Iranian groups that are critical of the current state of affairs in Iran appear to have lost their self-confidence to the point that they no longer have any faith in any long-term plans to change the status quo. They view these long-term solutions to be imaginary and illusionary, while accepting any small and short-term plans as realistic and practical.
If Iran’s problems would really be solved by the small changes, such as a more gentle rhetoric and diplomatic tone of the country’s president, or by the shuffling of some of the cabinet minister, then making short-term plans and focusing on their implementation would be fine. But the reality is that for its survival, Iran needs basic reforms, and any energy that is spent on reforms without fundamental changes will be futile.
One can of course listen to those who advocate the small minimal changes, because they believe that these could make a difference. But one cannot support these individuals, for the obvious reasons. If these individuals agree that the country needs deep fundamental changes but also believe that they cannot be implemented, concluding that we must accept and promote the small minimum adjustments, then we must ask: why is it that we cannot realize the ideal fundamental changes that would make a difference, and, why should we spend our energy and efforts on the small changes that in the final analysis will not alter our destiny.
Clearly one can list many reasons why we cannot succeed in implementing the deep changes in the system. But are the absence of determination and the loss of spirit - and consequently the acceptance of defeat - not the leading causes of this pessimism?
There are certainly times when a person, group or a population cannot effectively have an effective impact on his own destiny and so must heed to what is imposed or exists around him. But there are also times when in such difficult and imposing circumstances, historic opportunities appear. These must be realized and grabbed to prevent being captives of this fatal determinism. For various reasons that which I do not intend to list here, I believe that next year’s presidential elections in Iran offer a historic pinhole of opportunity for Iran which if used can be a pathway out of the current darkness. This opportunity has not been created by the critics and opponents of the state but by the combination of many domestic and international conditions which have been outside the control of these groups. The use of this opportunity requires cooperation and a common goal which while logically attainable lacks a powerful determination for its materialization.
From amongst the reformists, Dr Mohammad Ali Najafi has made a proposal for the small yet realistic opportunity that exists in the tenth presidential election next year, which appears to be logical and rational. But why has it not been taken seriously? According to his proposal, the representatives of all reformist groups should meet at a reform convention and select a single presidential candidate through a democratic process. If this candidate is rejected by the Guardians Council (the appointed state body that vets all elections candidates), then all the groups in the reform convention would boycott the elections.
Dr Najafi believes that if the reformists put forth such a single candidate, the Guardians Council will actually not be in a position to disqualify him. But even if it did, this would prompt the organized and active groups in society to get better organized and thus influence events in Iran through other means. But why do reformist groups and parties not support this idea? Do they view this to be destructive or not attainable?
I doubt that a person or a group can present solid reasons that such a step would be destructive. So why would it be unattainable? Is it because reformists lack real determination for real change?
Probably many of these groups will say that they agree with this idea, and that it is other groups that are against it! But then who are these “other groups”? Would this not be just an excuse for avoiding the possible repercussions of the failure of this idea by the groups themselves? Each group can announce its position regardless and free from the views and positions of the other groups, so the position of each group becomes crystal clear.
In my opinion if this tiny opportunity that is opening in Iran is ignored because of lack of will or fear of failure, our society will be imposed such conditions that there will be no escape from accepting the catastrophic consequences that would follow.
