Growing Opposition to Ahmadinejad
The BBC reports:
"There are signs of growing opposition in Iran to the policies of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
The needless assertion of "hardline" underpins the fact that the State owned BBC is neither independent nor impartial from the British government. The BBC does not refer to the "fascist Prime Minister Tony Blair" or "fanatical President Bush", yet both are equal valid and subjective characterisations.
However, leaving aside the unprofessional and biased reporting; the entire piece is propaganda. The BBC suggests that:
"Surprisingly some hard-line newspapers have started criticising the president in recent days, asking why he has spent so much of Iran's foreign exchange and complaining about the confrontational language he uses on the nuclear issue."Why should this be surprising? There is no such movement in Iran as hardline: there is Conservative and Reformist and Ahmadinejad is neither, although generally regarded as a religious conservative, he is an socio-economic ultra leftist. Knowing this is important, if one does not, one cannot hope to analyse Iranian politics. Moreover, the press (conservative and reformist) has never been keen on Ahmadinejad, Ayatullah-al Uzma Khamenei in 2006 rebuked various press outlets for their harsh and politically partisan criticism of Ahmadinejad's government.
The BBC, et. al., confidently predicted a landslide victory for Hashemi Rafsanjani in the 2005 Iranian Presidential election as did much of the Iranian press - much of it owned by Hashemi Rafsanjani - the conservative media outlets predicted that Qalibaf would win. Conversely, I - like many ordinary Iranians - correctly predicted the reverse; that Hashemi Rafsanjani would suffer a landslide defeat and that Ahmadinejad would win.
Anyone with a handle on Iranian politics knows that Ahmadinejad's popularity is running at an all time high and conversely (and consequently) his popularity in the Majlis is at an all time low, despite the result of the recent municipal elections which saw his conservative rivals do well and the reformists trounced. This was never a test of his personal popularity and the only candidate he endorsed during that election, Parvin Ahmadinejad, won a seat on the Tehran municipal council.
Thus the fact that as the BBC reports a "150 MPs have signed a letter urging the president to base his next budget on realistic assumptions - for example, about future oil prices which are key to Iran's economic forecasts" is no measure of unpopularity; rather it is the opposite. Even the notoriously anti-Iranian, Amir Taheri (the Shah's chief propagandist) acknowledges Ahmadinejad's popularity on the street:
"Ahmadinejad would rather people lived like him. He says we are not in this world to have a good time, we are here to serve God, to fulfil a mission. This has angered the fun-loving middle classes, but resonates with the so-called dispossessed."In truth, those in the Majlis and Northern Tehran have a lot to fear from Ahmadinejad; he is a believer in ethical economics: he is anti corruption, anti the acquisition of wealth, pro redistribution of wealth, protectionism and self sufficiency. His economic policies are to the benefit of the masses and to the detriment of the elite. He came to power with a pledge to take on the establishment and that is exactly what he has done. Whether he can continue to do so remains to be seen, yet he is losing no support on the street for so doing; rather the reverse. Nor as the BBC suggest is he losing support for his anti-Western speeches, which are very well received in Iran and throughout the Middle East.
11 comments:
"Further to that, is it the case that in Iran fervent religiosity tends to be a refuge of the poor (so much so that the lower class is referred to as the "chador class" as opposed to the middle class which is the "roosari class")?"
George, I think you know more about Iran than some people who have been there. Yes you are right, where I live our custom is the Chador in North Tehran some girls wear the rusari and manteau.
Your other question, I leave for Babak to answer.
George, this is a good question.
On the issue of radical Islamism; Ahmadinejad, like every Iranian politician who holds office, is an Islamic revolutionary. He is a Khomeinist - all Khomeinists are leftists.
His statements on Israel are misrepresented and misunderstood; in fact, his most famous bellicose statement about Israel was one where he suggested that the Zionist regime would fall by the endeavour of the Palestinian people and God's will. He quoted Imam Khomeini's (ra) sentiment that the Zionist regime must be eliminated from surface of the Earth; then pointed to Iranian history, the fall of the Shah by Iranian endeavour and God's will as an analogy.
I am sure you realise that it was implicit in this statement that Palestinians must liberate themselves; no direct Iranian intervention. Also implicit in the statement is that with God will the people can overthrow oppressors - this is after he won an election campaigning on sweeping corruption and oligarchy from the government, against a man referred to as Akbar Shah.
Ahmadinejad is certainly not cowed by the clerical elite: having failed to win the vote in the Majlis for his policy to pay the poor grants, he expunging debts owed to state banks by the poor. Then imposed a law drastically reducing the interest that private banks, i.e. the Parsian Bank could charge. Many of the members of the Majlis have shares in private banks, so he was essentially giving away their money.
A good quote to understand Ahmadinejad on the acquisition of wealth is from Imam Ali (as): "Allah, the Glorified, has fixed the livelihood of the destitute in the wealth of the rich. Consequently, whenever a destitute remains hungry it is because some rich person has denied (him his share). Allah, the Sublime, will question them about it."
The major political issue Iran at the moment is Hashemi Rafsanjani attempts to introduce privatisation, which he will succeed in doing. Ahmadinejad is opposed, as was Imam Khomeini (ra). This policy is not popular on the street. Ahmadinejad's speeches are of no consequence to his rivals; it is his popularity, economic policies and inclination to see private wealth, as public wealth, that is the source of conflict.
George, it is certainly true that "in Iran fervent religiosity tends to be a refuge of the poor," however the chador is not always a sign of religiosity; it is also cultural and traditional. Moreover, they are cheaper. So the phrases "chador class" and "roosari class" are not always used to denote the religiosity of the poor.
Good research.
"...a man referred to as Akbar Shah." Are you saying they was a slight at Rafsanjani in that speech?!! That's very interesting!
Like the quote from Imam Ali. It just goes to proves that liberation theory has always been in Islam and isn't just borrowed from Marxism and Christian Liberation Theology.
Are you saying they was a slight at Rafsanjani in that speech?!!
Yes. Ahmadinejad often talks of renewing Islamic Revolution. His reference to the Shah operated on three levels: as a parallel to the Palestinian situation; to associate his position with the teachings of Imam Khomeini (ra); and as a metaphor for Rafsanji.
Steph/Basam, I agree; Khomeinism is an indigenous ideology that arises out of an Islamic liberation theology that has always existed within Shi'ism and rejects Marxism. However the Tudeh party were Islamic Marxist.
"Ahmadinejad is certainly not cowed by the clerical elite: having failed to win the vote in the Majlis for his policy to pay the poor grants, he expunging debts owed to state banks by the poor. Then imposed a law drastically reducing the interest that private banks, i.e. the Parsian Bank could charge. Many of the members of the Majlis have shares in private banks, so he was essentially giving away their money."
Moody doesn't mess about does he? No wonder they've got the hump!!!
"Marx was the first progressive leftist (at least in the West)."
George, Marx was a millenarian, he was a reactionary! He was a revolutionary and about as progressive as Praise God Barebone!
...not that being a revolutionary is a bad thing!
Yet still they do not have the support to impeach him and the Guardian council has indicated that it will reject the legislation passed that would reduce his presidency. Although they also indicated that they would quash his latest economic budget.
Post a Comment