Abbas Milani: Future of the Green Movement is Bright

"I believe that losing hope over suppression is to ignore history. You need to simply look at the one hundred year history of the Iranian people’s struggle for democracy to see that the size of the Green Movement coalition and its influence is greater and more powerful than the coalition that was formed during the Constitutional Revolution, Dr. Mossadegh’s movement, the Islamic Revolution, and even Khatami’s reforms. One hundred years of experience with democratic struggles is priceless. Violence leads to nothing but tyranny. In confronting this autocracy, we must make use of today’s technology to disseminate news and views of freedom fighters in order to win the hearts and minds of the people. We must give them hope that this movement on the rise benefits the people’s democratic movement and is to the detriment of the autocrats, such that the resources of the movement and its determination to achieve its goals will increase."

Even though Iran’s 10th presidential election, with interference from hidden forces, did not result in the demands of the majority of the people, it did create the foundation of a movement that magnified the hopes of Iranians in their liberation from autocracy.  Although the favored candidate did not succeed in replacing incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the people elevated their demand for a new president through demonstrations, and demanded a modification of the Constitution, thereby creating a new wave of demand for reform in society.  After a year of struggle, the current state and the future of the Green Movement along with its weaknesses and shortcomings is the topic of our interview with Dr. Abbas Milani, professor and director of the Center for Iranian Studies at Stanford University.

One year has passed since the founding of the Green Movement.  How would you describe this social movement and what future do you believe awaits it?

The Green Movement is currently at a sensitive stage.  The regime has used up all its power, from oppression, cruelty, violence, prison, execution, and bribery to the murder of its citizens.  Regardless, according to abundant evidence, I can say that the regime has been defeated.  Moreover, the unrelenting power of the movement has also been confirmed during the past year.  The movement has succeeded in following the principles of non-violence.  In my opinion, the future of the democratic Green Movement of Iran is bright.  However much I believe in this movement, we must not expect immediate results, because this movement, with its non-violent approach, is faced with a regime that exploits all of its oppressive force.  Therefore, the Green Movement faces a path full of twists and turns but its future remains bright.  In general, the Movement is on the rise.  The events of the next few days are important ones, but we must not suppose that they will determine the fate of the Movement in and of themselves.

When the protests first began, the regime’s severe reaction against the people seemed unexpected.  The increased use of violence resulted in the end of street protests.  What policies do you think the regime will pursue to confront the Green Movement?

The regime’s strategy is a combination of intimidation, violence, and bribery, which is in effect hiking up the price of confrontation every day.  Now this strategy of intimidation and bribery has not been effective.  That the street protests have been eradicated through killings and intimidation exists only in the futile imagination of the regime.  Historically, there are many examples of people demonstrating in the streets and when the cost of such protests has increased, they have returned to their homes, but not only has their anger not subsided, it has doubled, leading them back to the streets with even more forcefulness.  The history of popular struggles in Romania, East Germany, and Russia are filled with such cases.

In such an environment, will the regime concede to the people’s demands or will it repeat the bitter experience of the 1990’s with continued cruelty?

I believe that the ruling body led by Ahmadinejad, with its repressive tendencies, will have no qualms about repeating the crimes of the 90’s; however, not only have the times changed but fragmentation among the ruling elite has also increased.  The increased level of discord between Ayatollah Khamenei, other Grand Ayatollahs, and Ayatollah Rafsanjani and the disagreements between a large segment of the clerical establishment and Khamenei is proof that they are not in the position to repeat the 90’s.  Indeed, if they come to the conclusion that there is a need to repeat violence, they will not hesitate, but whether they have the means to do it is doubtful.

You see a definite future for the movement and a path that is on the rise.  Why do you have such an allusion when the regime will not hesitate to crack down on even the formation of the least amount of contact in order to regroup?

I believe that losing hope over suppression is to ignore history.  You need to simply look at the one hundred year history of the Iranian people’s struggle for democracy to see that the size of the Green Movement coalition and its influence is greater and more powerful than the coalition that was formed during the Constitutional Revolution, Dr. Mossadegh’s movement, the Islamic Revolution, and even Khatami’s reforms.  One hundred years of experience with democratic struggles is priceless.  Violence leads to nothing but tyranny.  In confronting this autocracy, we must make use of today’s technology to disseminate news and views of freedom fighters in order to win the hearts and minds of the people.  We must give them hope that this movement on the rise benefits the people’s democratic movement and is to the detriment of the autocrats, such that the resources of the movement and its determination to achieve its goals will increase.

