Iran’s Future in the Haze of Doubt
While Ghalibaf promises that, with the establishment of security and calm, legitimate changes and a move towards new governance will be made in all areas of the country, at the same time, the microphone of the representative from Sistan and Baluchestan, who speaks of the oppression of the people of Khash, is cut off, and nearly 300 representatives also demand the expedited execution of detainees.
This is where one must ask, Mr. Ghalibaf, how can we believe your words when, in the very parliament you preside over, your colleagues are adding fuel to the fire instead of pouring water on it? Moreover, many doubt the sincerity of your statements, believing that they are nothing more than empty promises, much like the judiciary head’s call for dialogue, which in practice lacks any real determination or will, and even the few avenues for dialogue are being closed.
Many believe that the prerequisite for the return of security is to see clear signs from the power structure and governance in listening to and acting on the promises made to protesters. At the very least, it means allowing the implementation of Article 27 of the Constitution regarding the right to freedom of assembly. The sign of returning security and moving towards dialogue is not the suspension of an activity of a reformist party or the arrest of a university economics professor merely for his criticisms, or the arrest and expulsion of students from education in such a manner.
The Solo Strings Within Power
It seems that within the principlist structure in power, there is a kind of disarray and division over how to deal with the protests. Ghalibaf’s words, even if not 100% sincere, express a portion of what is happening within this current. Ghalibaf can be seen as the most pragmatic or, in other words, the most technocratic figure within the current power structure, who has shown in critical moments that he is more committed to power than to ideology and some of its rigid values.
An example is his political action years ago when, under the title of Dr. Pilot and with a new stance, he tried to distance himself somewhat from his political base and entered the 2005 elections hoping to gain the middle class vote. Although he did not succeed, he showed that he was willing to make deals to stay in power. This is something that some factions within the principlist movement have understood well, such as the Stability Front, which made great efforts to prevent his presence in parliament and later his assumption of the parliamentary presidency, but they did not succeed.
Another of these figures who tries, regardless of his intentions or beliefs, at least outwardly, to present himself as democratic, moderate, and open to interaction with everyone is Ezzatollah Zarghami, who implicitly agrees with a soft retreat on the issue of hijab. In a speech at Sharif University, he stated that today our young girls and students walk the streets without headscarves. What happened? Did anything occur? In your opinion, if the government does not retreat softly, where will matters lead? Some women in the streets have become unveiled. Can we now forcibly cover them?
The Duality of Words and Actions
On the other hand, it seems that the main power current within principlism has no intention of retreating, or if it does, it does not want to express it, or if it does express it, it is exactly the opposite. To the extent that responsible figures in the Council for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice have repeatedly stated that they will not retreat from the hijab issue under any circumstances.
This duality can also be seen in the opportunistic use of the famous photo of the blonde-haired woman at the November 4th rally. After the publication of that image, which clearly showed the people present protesting and arguing with that woman, value-oriented and principlist accounts on social media began to exploit it with the notion that not only do we tolerate unveiled women, but we are also open to dialogue with them without any physical confrontation.
It was these types of reactions that made others question the identity and real actions of the woman in the image. Some said it was a project to lead them to such exploitation. If they are so tolerant and lenient about the hijab, then why have there been so many arrests so far? Why was Mahsa Amini arrested? Why was Donya Rad arrested for posting her photo without a hijab in a café? Why do the ruling tribunes still defend mandatory hijab, and many other such questions?
The expectation people have is that they wish the same rationality, logic, and tolerance witnessed regarding that unveiled woman, which principlist media proudly boast about—and rightly so—had prevailed throughout all these years, not just in the matter of the hijab, but in all areas. Then, neither the tragic story of Mahsa Amini would have become part of contemporary Iranian history, nor would so many innocent people have lost their lives. In such rationality, we would have had the best relations with the world, a strong economy, prosperous people, and a powerful society.
The issue is that the power structure is not only unwilling to retreat on the hijab issue but also unwilling to relent on matters less significant than that. These days, the issue of women’s motorcycling has been raised again, but the head of the police traffic information center has resorted to the same old tactic, saying the law states that anyone with a motorcycle license can drive, but no woman has a motorcycle license. The law is silent on this matter, and so are we. One user on social media jokingly wrote that to allow women to ride motorcycles, perhaps another revolution is needed.
Recommended Articles Exclusively Prepared on Iran Gate
- Where Are the Protests Heading? Will Iran Become Another Venezuela?
- Iran’s Movement in Neutral Gear Towards a Dead End
- Disaster at Istanbul Square
DMCA Protected Cover