Proposal for Dialogue with Protesters: A Change in Strategy or Political Tactic
The Chief Justice has proposed being ready to listen to the views and criticisms of protesters through dialogue. This comes despite the fact that just a few years ago, when Mohammad Khatami spoke about dialogue and national reconciliation, everyone criticized him. Besides Khatami, in recent years, Hassan Rouhani, Eshaq Jahangiri, and many other reformist figures have also called for dialogue. There were even reports that sessions centered on this national dialogue were underway among some right-wing and left-wing political figures.
Mohammad Reza Bahonar had said that these sessions are currently informal gatherings, and if they become organized and regular, a spokesperson will report on them. However, no report was ever announced, nor was it clear what the outcome of these gatherings was. Sadegh Zibakalam, who recently announced he has been banned from teaching at the university, said at that time, ‘Unfortunately, despite being a hopeful and optimistic person, I have no hope for these sessions. Unfortunately, the principlists see these sessions with reformists as a facade or display for the upcoming elections.’
Even before this, if the principlists believed in national dialogue, their view was mostly limited to dialogue among officials behind closed doors, and the people had little role in this idea. To the extent that in 2018, the Friday prayer leader of Isfahan said the purpose of this dialogue is for the leaders and officials of the system to sit together and resolve their differences for the benefit of the people, and I am one hundred percent in favor of this dialogue.
The Show of Dialogue
Following Mohseni Ejei’s remarks, some principlist political figures and members of parliament also repeated this idea. The Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution also announced the establishment of the House of Free Dialogue and the provision of opportunities for free-thinking chairs in schools and universities. The irony is that this council approved the establishment of the National House of Free Dialogue in 2006, and its charter was also approved by the parliament at the time. It was supposed to operate under the supervision of the Board of Support for Theorizing, Criticism, and Debate Chairs and within the framework of this charter. However, nearly 16 years later, this council has only now thought of reviving the old resolution.
The recent story of inviting dialogue goes back to a group of university Basij members who raised the dialogue banner and asked critical protesting students to sit and talk with them. The response, however, was that ‘We’ve been talking for years, and it’s you who have never recognized our demands and opinions.’ This is why many on social media have put this idea proposed by the authorities to the test and verification.
Dialogue with a Predetermined Outcome
Saeed Shariati, a reformist political activist, pointed out that reformists, dissidents, and critics have been saying for years, ‘Let’s come together and talk,’ and have made significant efforts in this regard. In a tweet thread, he wrote that during the reform era and the dominance of Saeed Mortazavi, the then Tehran prosecutor, some members of the central council of the Participation Front, who were also members of parliament, arranged a dialogue with the late Hashemi Shahroudi, the head of the judiciary, to see what to do about this individual.
Shariati writes that when the conversation turned to Mortazavi, the late Shahroudi pointed to the walls and warned about eavesdropping. He admitted all of Mortazavi’s mistakes with embarrassment, saying he had no authority to move or control Mortazavi. Yesterday, hearing the judiciary chief’s remarks about inviting dialogue and expressing objection to him reminded me of this memory.
Dialogue and Critics in Custody
Dialogue between the people and the power structure requires conditions, the most important of which is recognizing critics and protesters and scientifically confronting critics, not judicial confrontation. While Raisi calls protesters ‘flies,’ just as Ahmadinejad called them ‘dust and goats,’ most Twitter users have pointed out the contradiction between the claims and actions of those advocating dialogue.
The day after the dialogue proposal was made, news came that Mostafa Tajzadeh, who has always been at the forefront of dialogue and has repeatedly welcomed debates with principlist and revolutionary figures, was sentenced to five years in prison.
Ali Shakouri Rad, the former secretary-general of the Union of Islamic Iran People Party, tweeted to Mohseni Ejei, the head of the judiciary, asking, ‘Is your goal in dialogue to discover the truth and improve matters, or just to silence protests? If it’s the former, why is Tajzadeh in prison?’
Why is Mir Hossein Mousavi under house arrest? Why are the words spoken but not heard? If it’s the latter, this type of dialogue is useless. Action is needed, not repeated promises.
Hussein Dehbashi, a documentary filmmaker, also tweeted, ‘Dear head of the judiciary, hello. If you intend to dialogue with the most logical, educated, and patriotic intellectuals of the country, including journalists, filmmakers, documentary makers, songwriters, lawyers, sociologists, workers, teachers, retirees, students, and university professors, they are very accessible—in Evin Prison.’
Sina Ghanbarpour, a journalist, also wrote that journalists, as facilitators of dialogue, were arrested right from the start, even though they were merely reflecting reality. You are still arresting journalists. Why are the ignorant and imprudent officials who caused this situation free, but journalists are detained?
Dialogue Cannot Coexist with Elimination and Dissolution
Another person wrote, ‘If you were truly for dialogue, you wouldn’t have dissolved civil institutions like the House of the Sun and the Imam Ali Society, which were benevolent towards Iran and the deprived people, without ensuring fair trial procedures.’ Pedram Soltani, vice president of the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines, and Agriculture, also said that dialogue between the government and the people is meaningless.
The government communicates its message through dozens of media outlets. The relationship between the people and the government should be a dialogue, meaning the people speak and the government listens. The way for the people to speak is through free elections or free protests. When we have neither, no dialogue occurs. Another user also pointed out the removal of an interview with Nika Shakarami’s mother from the website of this newspaper and the Asr Iran site, saying this happened on the very day they announced public dialogue.
