These days, whenever we look at the media or the press, we face a mountain of criticism from individuals, representatives and activists of the ruling faction against remarks from government officials or the head of the administration. An outside observer may ask: what do these disputes achieve? Are they essentially worthwhile? As an observer, I believe that, just as much as discussion and two-sided criticism is beneficial to society, disputes are sources of loss.
In modern societies, the pluralism and diversity of ideas and viewpoints is an established principle. But to prevent this pluralism and diversity from tearing apart the fabric of society, discussion and criticism are encouraged, and all individuals and groups are able to utilize these two methods – discussion and criticism – to reduce distances, preventing the disagreements from pitting different groups against one another as enemies.
But discussion and criticism have rules and conditions. They are like other social contracts, such as sports games. The rules of any sport apply equally to both sides. In wrestling, for example, both sides follow clear rules, and a match cannot be held in which one side can freely throw punches while the other is forced to follow the rules of wrestling. This principle applies also to politics and social relations. A response to an official would be different depending on whether he is speaking as a political chief or as an expert. The problem we face today is that the head of the administration speaks as the government’s unique and infallible expert, who has conducted all the necessary calculations beforehand, without releasing an iota of the calculations.
For example, our problem is not that the head of the administration is against population control policies, that he wants to pay a million Toman to every child born, that he supports cutting energy subsidies by 40 billion Dollars, and dozens of similar issues. The problem is that such opinions and viewpoints must first be announced by government experts so that critics, standing as experts, could respond and engage the parties in a process of debate and discussion. If a government expert makes a baseless claim, others have the chance to prove its error to the public. But if a political official does such a thing, what expert has the courage to criticize him? And even if he does have the courage, he does not think it to be worthwhile to enter the discussion, because the other side is not an expert or familiar with constructive principles of debate to understand the criticism.
The effects of some policies and decisions are so deep and vast that their impact would remain for many years to come. Realize the significance of the opportunity that has arisen from the positive tolerance of caring critics in the past few months and seize it as a chance for reform. Let us not allow the fate of this country and the revolution to be tied to the behavior of individuals who do not feel much responsibility for their words and deeds.
