Fall of the Islamic Republic, Pros and Cons

The Islamic regime in Iran is now on a path to demise and it is time to discuss the arguments for and against its survival. Every observant of Iran’s political developments may weigh these arguments with considering the advantages and disadvantages of this demise. There have been some letters (`Ezzatullah Sahabi) and statements (Mir Hussein Musavi) describing the developments of the Green Movement and criticizing its speed. They do not offer any definition of moving fast or slow while complaining about the pace of activists’ actions. This requires discussions on the necessity or the lack of necessity to overthrow the Islamic regime and their backgrounds and consequences. 

Most of the people who are against the existing government and do not talk about its demise use this position to avoid radicalization of the political situation and violence.  They are aware of the levels of violence and bloodshed in social revolutions and are frightened of repeating the same experience of 1979 when the situation went from bad to worse. Nevertheless, the continuation of this regime may lead to more bloodshed compared to the price that protesters pay to overthrow it. 

Those who believe in overthrowing the regime have very clear reasons: inefficiency, very dark profile in violating human rights, despotic character, a long experience of resistance against reform, multiple dead ends and contradictions in legal system, and institutionalized discriminations and privileges. Those who still want this regime to survive have four possible reasons: 1) they still see this regime as the only vehicle to enforce Islamic ordinances that they believe in; 2) they have embedded political and economical benefits in this regime; 3) they still hope for reform in this regime, and 4) due to the closed media sphere, they do not have enough information on the regimes’ brutalities and wrong doings. There is also a group who is against the existing rulers, but does not want the regime to fall for several reasons that will be discussed below.
 
Why some groups who had suffered in this regime do not want the regime to collapse and ask for some gradual reforms? On the opposite, why do some groups insist on overthrowing the regime?

Non-violence

Most of the people who are against the existing government and do not talk about its demise use this position to avoid radicalization of the political situation and violence.  They are aware of the levels of violence and bloodshed in social revolutions and are frightened of repeating the same experience of 1979 when the situation went from bad to worse. Nevertheless, the continuation of this regime may lead to more bloodshed compared to the price that protesters pay to overthrow it.

Too Big to Fail

One possible argument is based on the enormous size of the Iranian government and dependence of millions of people to this monster. They believe if this monster collapses lots of other institutions and networks that this huge vulnerable population is leaning toward will be affected. On the opposite, some people would argue that for the same reason we should let it collapse because it leaves no room for efficiency and rationality. The state in Iran has grown in size to a level that every group who comes to power will be soon a bunch of dictators. To make the state small, there is no way other than overthrowing the regime: no political regime voluntarily shrink its size to limit itself.

In addition, the demise of the Islamic regime will be very expensive for the Iranian people. It is not clear how this monster will react in its last days and how many individuals will be crushed under his feet or how many or which public institution or resources will be ruined. But nobody may trust this scary phenomenon and every day left of its life means more damage. The Islamic regime has always been fighting against its own citizenry in all aspects of their life and one day people should win this battle. As an example, the regime has been fighting against the satellite TV stations, Internet and other independent media outlets that people use on a daily basis.

However what happens after the collapse of the regime is not clear. Whether the government will shrink depends on the policies, agendas, and manifestos of the alternative forces and the mood of the society in that situation.

Collapse

Another possible argument against the toppling of the government is the equivalence of this demise with the disintegration of the whole country and decline of the territorial integrity. The presumption of this argument is the necessity of repression for integration: if Iranian ethnicities are still part of the nation, it is due to repression. This is just one of the justifications for ethnic repression; in reality, the process of integration is due to the cultural developments in the country, and democracy and human rights will further invigorate this national cohesiveness. Iranian ethnicities look for more participation and involvement in their affairs, not disintegration. 

The End of Iran and Islam

Iranian totalitarian and authoritarian faction’s tactic is to equate Islamic regime and Islam and introduce the dissidents of the first the opponents of the second. The ground for this association is to claim that Islam may guarantee Iran and the Islamic regime will guarantee Islam. None of these correlations holds. Logically, Iran may survive without Islam, and Islam would survive without Iran. Islam will also live without the Islamic regime in Iran. The collapse of the Islamic regime will be beneficial for Islam when one of the darkest features of it goes away and people would feel better about it. In real world, it is not possible to wipe out Islam from the face of Iran, but the elimination of Islamism in power is under way.

Chaos

Some people believe that it is impossible to live in peace in a country with a very diverse set of ethnicities, religions, classes, ideologies and perspectives without a dictator in charge. They do not see a tangible alternative for the existing coercive forces and believe that these forces are the hardcore of the existing regime. Therefore, without this hardcore that includes IRGC and Basiege, the whole regime will collapse that is not in their interest.

Based on this perspective, the guardian jurist and his plainclothesmen and IRGC loyal members, presenting the regime’s coercive feature, have the upper hand. The 1979 Revolution experience showed Iranians that with the collapse of any regime, the society will not breakdown. People are able to run their communities by themselves while the government is in transition.   

Foreign Domination

The regime loyalists believe that if the regime collapses the foreign countries will conquer Iran and plunder her resources. But the policy of fear does not have enough ground in the Iranian society. In today’s world, foreign powers look for good deals, not the occupation of a country that wants to live in peace with others. The conspiracy theorists who rule the country scare people from the imaginary enemies to prevent people from even thinking about toppling the regime.