The first reaction that critical political groups in Iran undertake in response to government measures that they oppose is to issue a critical public statement.
The latest instance is the widespread and loud reaction of cultural, social and political activists to recent attacks on Shirin Ebadi's Center for the Defense of Human Rights. The closure of this nongovernmental organization and the ensuing confrontation with Ebadi were so significant that various social and political groups with different ideologies jointly signed a statement condemning the government’s actions.
In truth, however, how important and effective are such statements for the opposition?
Their effectiveness lies in their ability to shape what is known as "public opinion." However, the issuers and signatories to these statements know well that their ability to disseminate their position through such declarations is relatively limited. Domestic publications generally lack the courage to publish them other than as part of a vague and short news report. The Persian satellite TV transmissions on the other hand rarely cover statements that are issued by domestic opposition groups. The audience of Persian radio stations is limited to a small group of Iranians with very specific views. Internet is another tool that has turned in recent years into the media outlet for the opposition and critical citizens. However, only a limited segment of Iranian society chooses to read such statements when browsing the Internet. In conclusion, these statements are not effective enough to shape public opinion or change the regime's behavior - at least in the short and medium term.
Under these circumstances, what then really is the point in issuing such statements? One can confidently claim that most of these statements are not issued for the purpose of merely being recorded in history. They have very limited effect in shaping public opinion. From this perspective, these statements leave permanent - though small - footprints on the "social terrain." In addition, these critical statements raise awareness among international human rights activists of the views of domestic activists. In certain cases, this has had significant consequences, as it has led prominent institutions to call on the Iranian regime to change its behavior, which has indirectly affected the regime's behavior.
However, civil society activists must keep in mind that the mechanisms mentioned above are not sufficient. "Power can only be checked by power." So long as Iran’s civil society does not have the influence to stand up to autocrats and the rentier-ideological regime, and thus defend its legal rights, critical statements will not have significant impacts on the regime's behavior.
The question facing the opposition and those who are signatories to these statements is that why do they not take other steps and utilize other lawful and peaceful mechanisms available in the Iranian constitution? We have seen that in rare cases, for example, demonstration of family members of nationalist-religious activists in front of the Revolutionary Court; demonstrations of women, teachers, laborers and journalists in front of the Majlis building; presence of several nationalist-religious activists at the office of head of judiciary and Majlis; sixth Majlis lawmakers' sit-in; and etc.
In most cases, however, issuing a statement has been the first and final act. Obviously, even the more practical measures mentioned here have not always produced any tangible benefits or results. But for the opposition and those whose basic and civil rights have been violated to rely solely on these statements not only has limited impact on shaping public opinion, but also fails to deliver a "significant" message for the autocrats in power.
In order to be taken seriously, civil society activists must first remind the regime that they are "serious" and determined in pursuing their demands. This task requires practical, peaceful, action.
