Less than a month since the formation of the national assembly to accomplish “national ‎reconciliation” or “national rescue” and each of the two major political groups that have ‎been the key actors in the country has presented its own plan and campaign for the eight ‎Majlis elections in March 14, 2008, in the hope of wooing the public to vote for it. While ‎many in the country looked up to the reformists to come up with a plan to instigate ‎change in the country, they launched their “national reconciliation” initiative, hardliners ‎are now trying to make a similar claim and portray themselves to be the force for national ‎reconciliation.‎

The argument was that under the current grave conditions which are the results of ‎Velayate Faghih (leadership b y a cleric) style management, the impotence and ‎ineffectiveness of the government, lack of independence of the Majlis, Majlis deputies ‎who represent the government rather than the public, inflation, unemployment, poverty, ‎corruption, prostitution, etc, and even the possibility of another war, requires that a ‎program aimed at the eight Majlis elections and the next presidential elections aimed at ‎unseating Ahmadinejad’s administration could be the solution by reducing the unlimited ‎authority in the country. There is evidence to suggest that the measures of a small group ‎of conservative Majlis deputies suggests that at least a faction insides the hardline group ‎is willing to stand next to the anti-dictatorial group, along with the reformist, side by side ‎with a group of conservatives and moderates. ‎

The fact is that the critical conditions and circumstances facing the country and the ‎numerous warnings that have been made by individuals and groups across the Iranian ‎political spectrum, have opened a national debate or discussions about the current grim ‎conditions. Politicians and statesmen such as Khatami, Rafsanjani, Nategh Nouri, ‎Hashemi Shahrudi, among others, have publicly joined this groups and warned of the ‎dangers of the current course of events in Iran with national and strategic consequences, ‎turning the issue into a “national rescue” mission.‎

At the other end of the spectrum, the hardline movement which planned and directed the ‎para-military group that supports the current Administration, and which is fearful that the ‎current political balance may change to its detriment, is attempting to hijack the “national ‎reconciliation” initiative, using the national radio and television system, Friday prayer ‎sermons, and other available public tools. The purpose of these groups is to survive the ‎current and growing domestic opposition it faces, which primarily comes from the ‎reformers and those advocating major fundamental changes in the political structure of ‎the country. National reconciliation is usually a term used to after a revolution, a civil ‎war or a brutal clash of forces which is rapidly and uncontrollably moving the nation ‎towards a precipice. Sometimes it is also used against an imminent foreign threat. In the ‎last decade, this notion was used in recent years was when the reformists in Iran won the ‎presidential elections through Mohammad Khatami in 1997. But subsequent events such ‎as unexpected response from the Supreme Leader and the hardliners, lead to the ‎abandonment of this movement. Even the slogan of “Iran for all Iranians” did not succeed ‎in its goal of mobilizing the masses against the encroachment or practices of the ‎authoritarian hardliners. This initiative had true national objectives, while its ultimate ‎goals were not confined to Iranians inside the country only and included all Iranians ‎outside the country as well. ‎

So at a time when the hardliners have launched their own initiative to confront the ‎‎“national reconciliation” drive by the reformers, it is time for individuals and groups to ‎welcome the reformers’ calls and join hands with them. They should ask who do they ‎want to reconcile with and whether “national” means all Iranians or just a self-selected ‎group. They should understand whether the interests that are being debated are personal ‎and factional, or truly national.‎

Is it possible to call for “national reconciliation” while working to limit candidates to ‎forthcoming elections through elected bodies? Is it possible to advocate “national ‎reconciliation” while limiting the work of political parties and groups in disseminating ‎knowledge and mobilizing the masses to remain politically active? Is it possible to talk of ‎‎“national Reconciliation” while shutting down independent newspapers and arresting ‎journalists and sending them to prison? Is it possible to call for “national Reconciliation” ‎while imprisoning those who are active in defending human rights, the rights of the ‎minorities, etc? ‎

If all the hardliners want to do is use this slogan for propaganda and campaign purposes ‎and change the political atmosphere, then it would be best if they left the nation alone to ‎determine their goals and objectives and let them move on.‎