To go beyond the 'law' or to surrender to it

To go beyond the 'law' or to surrender to it?

M. Razi

Razi@kargar.org

The death sentence passed against Hashem Aghajari and the recent student protests yet again brought the problems of the ruling elite and its internal cliques, but in a new form, to the attention of the people of Iran and the world. At times like these, as before, the two camps line up against each other: the camp of protesters who are independent of the ruling elite (the students and other toilers); and the ruling elite and its internal cliques. The 'reformers', who apparently have the President and the majority of parliamentary deputies on their side, and, as they claim, have been elected on the basis of the votes of the majority of people, yet again demonstrated that as a whole they have no political power. The most important of their figures in the Islamic Iran Participation Front (IIPF) have either been arrested, sentenced to death or have been subjected to intimidation. For example, the IIPF said the following about the arrest of Abbas Abdi:[1]

"Almost a week has passed since the illegal arrest and imprisonment of Engineer Abbas Abdi, a member of the Central Council of the Islamic Iran Participation Front. However much the judiciary has tried to cook up weird and strange charges against Abdi ... but who is there who does not know Abbas Abdi has been imprisoned solely for the crime of reflecting the real and true demands of the Iranian nation. The crime of Abdi is this that he demonstrates the real demands of the people for negating authoritarianism and establishing democracy and the rule of law," (Statement of IIPF on the arrest of Abbas Abdi, 10 November 2002 [19 Aban 1381]).

If Abbas Abdi can be imprisoned on the charge of reflecting the "real and true wishes of the Iranian nation" and if he is the "real" representative of the people; why has the IIPF, which has the support of most parliamentary deputies, with the support of the President, oust this intimidating minority? What kind of law is this that throws the representatives of the majority of the people into jail? Why don't these representatives of the majority of the people of Iran get the support of the people themselves for ousting these bullies? Why do the students and the people of Iran, who are rightfully stepping outside the law, are encouraged to show 'self-restraint'? If this group do not have something up their sleeve, and want freedom and democratic rights for all the people, why when faced with this lack of rights and lawlessness do they resort to the same intimidatory law?

It is as if the 'reformers' have been taken hostage. They not only do not have the slightest executive power, but it looks like their role is to prevent and stop student protests. They even do not have the courage to oppose the other clique in words and, as usual, speak of unknown figures who are responsible for deaths, repression and intimidation, and must one day in the distant future be identified. For example, the deputy speaker of parliament says:

Deputy speaker of the sixth Majles (parliament) says: "Some people are looking to declare a state of emergency and want, as they say, to get rid of the reformist group. Actions that sometimes takes place in the country, can create this ambiguity that that certain people are in some way co-ordinating those cases. Some of the evidence and indications of this are apparent, but to be able to recognise a particular person as the cause of these cases, needs more evidence and documents. ... On the other hand, the judiciary is not answerable to anyone. In some cases regarding the behaviour and sentences passed by certain judges, complaints have been sent to Public Prosecutor's office and we know that in this Prosecutor's office has found the judges guilty, but there are people who block them serving their sentence or even do not allow that their files be opened? By posing the question of who is answerable these measures he, adds: There are also authorities that are known for not seeing themselves as answerable to anyone. By voicing the issue that the authorities do not see themselves as answerable, as is well known, he, claims: Each of these authorities has a role; some have the role of neutralising the Islamic parliament and some have the role of impeding the executive and the government and some the role of upsetting foreign relations or confronting political forces, the media and newspapers. Of course, by following the events of the past two or three years, it is possible to identify these authorities. In such a case you will be chastised for agitating public opinion. ... In his opinion there is just one branch and all the other branches do not have an important role." (ISNA, 27 November 2002 [6 Azar 1381])

The deputy speaker does not take into account that in the opinion of the people these individuals have all been identified. The perpetrators of the 'chain murders' (a series of murders of political dissidents), the crushing of the students' movement and the killing of workers all took place with the agreement and supervision of the key figures of the regime like Khatami himself, Rafsanjani (and spectators like the 'reformers' themselves). Do the 'reformers' have the guts to take these people to court? Obviously, the words of the deputy speaker are the words of a person who has no intention of fighting against coercion! These are the words of a person who is himself a part of that system! These are the words of a person who believes in the preservation of that same system, but with a few pacifying 'reforms'! These are the words of a person who is in opposition to the demands and needs of the masses of students and workers of Iran! These are the words of a person who is compromising his position!

In addition the 'reformers' and their allies in exile have recently been publicising the need for a 'referendum'? The main question posed here is what is the aim of having such a referendum. Are all the presidential elections and mass student protests themselves not a form of 'referendum' against the repression and bullying? What is more, a referendum can be a success when a government that is at least democratic (in the bourgeois form) is in power. Let us assume that leaders of the Islamic Republic grudgingly agree to a referendum. Let us suppose that the majority of the people of Iran also demand that the authoritarianism is thrown out. Can any sane person believe that the authoritarians will just hand over power after the referendum and step aside? Obviously this will not happen.

What lessons must we learn from the student activities of July 1999? Should we as before be content with 'legal' process that today the leaders of the regime and the Office for Fostering Unity (OFU)[2] are publicising? The lessons of the struggles of students, workers and women, at least during the Khatami presidency have been that access to democracy, the freedom of speech, assembly and the press (democratic demands) must wage 'extra-legal' struggles. The 'law' of the Islamic Republic is fundamentally flawed and cannot be reformed. The students yet again shown with their demonstrations the need for going beyond the 'reformers' and the only way to organise themselves is to set up independent student organisations. Organisations that are independent of the government and all of its dependent bodies like the OFU.

Obviously 'going beyond the law' does not mean ignoring the current political situation in Iran. The democratic rights of all people who have resisted coercion for whatever reason must be recognised. With the aim of setting up independent organisations of students and workers, revolutionary socialists demand the freedom of all political prisoners and demand that the death penalty of all dissidents and criminals be revoked. This includes the 'reformers' within the ruling elite.

29 November 2002 [8 Azar 1381])

Editorial of Kargar-e Socialist No. 118

[1] Abbas Abdi was the leader of the 'students' who seized the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. Their hostage taking action served to divert the mass movement, including the workers, from fighting against the capitalist system and into the blind alley of the mollahs' 'anti-imperialism'. Abdi is now a leading 'reformer'.

[2] Office for Fostering Unity: Variously translated as Office to Foster Unity or Office for Consolidating Unity, this is a students' organisation that has represented the 'radical' wing of the pro-regime students' movement.