The Evolution of Iran’s Student Movement

The Iranian student movement continues to challenge the dominant political powers despite the severe repercussions it has endured in recent years. The militant attack on the University of Tehran’s dormitories on July 8, 1999 sought to immobilize and effectively end the student movement. Yet, the frustrations recently voiced publicly by Amir Kabir University students make it clear to President Ahmadinejad that this is not the case. From the beginning of the reform years, as parallel student organizations were formed, the intimidation and arrests of student activists increased in an effort to dismantle Tahkim-e Vahdat’s (the Office for the Consolidation of Unity’s) role representing the student movement in Iran. In the face of these efforts, many students have steered away from the path of reform and legislative politics in favor of working with civil society. Of the two approaches, the latter has proven unacceptable to Iran’s current government, which does not support a diversity of views. Despite all the efforts, the students’ protests against oppression continue.

Mohammad Tahavori: The student movement (consisting of post-Revolution Muslim groups and pro-government groups) has experienced three main stages in the last three decades. In the first decade after the Revolution, following the three-year closure of the universities brought on by the Cultural Revolution, the student movement operated in line with the government and, in some instances, as an arm of the political administration outside the boundaries of the university. One example is the take-over of the American Embassy in the first year after the Revolution by university students and the hostage-taking that followed. In the second decade after the Revolution, the death of the founder of the Islamic Republic and the end to the eight-year Iran-Iraq war ushered in a new phase of student activities. Here, a critical approach to the regime is quite visible. Organizations politically aligned with the regime’s politics emerge at this time to fill the space created by the absence of a student movement in line with the government. With the start of the third decade after the Revolution, the student analysis of dominant policies goes beyond the scope of the official State, and extends to the regime as a whole. This shift in strategy by the student movement, from a “critique of the State” to “regime opposition,” became clear in the events leading up to and following the armed attack on the university dormitories and the detentions and torture of student activists. In your view, what factors could account for these changes?

Abdollah Momeni: In the first decade after the Revolution, with the purging of a major portion of the student movement from the universities, Tahkim-e Vahdat served as a representative of the student movement, more or less. In this decade, Tahkim-e Vahdat was the operating arm of official politics, enforcing the administration’s policies throughout Iran’s universities. In its mission statement, the Tahkim-e Vahdat movement of the first decade describes the objectives of its organization as a commitment to the governance of Islam or Velayat-e Faqih, the truth of the Islamic Revolution, and the necessity for importing such a justifiable truth to the rest of the world. The students of Tahkim-e Vahdat explicitly thought of themselves as protectors of and protected by the Supreme Leader, the Vali-e Faqih. By mobilizing support of religious and traditional Iranians, they established the discourse of an anti-modernity campaign, the core of which was in opposition to the West and liberalism. Numerous politically significant events such as the Cultural Revolution, the take-over of the American Embassy, the eradication of alternative voices within the public discourse, came out of that strategy and were in line with this belief.

However, in the second decade of the Revolution, several fundamental changes in Iranian society came about which altered the student movement, bringing it more in line with its academic nature. Reasons for this transformation included the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, the absence of the charismatic figure of Ayatollah Khomeini from the political stage, splits among conservative factions within the government, and the fading of efforts to mobilize the public. In this period, political cooperation within the government dropped dramatically. The consolidation of power caused the leftist faction of the government, which was once an advocate of political exclusivity, to become excluded by the dominant powers. Because the student movement was no longer perceived as an enforcement arm of the State, due to its close affiliation with the leftist movement, it had to undergo a transformation. Parallel to this, representatives of the ruling parties established their own organizations to ensure the dominance of government inside the universities.

Eventually, the student movement distanced itself from the Shari’a and moved towards religious intellectuals seeking a more moderate and humanitarian interpretation of religion. Although at this time the student movement did not change its mission statement or official stance, on a practical and qualitative level, it underwent a fundamental transformation shifting its functional role from “enforcer of the State” to “critic of the State.” However, the student movement at this time continued to be limited to strengthening the leftist faction of the government which had recently been ousted from the political center.

