Features

President Raisi’s passing unlikely to drastically change M-E situation

Published

on

President Ebrahim Raisi; his critics were not few.

At first blush, it could be said that the outpouring of grief in Iran and other parts of the Islamic world over the passing away of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi recently, under tragic circumstances, is of phenomenal proportions. Very understandably, a considerable number of Iranians and other sections that are supportive of the Iranian theocratic state are overcome with grief. The contrary could not be expected.

Sri Lanka has done right by conveying its condolences to the Iranian authorities. This amounts to adhering to what are considered civilized norms. After all, from the viewpoint of the Sri Lankan state, Iran has been a ‘friend in deed.’ However, international TV footage showed crowds in some areas of the Middle East and outside uproariously celebrating the death of President Raisi. Apparently, among some, including sections in Iran, the late President was a hate figure.

As the popular saying goes, ‘life is not a popularity contest’, and this applies to principal figures and personalities in world politics as well, besides ‘ordinary mortals’. A political leader is expected to serve what he and his regime see as their country’s best interests and they are not obliged to bow or defer to any detractors in the process.

They are likely to dismiss as ‘not their problem’ the unpopularity they may incur among some in the course of carrying out what they see as their duty towards their country.

Thus, it should not come as a surprise that Raisi has earned both ‘bouquets and brickbats.’ However, what a political strongman and his regime ‘see’ as their country’s best interests and what the state’s wider population perceives as its foremost interests may differ vastly.

In a democracy, the possibility is greater of this gap in perception being bridged between the rulers and the ruled in view of the fact that in a vibrant democracy there is more sensitivity on the part of rulers to public opinion. Within a theocracy, which is a form of authoritarian rule, such receptivity by rulers to the views of the people cannot be easily expected. Iran, one could say, is an advanced theocracy.

It should only be expected that such a situation would lead eventually to grave disagreements between the ruled and rulers. It was plain to see that in Raisi’s Iran this conflict between the regime and the people was very much in the open. For example, pro-democracy forces within Iran and the country’s rulers were often in violent disagreement. Clearly what some sections saw as their best interests ran contrary to the rulers’ perceptions on this score.

Even if pro-democracy protests and other forms of popular upheaval are dismissed by Iran’s rulers as being fomented by ‘external forces’ or as constituting ‘conspiracies’, proponents of democracy are likely to find the violent reaction of Iran’s rulers to protests by their women over legitimate needs as excessively repressive and even barbaric. In this day and age, those countries that practise paternalism and are supportive of the repression of women are an anachronism. Later, if not sooner, they would come to realize that they are ‘on the wrong side of history.’

All the above and more took place under Raisi’s watch and it is small wonder that he earned the wrath of pro-democracy sections in Iran and abroad. Moreover, he was seen as responsible for a multitude of political murders and disappearances and on this account was described in sections of the West in the most derogatory terms.

It is not the intention of this columnist to destructively criticize President Raisi but to indicate that clerical rule may not be the best form of government for countries that intend to traverse the road of peaceful, democratic and progressive change.

There may have been a ‘popular mandate’ in the seventies and eighties for theocratic governance in Iran, since the latter was wilting in the iron-fist of the Shah of Iran and suffering cultural degeneration of the worst kind under the Shah’s unreserved embrace of Westernization, but extreme theocratic governance at present would be tantamount to returning the country to backward, primitive times.

The present rulers of Iran are obliged to dialogue more closely with the people and respond positively to their legitimate needs. In general, it needs to be observed that religion and politics need to be kept far apart. Secularism is a cornerstone of democratic development and this needs to be a cardinal principle of governance.

On the foreign affairs front, there are unlikely to be drastic changes in Iran’s policies, post-Raisi. Consequently, the current power struggles between Iran and its adversaries in the Middle East, such as Israel, are set to continue. Iran’s purported policy of confronting Israel and promoting its destruction will, to all intents and purposes, continue because irrespective of the personalities at the helm of governance in Iran, clerical rule will continue indefinitely into the future.

The general foreign policy direction under clerical rule in Iran thus far, has been the advocacy, establishment and perpetuation of militant religion-based rule in the Islamic world in particular.

There is no possibility of drastic changes occurring on this score because it will be in the interests of the clergy in Iran and that of other countries inclining to religious fundamentalism to keep the main pillars of theocratic rule intact. Such a policy ensures the survival of clerical rule best.

Accordingly, unless moves occur to democratize these theocratic states, it is unlikely that the current confrontations in the Middle East would ease any time soon. Because theocratic states, like most other authoritarian countries, need ‘an archetypal enemy’ or an ‘Other’ to survive and remain intact. Right now, Israel and its principal Western backers make up these much needed enemies.

However, it is religious fundamentalism, among other factors, that ensures the survival of Right wing regimes in the region and outside as well. Israel very badly needs to follow a moderate, ‘live and let live’ policy in the region but this would be difficult to ensure as long as the Netanyahu regime remains. The US’s unrelenting backing of the Netanyahu government compounds the Middle Eastern imbroglio.

A supreme irony in the Middle Eastern theatre is that Israel, under the Right wing Netanyahu regime, and Iran under its clerical hard liners, need each other to survive politically. Thus, the bloodletting in the region is bound to continue indefinitely.

Click to comment

Trending

Exit mobile version