Please explain on what you base your belief that the movement is on the rise, at a time when it is facing a lack of leadership and organization?

While the movement does not have a centralized leadership and lacks an agenda, it is still growing.  Despite the limits created by a lack of leadership, this can also be seen as a positive development for the Green Movement.  If we look at history, we see that when a social movement is tied to one leader, the regime was able to eradicate the whole movement by removing its leader.  In the Green Movement, leadership is not vertical, but very horizontal.  While in the short term, coordination among the forces of the movement will be difficult to achieve and this disorganization can be costly, we can be reassured that the movement will not come to a halt with the arrest of one person.  The horizontal network of the movement is a sign of its inherent democratic nature, such that after its fruition we can expect a dynamic society.  Meanwhile, in an individual-led movement, the likelihood of realizing a democratic society is more difficult because the temptation for a centralized leader to gain power for himself will make the attainment of democracy more difficult.

In the revolutions of the past, it was the leaders who managed the movement and led it forward. How can a movement without a leader succeed against this oppressive regime?

If we read commentary from American and British media in 1975, we come to the conclusion that, “The Shah is powerful while the opposition is weak.  Nobody has the endurance to challenge this regime.  The people are at most thinking about the food on their dinner table.”  But in no time, a widespread movement was initiated and found its leader.  In effect, as the rift in the regime grew, the people understood that the force of suppression declined and the whole nation initiated an uprising.  Compared to the Iran of 1978, today’s Iran is in a better situation for change; democratic thought has become more certain, information networks are more developed and the cracks in the regime have become increasingly wider.  If the regime isn’t toppled today with a 2 million member protest, we should not lose hope, but we should work harder, stand more firmly on the principles of non-violent protest and work towards the growth and development of a democratic culture.  In my opinion, the population that has returned home will come back out with one spark, but it is not clear what this spark will be.

Actually, my next question was going to be whether after one year of struggle we must still be waiting for a spark?  Or should the movement’s leadership be announcing the strategies and agendas that will guide the movement forward?

I am by no means suggesting that we should sit on our hands and wait for a spark.  In such a situation, even if a spark does go off, we won’t be able to take advantage of it.  The people are aware of the situation.  For harmonization inside and outside the country, there is a need for a leadership that can clarify policies.  My point was that the current situation is nothing but a temporary silence after repression.  None of the issues that led the people to protest have been resolved such that the people can maintain their silence.

Must we wait for a leader to appear spontaneously or must something be done to bring this about?

We must not wait to see what Mr. Mousavi, Karroubi, or Khatami have to say or what they will do.  Inside and outside Iran, we must work harder to plan the organization, appoint policies, and adopt specific social and political standards.  We must not wait for the formation of a leadership. We must act according to our own sense of responsibility.  There is an enormous resource outside the country that has not been completely mobilized.  Across the world there are around 3 million successful Iranians, the majority of whom want democracy.  Without their help, it is not possible to build a democratic Iran.  A composite of forces inside and outside the country is necessary to create a larger coalition.  If we had been able to mobilize the outside forces better, we might have been able to set off that spark.  The notion that 1 million Iranians could organize demonstrations in New York would have given so much hope to the people of Iran.  Today, the people of Iran are engaged in an imbalanced struggle against the regime.  The Iranians in exile must change this asymmetrical rivalry in favor of the people, through the pursuit of actions such as support for journalists and civil society activists who have been forced to leave the country, publication of banned books, providing technical support to the people of Iran and the removal of obstacles in the path of free information in Iran.

Many see free elections as the core of this coalition of which you mention.  What is your opinion on the essential foundation of this coalition?

In the current situation, the best and most important foundation can be democracy, the realization of a democratic society in which Iranians of all genders, faiths, and races are equal and in charge of their own destiny.  In such a situation, the world will take us seriously as a democratic contender.  Before the revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini instigated relations with embassies.  He suggested that questionnaires should be prepared and sent to embassies to find out their plans for Iran’s future.  His representatives had established effective relations with the embassies of the United States, Great Britain, France and even the Soviet Union.  Iran’s revolutionary leader even sent a letter to Carter, the U.S. president at the time, asking him to end his support for the [Shah’s] government and military, in exchange for continued access to oil after Khomeini took over the government.  If we cannot show our political and administrative capacity to run a democratic society, it is obvious that the West will not take us seriously and will retain its focus on the regime until a better option comes along.  The problem with Iran’s democracy movement is that it has still not spelled out a clear position on important issues such as the nuclear question.