However, in the third decade, which coincided with the rise to power of Mr. Khatami and the reformist movement, the student movement stepped into a broader role in politics. This movement, which had played the most significant political role in transforming the power structure in Iran, began to act as the largest and most organized political base for Khatami. This was the first time since the years just after the Revolution that the student movement became the primary actor on the political stage with a real impact on government policies. Although the activities of the third phase of the student movement demonstrated its support of a faction within the state, through a critique of its past conduct, the student movement became more reform-minded and slowly moved towards a more democratic approach in its membership. It reflected a wider range of views and opinions and its new policy to promote freedom and democracy in universities attracted more support from the student body.

Students, who used to be the primary source of criticism of the ruling administration, were caught up in providing support to reformists in their political races. Ultimately, political gridlock and the defeat of the reformists forced students to recognize the limits of system reform. The students began to reconsider their support of the reformists, and as a result of this shift in political analysis, they began to articulate the impossibility of reform from within the ruling regime. They called the election a political spectacle and participation in it futile, unable to bring forth any substantial political progress. Moreover, the students realized that the problem did not lie in the inefficiency of the reformists, but rather in the Constitution, as the main source of blocking reform and democracy. As a result, the student movement, which was once a key basis for the legitimacy of a faction inside the system, was transformed into opposition to and a critic of it. More importantly still, the scope of its critique encompassed the government in its entirety, not just a faction of it.

During this period, the student movement began to reconsider its party-line political function with the introduction of new strategies such as “independence from the dominant power” and “criticism of the regime-system.” Also, it began to raise public awareness and continued to broadly critique the regime’s institutions of power.  

It is clear that the student movement’s strategy in the earlier stages was not in opposition to the government. Ultimately, it was the state’s intolerance and violent responses to the students – which incidentally also affected you personally – that brought the students to this place. Thus, has the student movement been able to move forward in this struggle?

Conservatives, who opposed the reformists, became uncomfortable with the increased effectiveness and stronger role of the student movement. Given the absence of independent political parties and civil society organizations during that time, the students carried the burden of defending the reformist project. As a result, the security apparatus of the governing regime, in order to outmaneuver the influential power of the student movement, deployed a series of violent, confrontational, militant security tactics against the students. Examples include the university dormitory incident, the arrest and detention of numerous members of Tahkim-e Vahdat and other student activists, and the split within the leadership of Tahkim-e Vahdat. These actions not only demonstrate the political intolerance of the authorities, but also speak to the lack of support from the reformists in the government.

The brutal and oppressive action of the authorities towards the students during these years ultimately resulted in the radicalization and escalation in extremism within the university environment. However, the student movement remained independent from the dominant powers and resisted the political hubbub in its criticism of the government. In other words, the students were neither seeking political office themselves, nor were they assuming a pacifist disengagement from politics. Instead, by distancing themselves from the political domain while remaining independent from its pressures, the student movement was able to engage in criticism of the state and various governmental institutions. Existing circumstances, including an absence of an official channel for criticism and protest and significant pressure on and consequences to student activism, could have pushed the student movement toward a violent revolutionary reaction. However, the students, through a campaign of criticism of the regime, managed to travel the most civil path of social engagement in the most uncivilized and brutal environment created by the state and security forces. Therefore, through its criticism, the students were able to question the legitimacy of the dominant power.

The incident on July 8, 1999 (18^th of Tir) is perceived as the beginning of the conflict between the student movement and authorities, and increased demands by Iranian students. Although students never took action against the system, their criticism touched on all parts of the political structure. The government reacted violently against the students. In your view, how influential was this particular incident on the student movement’s shift in strategy? How much of today’s resurgence of the independent student movement can be attributed to this incident?

The July 8 incident was a part of a larger campaign to defuse and eradicate the active members of the existing student movement. This project’s main objectives were to restrict the reformist movement and to reduce the capacity of existing social movements. To achieve these objectives, the universities were removed from the realm of politics, reducing the impact and power of the student movement on potential political changes in the country. As such, this campaign was successful in realizing its objectives: creating an atmosphere of disparity and indifference, establishing a sense of distrust and lack of solidarity and support for reformists, and casting a shadow of defeat over the universities for some time. However, after a short while, this skepticism of activism and the possibility of positive change gave way to a growing suspicion of reform within the structure of the government and gradually moved students beyond the objective of reform from within the system.

