Iranian Revolutionary Socialists’ League

Editor@kargar.org - www.kargar.org - IRS, PO Box 14, EN6 1LE, UK.

To overthrow the regime or to preserve the status quo?

M. Razi

In the current situation, with the deepening social and economic crisis in society, and the splits within the ruling elite’s factions, the debate on overthrowing the regime and the other alternative forms of government are on the order of the day.

There are two positions on the overthrowing issue. On the one hand, the organised forces loyal to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic and the Velayat-e Faghih view any overthrowing of the regime as against religion and warn the people of its destructive consequences. Both of the ruling cliques share this view. In a recent speech Khatami said: “the clearly voiced demand and need of the people has manifested itself in the formula of the “Islamic Republic” and if there is any danger against the system and society, then the threat against this demand has become crystallised (speech at the start of the new university academic year, 25 September). The regime’s various cliques have on many occasions clearly shown that whenever, and for whatever reason, the “system” is threatened then they are prepared to put aside their internal differences and unite in the defence of the “Islamic Republic”. A “united” attack of the regime’s cliques against the workers’ insurrection in Eslamshahr, and students at Tehran and Tabriz universities, show that not only the forces of Hezbollah, but all the “reformers” within the regime will resist until their last breath any attempt at overthrowing the “system”. This is because the “maintenance of the status quo” at any cost is a vital issue for those who have material interests in society. The merchant capitalists of Iran have an interest in the regime’s preservation and it has remained faithful as the representative of capitalists. The exiled Iranian capitalists have, after years of waiting and uncertainty, finally given in to Khatami’s “civil society” and see a window of opportunity for their dashed hopes in that section of the ruling elite. They have also therefore joined the “reformist” front.

On the other hand, “centrifugal” forces confronting the regime’s cliques have taken shape. These social tendencies are the same forces that are independent of the regime’s factions. These are forces that Khatami in a recent speech called one blade of a “dangerous pair of scissors” that has the “negation of the Islamic Republic” as its aim. These social layers are without any organised structure, material resources, unity, experience or a clear political perspective. Even so, because of their conscious or unconscious combative action they have stood up against the “reformers” and the “absolutists”. They have shaken the regime’s social bases and have formed a “Third Front”. Although these social layers (university students, women and young workers) are not at the moment equipped with a definite revolutionary programme and the central slogan of overthrowing the regime, but, the logic of their struggle will potentially point them towards such a position. These discontented social layers will in practice learn that the “reformers” are the same as the “absolutists”, and that the “absolutists” are the same as the “reformers” and that the differences between them are just superficial.

Of course, the existence of such independent action in society will not in itself lead to an overthrow of the regime. In the absence of a broad political organisation and the vanguard workers on the stage, the regime (with the help of imperialism and its internal and external supporters) will eventually find “explanations” for the problems and stop the process that leads to its overthrow.

Organising and preparing the “Third Front” for the revolution

In such a situation, the role of revolutionary forces is to relate themselves to the “independent front” of the people and to strengthen it.

Within the “left opposition” there have continuously been two deviations in relation to the recent events in Iran, especially since Khatami’s election.

First, the “sectarian” tendencies, that think of themselves as completely separate from developments and regard everything as a conspiracy and as unconnected with the problems of workers’ movement. For this group intervention in the latest developments in Iran is completely unnecessary, because they do not fit in with their ready-made theories. These groups limit their propaganda to a number of general slogans. These forces do not understand that to rely on slogans on like “Down with the Islamic Regime” or “Long live the socialist republic” only, without taking into consideration the objective movements in society, is not enough. These forces must be able to provide an answer to the question of what is the connecting link between the current situation - and the present level of Iranian people’s consciousness - and the formation of a soviet and workers’ republic? By starting from the present demands and present consciousness how can we move the struggle forward? What kind of organisation and structure must be created that is both consistent with the existing situation and can facilitate the future revolution? Instead of addressing these crucial points they engage in a series of generalities and disjointed and trivial work and finally invite everyone to join their “party” or “organisation”! It is obvious that such an approach, will not only not help the “Third Front”, but will quickly demoralise them. The vanguard and militant forces in Iran are right now under the physical threats of Hezbollah and the publicity of “reformers”. They want to find real solutions for preparing themselves for revolution instead of joining the self-styled “parties” and “organisations” that have no connection with the problems in Iran. The role of conscious revolutionary elements is to help and strengthen the vanguard youth of Iran in their efforts to form a party that is in touch with Iranian society. The role of revolutionaries is not to impose bogus exiled parties on the youth.

Second, the opportunist tendencies that constantly pay special attention to the internal developments of the regime. They believe that by closely following the inner contradictions within the ruling clique they can find the most “radical” elements, establish links with them, and in unity with them, organise the revolution. They are ignorant that the most radical of the ruling clique’s factions will eventually unite with the most reactionary faction when confronted by the popular struggles and the workers’ movement. It looks like these tendencies have learnt nothing from the lessons of the last Iranian revolution (leaving aside the lessons and historical experiences of other countries). These are the same tendencies that supported the so-called anti-imperialist “militant clergy”. These are the same tendencies that at every stage during the last 20 years have constantly been linked with the regime’s internal factions. Today they have not learnt their own bitter experiences and carry on in the same old way.

In opposition to these two deviations, the revolutionary socialist forces organise their activity in connection with the objective problems and demands of the vanguard layers in society. Instead of acting like they are superior, and launching a party or organisation form above, they must build such an organisation together with the revolutionary vanguards. The experience of the last few months of the vanguard youth shows that one of their central demands was the founding of independent organisations. Organisations that are capable of organising most of the central forces and turning their struggles against the dictatorship into anti-capitalist struggles.

Creating and co-ordinating socialist cells can prepare the ground for organising independent organisations of the youth. Only through organising socialist cells from below can we be hopeful of developing youth organisation. One of the main tasks of the socialist cells in Iran is to find methods for linking youth organisers with workers’ organisers.

During the last two decades workers’ circles have been formed in Iran and their activities - even though scattered - have had a significant effect in society. Establishing links between the workers’ circles and those of the youth through socialist cells can thus be the ground for forming the initial cells of a revolutionary vanguard party. As for our political perspective and current central slogans, we cannot just declare that the regime has to be overthrown! Nor can we entertain any illusions about the ruling elite’s factions. It is obvious that the only and most stable way of uprooting and overthrowing the regime and establishing a workers’ government can be with creation of workers’ councils. The forces of revolutionary socialism will not join any government where the workers do not play a decisive role. The only regime that can solve the problems of society is a soviet republic, which is the highest and most democratic form of government in history.

However, in the current situation when such councils have not been formed and the revolutionary vanguard party has not been built, revolutionary socialists demand the overthrow of the regime and the formation of a democratic and revolutionary constituent assembly. A constituent assembly that does not accept any body, organisation or person higher that itself and is supervised by the armed masses and the true representatives of the people through their direct, universal, secret and free votes. This assembly will take steps towards the drafting of the future constitution and the founding of a future government. The role of revolutionary socialists in this assembly is to struggle for the creation of a workers’ government.

While in exile, the formation of committees in solidarity with the independent workers’ organisation can create the link between Iranian workers and other international progressive forces and strengthen the struggles of this layer in Iran.

27 September 2000