Caught in a time warp

Iran's conservatives are caught up in a near pathological bout of denial. It is not just that they are still trying to subvert the reformers' massive electoral victory. They just cannot adjust their world view to the new reality, says KESAVA MENON.

``THESE RESULTS are a disgrace,'' said a leading conservative member of Iran's outgoing Parliament after pro-reform parties edged close to a two-thirds majority after the second round of polling on May 5. This pious gentleman did not mean that his leaders had disgraced themselves and their parties through their miserable showing. Nor did he mean that the vote was somehow spurious and not reflective of the true political trends in his country. What he meant, Nazi-like, was that the ``Volk'' had disgraced themselves by betraying the expectations of their Fuehrer.

Like Hitler, ranting and raving in his bunker about how the German military and people had let him down, Iranian conservatives are caught up in a near-pathological bout of denial. It is not just that they are still trying to subvert the reformers' massive victory. They just cannot adjust their world view to the new reality. In the world view of the conservatives, they are the custodians of the true interests of the masses and they just cannot believe that the people would vote against their own interests. Since the Iranian people obviously have done so it must be because they are so disgracefully ignorant of their own true interests. The conservatives cannot believe, cannot accept, that the Iranian masses re-defined their own interests on an entirely different basis. Self-delusion is the prime element in the conservative reaction to the verdict and there are several reasons for that.

One example of the psychological crisis inflicting the conservative leadership is provided by the former President, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. He recently took the podium during Friday prayers at Teheran University (the Friday noon prayer at this venue has a status akin to the one at the Jama Masjid in Delhi) and lambasted reformers who had attended a seminar in Germany. Nothing seemed to have left a mark on the man. Mr. Rafsanjani was seemingly oblivious to the fact that he was merely playing out a much-repeated role before a captive audience of Government servants who have no choice but attend these prayers. He did not seem to feel any shame that he was the last of 30 candidates to secure a seat from Teheran and that even his ``victory'' was achieved in dubious circumstances. Neither did he appear to consider it at all significant that his brother, son and daughter had been thrown out of his party by the rest of the leadership for their sycophancy towards him.

What lies behind this brazen unconcern for public opinion displayed by the likes of Mr. Rafsanjani? It is partly the arrogance of power; the knowledge that they possess the instrumentalities and the force to block moves against their vested interest. But it also stems from their appreciation of the hierarchical structure of Shia society. In Iranian Shiism the clergy progress through the ranks - Hojatolesslam, Ayatollah to Grand Ayatollah - through a democratic process. Each cleric is judged for the quality of his theological knowledge and piety and he progresses only when fellow clergymen and the pious among the laity deem that he is worthy. This is not done through a vote or any such formal mechanism but it does require a broad consensus among a large number of people. As such, each Ayatollah knows that he has the adherence of a large number of people - i.e. he is a public representative even if no one has formally cast a vote.

Iranians are, broadly-speaking, a pious people and the habit of paying instinctive respect to the Ayatollahs is not dead among the leading echelons of the reform movement. But Iran's conservative clerical establishment is grinding the public regard for them through a succession of millstones. Several of the leading figures in the clerical establishment - Mr. Rafsanjani and the Supreme Religious Leader, Syed Ali Khamenei - have been accorded Ayatollah status though they are not known to have contributed significantly to theological exegesis or the quality of piety. Their work in the areas of administration and political leadership might have been important but the accordance of a religious status as reward demeans the whole process. This is all the more so when authentic theologians such as Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri are strident critics of the establishment.

Secondly, when some of the conservative leaders insist on the inviolability of their aura it is difficult to ascertain whether they are doing so on valid traditional grounds or whether they are using this aura to protect their vested interests. Several of the Ayatollahs head giant financial trusts (Boniyads) which own scores of enterprises that once belonged to the ousted ruling family. These unaccountable (unaccountable because their activities cannot be scrutinised by the Government) Boniyads are known to have been used to benefit the family and adherents of those who head them. The saga of the Rafsanjani family stands as a metaphor for the clerics behaviour in such matters.

Thirdly, the conservative clerics seem unable to comprehend the need to match their theological understanding with the people's real concerns. The western media has made the mistake of writing as if the revolution under way in Iran was all about youngsters wanting to date and dance. But the clerical establishment also seems incapable of understanding that the need for a degree of personal autonomy is the essential component behind specific demands. In failing to find space for personal autonomy in their theology the clerics have betrayed their calling and their people. If they carry on like this for much longer they will find themselves in utter disgrace.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The gods may be angry
Next     : Will the Gauls have the guile?