The violent repression by authorities created an atmosphere of cynicism among the students towards the political system and created a disconnect between the political system and political activism. Activism became a dangerous business with a high price and difficult consequences. This experience did have some positive outcomes. For example, the weaknesses and blind spots of the reformist and student movements were brought to light. Also, the government’s intolerance and unwillingness to reform was made clear. After this experience, the student movement began to move back toward its authentic place in the political stage and to recapture an independent strategy for its political agenda and activities outside the realm of established political institutions. Once again, broad-based criticism of the political structure became central to the movement.

Until the election of the Sixth Parliament, the student movement was the link between the reformist party and intellectuals and the public. Undeniably, the success of the reformists in the Sixth Parliamentary election was largely thanks to efforts and actions of the student movement and reformist journalists. With the closure of most reformist newspapers and the crack-down on the students and all that followed in the Sixth Parliament, the student movement began to distinguish itself from the dominant authorities within the existing political structure in the country, regardless of whether they were reformist or conservative. The first visible consequence of this occurs in the ousting of the reformists from the centers of power. Given the current political conditions, where authorities crack down on any sign of opposition and public protest, can you envision a brighter future for the student movement? What is the objective of today’s student movement, particularly with respect to its policy of independence?

During the reform period, the student movement’s main objective was to promote democratic politics from within the government through their reformist activities and cooperation during the presidential election, the first city council elections, and the Sixth Parliamentary elections. Contrary to what was envisioned at the time, there was no clear political agenda or organizational strategy to push the reformist platform forward; in fact, the presence of the reformists within the power structure did not bear any important fruit, so to speak. Thus, after eight years of failed policies in the political center, the reformists were not only ousted without any fundamental change in the political scene, but this time the door for their return was permanently shut behind them. This time the conservatives returned to power fully in control.

In light of the failure of the reformist movement and despite the oppressive atmosphere that rules the country now, the students reconsidered their alliance with the reformist party and began engaging in civil and public activities. This new phase is a continuation of the student’s political action and engagement for rebuilding the political structure. However, the adaptation of a policy of independence from political parties and sectarian divides was a strategic move by the student activists, based on their analysis of current conditions and the position of the student movement in the context of political action in society. The student activists are fully aware of the consequences of their independent policies, yet still speak out against the operations and policies of the authoritative arms of the government that have ruptured the connection between the government and its people. The student movement levels criticism against political parties and movements in power as well as in the opposition. The student movement has refrained from building alliances with political parties or movements which seek political office and a role in the political structure. It seems to me that this independence by the student movement is positive for all reformists and those who seek change in Iran.  

One reason for the failure of the reformist government in the recent past was its inability to recognize the significant role of public actions and to incorporate organized activities of smaller reformist groups. In contrast, the chink in the government’s armor is the public’s shift toward civil action and organized protests against the regime’s policies. The promotion of democracy and civil society inside Iran is the weakness of the governing regime – which is why they attack any organized movement that seeks democratic change. Student movements in societies that do not allow for alternative political voices become a key source of political engagement. Their main objective is to raise public awareness and to engage power structures. In our country too, because of the restrictive attitudes that dominate politics and government, there is no room for political diversity. Despite the immense brutality of the response to public protest, the student movement can transfer the burden of violence onto the government, through peaceful action and public awareness campaigns. The student movement must define itself by questioning the limits of the governing body’s authority over the rest of society, and must remain committed to exposing non-democratic forces and organizations. The student movement is the collective consciousness of the people, which with the aid of its constant evaluation of the various power relations at work, promotes freedom and democracy and reduces the gap between the dominant politics and the interests of the people. Therefore, the critical stance of the student movement is quite different from that of political and sectarian parties in that it must critically assess all factions of the ruling parties in order to reform and change the very structure of politics.

Since the true capital of the student movement lies in its intellectual power and capacity for analysis, it is qualified to critically observe and to assess the limits and consequences of the government’s actions without aspiring to gain power itself.

With the increase of brutality against the student movement in Iran, students have come to assume the role of human rights monitoring. To what degree is this new role a response to oppression by authorities, and to what degree is it due to the students’ alliance with other social movements in Iran?

