activism. This seems to be the situation for most reformists or activists who do not want to stand on either side of the current polarized political landscape in Iran and have their own critiques and perspectives on issues. Zeidabadi, who wrote and was active more than anyone else, also faced more attacks and assaults than others. His limbo state and that of other reformists is exactly this.
A situation where they are accused by protesters of playing on the conservatives’ side and defending the status quo, and accused by conservatives of spreading hateful retrogressive ideas, calling violence a movement, and fueling street protests. Because of these accusations, they are summoned and interrogated. Others who think and reflect like Zeidabadi have likely opted for seclusion sooner.
They have realized that in today’s Iranian society, where politics has been driven to the extreme ends of two poles, being moderate from one side accuses them of eating from both sides and from the other side of opening a two-sided shop in politics. Ultimately, they end up like someone who eats the onion, gets beaten, and ends up paying the price. So, they prefer silence over speaking.
If once reformists were in the middle of two poles of absolute defenders and absolute opponents of the status quo, nowadays the ‘with me or against me’ situation leaves no room for sitting in the middle. That’s why Zeidabadi published a piece titled ‘Moment of Farewell’ on his Instagram page and Telegram channel, which received a lot of both positive and negative feedback. He apparently made this decision especially after writing an article addressing Hamed Esmaeilion.
Sensitive Politicians
Writing to Esmaeilion, especially in a critical tone, according to Zeidabadi’s own writing, subjected him to insults from thugs to threats of murder and sexual assault. He wrote that he never thought that part of the people of this land would reach this point, a point where, according to him, there is no longer a place for him. The essence of Zeidabadi’s words is that he cannot withstand the pressures coming from all sides and feels so alone and alien in this situation that he prefers death over living among such people. Ultimately, he has decided to say goodbye to a political scene that he finds no affinity with.
According to Zeidabadi, moderate forces are generally sensitive and delicate due to their cultural, civil, and intellectual nature. They cannot endure insults, baseless and unfair accusations, and leave the scene with a sense of frustration and deep sorrow, allowing supporters of those two hostile poles to spill each other’s blood until one side is exhausted.
What Supporters Say
Those who support Zeidabadi’s approach or at least, even if they don’t think like him, defend diversity and oppose the exclusion of others due to different thinking, say that insulting intellectual opponents or those who warn of future dangers, especially experienced journalists like Ahmad Zeidabadi, whom even the insulters once called the pride of the pen, is neither fair nor beneficial to the protesters’ goals.
Some supporters of Zeidabadi’s view, who are accused by critics of playing both sides or being indecisive, say that this accusation is a consequence of truth-telling and truth-seeking. Because, in their belief, telling the truth is bitter, and the ear of truth is averse and fleeing from listening to it.
Those who are deeply troubled 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 defenders.
For this reason, they believe that since Zeidabadi has practiced truth and sacrificed his life to give life and mobilize thoughts in search of truth, the battalions and armies of truth-slayers have come to extinguish his enlightening torch. They advise him to stay and persevere so that the arena of confrontation of ideas and arguments does not become devoid of the wise and the prudent.
What Zeidabadi’s Critics Say
Aside from those who reacted to Zeidabadi with insults and threats, those who tried to critique his writings and ideas believe that he is not playing on the people’s side. They believe his perspective is arrogant and top-down and that he does not want to see the reality in the people’s protests. In their view, not understanding reality is a kind of evasion and blaming any future violence on others. Although Zeidabadi’s advice seems very calm, precise, and wise, this advice or counsel no longer works.
That is why, according to Abdollah Momeni, reformists like Zeidabadi, who once claimed to be border activists, have now become ineffective, and this situation has caused confusion in their position and role. Not to mention that some have harsher criticisms of Zeidabadi and the likes of him, sometimes calling him overly sentimental and sometimes believing that he and Hossein Shariatmadari are actually one person.