Nationwide Protests in Iran and the Right to Self-Determination
The nationwide protests in Iran have led to the repeated sharing of an old video of Ayatollah Khomeini’s speech about the right to self-determination, which has even become a hashtag and a focal point for diverse content creation on Twitter. Meanwhile, supporters of the current power discourse in the Islamic Republic believe that the legitimacy of the 1979 referendum remains intact and that no one has the right to question or challenge it.
However, Ayatollah Khomeini’s ruling contradicts the opinion of his current supporters because he believed that even if the Qajar and Pahlavi governments had come to power through a referendum and voting, since the generation has changed, the opinion of the previous generation does not have legal validity.
Although the principle of the right to self-determination is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, it is both one of the fundamental principles of international law and, as evidenced by Ayatollah Khomeini’s speech, one of the documents and foundational principles of the Iranian Revolution.
Now, the protesters are saying the same thing when it comes to the demands of the 1980s generation, when it is said that this generation’s demands differ from the previous generation and even in the manner of demanding and fighting, they act differently. The exact discussion of the right of choice and autonomy of the new generation in changing their destiny is raised. More than four decades have passed since the Yes or No referendum on the Islamic Republic, and the majority of those who voted in that referendum are no longer alive.
An examination of the age distribution of the population over different years shows that only 14% of those eligible to participate in the Islamic Republic referendum in March 1979 were over eighteen years old at the beginning of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s reign in 1941 and could have agreed with him. Now, the population that was over eighteen in 1979 and could have agreed with the Islamic Republic has reached the same 14% in 2021 and for the first time in 2022, it has fallen below this amount.
What did Khomeini say?
We assume that a nation unanimously voted for someone to be a king. Very well, they have the right to decide their fate, and their vote is enforceable for themselves. However, if a nation voted, even unanimously, that the descendants of this king should also be kings, what right does a nation fifty years ago have to determine the fate of the next generation? The fate of every nation is in its own hands.
In the past, let’s assume during the early Qajar period, if we assume that the Qajar monarchy was established through a referendum and the entire nation gave a positive vote, they voted positively for Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar and the rulers who would come later.
In the time we lived, during Ahmad Shah’s reign, none of us experienced the time of Agha Mohammad Khan. What right did our ancestors, who voted for the Qajar monarchy, have to decide that Ahmad Shah should be the king in our time? The fate of every nation is in its own hands. A nation a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago was a different nation with its own fate and authority, but it did not have the authority to impose a king on us.
We assume that the establishment of the first Pahlavi monarchy was by the people’s choice and that they established the Constituent Assembly by the people’s choice. This means that, assuming this invalid matter is valid, only Reza Khan would be the king, and only for those who were there at that time.
But for Mohammad Reza to be the king over this population, most of whom, except for a few, did not experience that time, what right did they have to determine our fate in this time? What right did they have to determine our fate? Everyone’s fate is their own unless our fathers are our guardians.
Unless those who lived a hundred or eighty years ago can determine the fate of a nation that comes into existence later, this is also a reason why Mohammad Reza’s monarchy is not legitimate.
Moreover, the monarchy they established at that time, and even if we assume the Constituent Assembly was valid, this nation whose fate should be in its own hands says that we do not want this king now.
The Right to Self-Determination in International Documents
The principle of self-determination is one of the foundational principles of contemporary international law. This principle is mentioned in Article 1 of the Charter and is among the purposes and objectives of the United Nations. The Charter refers to the right to self-determination as one of the bases and foundations of friendly and peaceful relations between states and nations. This principle was first introduced in Wilson’s Fourteen Points and later in the Covenant of the League of Nations.
During the drafting of the Charter, the committee responsible for it considered several points necessary for applying the principle of self-determination, including a close relationship with the genuine will of the people, expressed freely, and compliance with the Charter’s objectives, including territorial integrity and the absence of any obligation for minorities to achieve independence.
This principle is mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Charter. The right to self-determination, particularly since the drafting of the human rights covenants in 1966, has been defined as the right of people to determine the political, economic, and social system within which they live. In essence, internal self-determination means the right to have a democratic government.
Referendums for governance, for the right to self-determination, and organizing it by one or several groups, whether national or otherwise, are discussed. In this section, wherever the term referendum for governance is used, it refers to a referendum for the right to self-determination and organizing it by the people. Although some referendums may be for other purposes than governance, such as referendums to determine borders or referendums for cultural rights and similar matters.
Articles related to this writing have been published on Iran Gate, and we recommend reading them if interested.
- Power and the Taboo of Referendum
- The Future of Iran in the Haze of Doubt
- Iran’s Movement Towards a Dead End in Neutral Gear