In recent years, especially since the attack on the student dormitories, there has been an increased crack-down on student activities. Surprisingly, this continued crack-down and the systematic arrests of student activists have not led to an isolation of democratic organizations. Rather, they have moved farther away from the center of political power. This repositioning of the Tahkim-e Vahdat has led to an increase in its political authenticity and legitimacy among the Iranian people and among the larger student body and political movement. By definition, the student movement cannot operate as a political party – for every time it failed to engage effectively with political power. Students have engaged the government beyond political issues to include social, economic, cultural, and labor issues, and therefore they are well positioned to guard the human rights of Iranians and protect the fragile civil society which has recently developed in our country. It is up to the students to continue to analyze Iranian society and political environment critically to avoid the traps of populism and abuse of power.

The student movement’s broad, complex relationship with the public has fostered social movement in the past. Therefore, government attacks on students should also be examined from this perspective. Do you think the student’s focus on human rights issues has prepared the public for a new form of engagement? Have they successfully demonstrated to Iranians the importance of human rights? If so, what evidence can you share with us?

Considering that the student movement represents a larger demand for change in Iran, they carry the weight of articulating the needs and demands of the public. In addition to their traditional role – pursuing education within academia – students also see analysis as a central part of their identity. They have been very influential publicly, such that other groups have adopted student action as a model for collective political engagement. In addition to objecting to abuses of power, the strategic priorities of the student movement have recently been to focus on human rights issues and to demand equality for all citizens including sexual, ethnic, political, and religious minorities. As such, students have transformed the issue of human rights from an abstract topic into an everyday reality. The student movement has taken on the task of defending human rights in our society because the government has failed to ensure the protection of the rights of its citizens. Instead, the government has censored the media, intruded into people’s private lives, and persistently and systematically pressured various political parties and independent organizations to conform. To truly popularize this movement, we need to raise public awareness and expand the scope of protests to include the general public.

Because Iran’s political system is an ideological one, it imposes social hierarchies on people based on its interpretation of religious scripture. One of the main strategies of the student movement has been not only to criticize the conduct of the government, but also to demand the protection of basic civil and social rights of the citizens in both public and private spheres.

These basic rights include the protection of the sanctity of people’s private lives, fighting pressures on women by militant and security forces, and freedom of the press (including the right to use satellite television and the internet without censorship, filtering, and raids on private homes). Other examples of demands and political objectives of the student movement include solidarity with the women’s movement and support of their demands for equality under the law, support for the labor movement, and solidarity with the teachers’ protests and struggle for fairness in their contracts.

Today, Iranian society is experiencing military domination and brutal control over social movements and acts of resistance, such as teachers’ strikes, labor negotiations, and the student and women’s protests. Do you think that these movements will succeed in their efforts to attain civil rights?

After Ahmadinejad’s new cabinet was assembled, the approach of the government in response to the people’s demands and various social movements was articulated in terms of national security. They believed they could silence the opposition’s voice in civil society and establish total control over public domain, ignoring the needs and demands of the people. However, if the government was in fact able to impose absolute and total control over social and civic institutions, the response from the public would have been explosive.  

The increase in the social, political, economic, and cultural demands of people is due to the government’s inability to meet its responsibilities. This government, which came to power with slogans of improving people’s livelihoods and increasing justice and liberty, has failed to achieve its promises. Instead, this government has repeatedly crushed any effort to organize by Iran’s workers; silenced the voices of ethnic groups who demand official recognition of their cultural identity; and demeaned, in the most violent way, the call of the women’s movement to end sexual and gender inequality. It has banned students from the universities, accusing them of betraying their country. Yet, despite all of these prohibitions and harsh repression of any voice of opposition, we are witnessing the development of a more radical social movement in Iran, promoted by the organizations demanding rights for women, students, teachers, and workers. Without a doubt, these movements will succeed in their pursuit of equality and justice.

The student movement, as a key social force in the country, and through interactions with other social movements, has strengthened and empowered the opposition movement in Iran. Movements for equality and a better society seek the kind of change that would bring stability and insure progressive democratic government in Iran. Thus, the more mainstream these social movements become in their struggle for equality and democracy, the less room there will be for resistance against autocracy in society.

We thank you for your participation in this interview.