The issue lies in criticism or praise.
Criticism or praise is about the difficulty of voting for Iranians abroad. The very insignificant numbers that have been published from the participation of Iranians outside the country show the high-pressure and tense atmosphere that had been created around the Iranian embassy, consulates, and polling centers.
We have about 8 million Iranian immigrants, and the votes cast were slightly over 80,000. Anti-participation sanctions were in place in front of the Iranian embassy in Madrid, and they welcomed those who wanted to enter the embassy with the harshest insults.
The story doesn’t end here. A group, of course only four people, were filming and taking photos of the voters. While filming and taking photos, they were also insulting to create a comprehensive document to publish on Iranian social media channels and virtual networks, tarnishing the reputation of the voters as mercenaries and disgracing their world. It was a strange and painful scene.
In today’s world, speaking ill is perceived as barbaric and savage due to political differences.
I know some of these compatriots closely and from afar. They mostly consider themselves civilized and well-mannered, identify with Iranian literature, and criticize the behaviors of other compatriots.
Instead of saying hello, they greet with respect and hang a Faravahar around their necks, but they do not necessarily follow the ancient Iranian customs in speech and behavior.
Having lived in Western democracies for years and witnessing political struggles, parliamentary debates, and the like, they have not learned the custom of respecting others’ opinions. They only accept tolerance and openness when it benefits themselves.
Let’s move on; I may have expressed these grievances before.
Although the elections in this period were accompanied by more pressure and tension for immigrants than in the past, they also had other abundant blessings.
This time, the Iranian society took a big step in observing the principles and nuances of political interaction with each other.
More rationality, contemplation, and dialogue were seen compared to past periods.
Despite the increased gaps and distances, and the society taking on a polarized structure, both sides listened more to the rival’s words than before, and there was less rudeness and disrespect.
Tolerance, respect for opposing views and opinions, and consideration for others were common practices among the majority of individuals I spoke with. No one asked me who I vote for or which candidate I support.
In my opinion, the refinement of our society with rationality and political etiquette was the greatest achievement of this election period. No one got overly excited about tomorrow’s victory, expecting the country to be turned upside down and the doors of wealth and prosperity to open.
The voters knew that this was just an effort to improve conditions for solving people’s problems and addressing Iran’s issues.
There is no absolute guarantee for this effort, but there may be challenges ahead. However, the hope and pragmatism arising from it were the missing elements that returned to Iranian life.
During the campaign days, media professionals and writers made significant efforts to persuade their audience.
Journalists and media professionals who supported the views of the medical doctors had a significant influence on public opinion and, in the end, succeeded in placing their preferred reformist candidate at the helm of the executive branch along with other actors, especially the reformist-minded people.
The extension of that rational action and deep understanding that we experienced in the elections is the correct action after the start of the elected government. It is not the job of journalists and media people to deify and sanctify the elected president and write a list of their virtues and moral qualities.
Historical experience shows that we Iranians have a long way to go in such matters.
The duty of journalism requires us to carefully monitor the actions of the elected government without hesitation and without considering reformist political tendencies.
Let’s politely criticize their shortcomings with a constructive critique and inform the public.
Our critique may not be fair and our information about a topic may not be complete, but if we stay within the bounds of literature, what harm is there in explaining the government’s work to the public?
Reformist work begins with careful scrutiny and polite critique, away from government extremism.
At this stage, we must not forget that journalists are the society’s watchdogs. We should not be swayed, ignore shortcomings and mistakes due to political inclinations, and engage in rational thinking.
Persian
مشاهده این مقاله به زبان فارسی
