Masood Pedram is a student of political science and an activist in the national-religious political group in Iran. He talked to Rooz about the importance of former president Mohammad Khatami to social movements and their strengthening if the reformist president runs in the 2009 elections. As a student activist, Pedram had been arrested in 2001 and imprisoned. When he was finally released from prison, he was banned from continuing his education. Here are the excerpts of the interview.
Rooz (R): You are the leading proponent of Hannah Arnett and Jurgen Habermas’ theory of “public sphere” in Iran. From this perspective how important do you view a structural change in power in Iran to strengthen and establish this sphere?
Masood Pedram (MP): I view this theory as a vital project in the political life of contemporary Iran and intend to advance it. If we look at politics in contemporary Iran, through the inspiring work of Habermas and Hannah we can find a specific sphere that may be called the public sphere. But this has always been on the margins. The state and government, on the other hand, have always been at the center of events, and so any change always depended on the center. Your question relates to this and means what impact does a change in the relationships of power have on the public sphere. But I think the question should be altered to ask: What impact will activity of the public sphere have on the power structure. In other words, my assertion is this: change in society is dependant on the formations of thoughts and ideas in the public sphere, which in turn impact and change the state or government. This is a principal point for me, while I understand that in the real world, nothing is permanent and fixed. Only the direction is identified through principles. So the public sphere principle does not mean we should not take advantage of historic moments and opportunities. So if a situation allows us to strengthen a government which would then provide and protect things like freedom of independent media, non-governmental organizations, … democratic principles in general, then it is not right to ignore this and focus only on the public sphere.
R: Social movements are a central term in your discussions. What is the difference between this and populist views or socio-political movements?
MP: Events that are called new social movements blend with the public sphere theory. These are interesting movements and some have even been called meta-physical. Earlier social movements were usually workers movements with well organized and centralized structures which had very well defined goals such as higher pays or better working conditions etc. Modern social movements on the other hand are more general and less materialistic, which show themselves outside organizations, such as the anti-nuclear and peace movements, or the environment protection movements, or even the women’s movements. These movements have the general public as their target and can revive the public sphere, and consequently strengthen general public ideas and views.
Populism, while having a very divergent and extensive definition, is closer to public deception. Populism talks of a relationship between leaders and the public. In this relationship, the leader acts on his understanding of the demands of the public to make them happy. Populism is thus defined in terms of a government or the state, regardless of whether it wants to keep it or change it. Social movements on the other hand focus on the public sphere and not the government, even though at times the government can be the public sphere.
And while these are Western ideas, and not all such ideas may be applicable to Iran, this is relevant because of the issues that today exist in modern Iran because over a hundred years now many phenomena such as a constitution, individual rights, party organization, parliament, judiciary, etc have entered Iranian society.
R: So what will happen to social movements in Iran if individuals such as Khatami become active in the country?
MP: I believe that our society is potentially full of different types of large movements. These appear to be similar to the modern social movements we are talking about. They lack a centralized and focused organization, their goals are not precisely defined, and no specific political organization mobilizes them. A good example is the movement that sprung up last year when the Majlis was about to pass a family law that would allow polygamy. Initially women and some men showed an interest in the issue and then turned it into a massive national discussion, which the government then could not avoid and had to listen to.
R: How important is Mr. Khatami’s candidacy in strengthening these movements?
MP: Currently there are many movements such as those seeking justice, women’s movements, the youth movement, pro-democracy, anti-addiction, anti-corruption, etc that will expand with Khatami’s dialogs. Of course there is no cause and effect between Khatami and these movements and they can even leave Khatami behind them. Or vice versa. But his presence can certainly give them the air they need to continue their work and expand it. If society turns into the source of such a social movement, Khatami may even succeed in pushing back the anti-democratic forces in the country.
R: What is your most serious criticism of those who oppose Khatami’s participation in the forthcoming elections?
MP: Unfortunately we are not in a situation where there are many paths for us. If we accept the fact that the country is in a crisis, whose continuation leaves a bleak future, and if the thinkers in our society accept political democracy as the passageway to pass this critical period, then one can find a basis to criticize Khatami’s opponents. So first one must demonstrate the ways which can help the attainment of democracy. In other words one should first ask: are there other ways than Khatami that can or will help the reinvigoration of the social movements or not, and block the anti-democratic forces. If conditions were not as sensitive as they truly are today, then we could simply engage in protests against the current method of choosing candidates through the existing power centers and structures, which have the support of the military. We could position this criticism in the center of the public sphere and utilize it to help expand the culture of democracy and critique our current situation. But things are much more serious and doing this would not suffice.
R: What are your expectations of Khatami?
MP: At the presidential level, I think the results of his presence and work are better than those of the others. Some may even say and believe that this by itself is sufficient, and thus a good cause to support Khatami. But the way I look at it, Khatami and those around him do not themselves create breakthroughs. After all, they too are part of the thirty-year old power structure in Iran. His management style demonstrated its strengths and weaknesses during his 8-year presidency. What is important is the impact that his presence at that position will have on the public sphere, and the activism that it will promote and advance. This is when I would like to reference Aristotle idea of politics with ethics. Many understand this well. Those who took part in the 1979 revolution witnessed the friendship, affinity etc of the public. At the time they were willing to forego their personal gains for the general good while setting their political differences aside. Something close to that also happened when Khatami was first elected president in 1997. People felt a certain type of solidarity which resulted in positive political change.
R: And your final words?
MP: My reasons for supporting Khatami’s presence in the elections does not blur my identity with those reformers inside the power structure who depend on the Velayate Faghih (supreme religious leader) to insist on the war with Iraq, and mingled with traditional Islam, etc. My identity on the other hand belongs to the events of the 80s and religious beliefs which are generally known as the religious-national thought. This movement or thought has critiqued Velayate Faghih, it opposed the Iran-Iraq war after the liberation of Khoramshahr, and it challenges the views of conservative or traditional Islamists. My mentioning the inner reformists my goal is not to re-ignite the old battle, as I respect many inner reformists. All I am saying is that different movements and identities can live side by side and push the pro-democracy project forward.
