Iran: Neither Moussavi nor Ahmajenidad

Support working class self-liberation from below!

In the last few months, Iranian society has been gripped by political crisis, sparked by the nakedly
fraudulent outcome of its recent elections. Although the Iranian regime purports to uphold its own variant of democracy, just how threadbare and centrally dictated this process is ,was open for all to see. Not that it had been better in the past.

 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khameini has always held the right to decide which candidates are permitted to run for Prime Minister. This time just four candidates met with his approval, whilst over 400 were rejected. The recent electoral outcome was made all the more difficult for the Iranian people to swallow, given the blatant vote-rigging which saw the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinajad re-elected in
the most stage-managed of fashions.

 Thousands took to the streets in defiant response - despite the Iranian regime's history of brutal repression. Initially they were commonly portrayed as middle-class backers of the leading ‘reformist' candidate Mir-Hossain Moussavi, but as protests have continued, and Moussavi himself has continually evidenced his timidity and ties to the theocratic state, the mood has distinctly radicalised and deepened in society. Many of those protesting the electoral outcome question the entire basis of Iran's Islamic republic.

 Despite Moussavi's indisputable desire to preserve the current order (albeit with some minor reforms), the crisis has unveiled some considerable divisions within the regime itself which impact on it at every level. Both Ayatollah Rafsanjani and ex-Prime Minister Mohammed Khatami have thrown their lot in with Moussavi. This group around Moussavi has attempted to manoeuvre itself into favour amongst the Iranian masses by counterposing itself to the ‘official order' of Khameini and Ahmadinejad.

 However, the political divergence between these two forces is minimal. Both support the neo-liberal economic policy that Ahmadinejad has relentlessly pursued, which has contributed to the economic collapse of the country. Currently unemployment stands at 30%, and inflation at 25%.

 The only notable point on which Moussavi can be differentiated from Ahmadinajad is his pledge to take a more diplomatic approach towards dealings with the Western world, in particular, the United States. Such an approach would prove highly problematic for the Iranian state, as its ability to cohere it is able to use the genuine threat of imperialist war and pressures from the US and Israel in order to buttress its rule.

 A brief look at Moussavi's history provides further evidence as to the significance of this. During his previous tenure as Prime Minister, between 1981 and 1989, he oversaw the Iran-Iraq war. The fear of an external enemy gave the young Islamic republic an easy excuse to pursue extensive crackdowns on those Iranians the regime perceived as a threat. Chief amongst those was the Iranian working-class which had played a significant role in the 1979 revolution. Moussavi and those around him were directly involved in the arrests and deaths of thousands of socialists and communists as a result.

 Thus it is clear that Moussavi offers no positive alternative for the Iranian masses. His vested interest in maintaining the Islamic order has been evidenced time and again in his timid response to, and continual efforts to reconcile, the current turmoil gripping the streets. He fears a mass movement that extends beyond his control.  Already numerous sections of those protesting are recognising his inadequacy, and extending the fight to one for truly democratic and secular progress in Iran. From the start of the current crisis it is sections of the working class that have taken the lead. It is in working class neighbourhoods where impromptu protests continue into the night, and where the most consistent opposition to the entire basis of the Iranian theocracy can be found. However, working class organisations remain weak and divided. This is in large part a product of thirty years of systematic repression at the hands of an Iranian state which knows and fears the revolutionary capacity of the working-class when united.

 Iran is an incredibly young society, and the youth have been at the fore of the demands for change. It is also where the left is strongest, particularly amongst the student population, which has experienced some of the most severe brutality from the Islamic republic in recent years. Hands off the People of Iran (Hopi) aims to build links with, and provide support where possible, to those student groups at the fore of the fight against the repressions of the Islamic republic.

 Necessary, in conjuncture with this solidarity, is a steadfast opposition to external intervention, in the form of imperialist invasion, or via sanctions. The current proposals of the US government to enforce sanctions on Iran's oil industry would unquestionably cause chaos for a society facing another harsh winter. They are also a disaster for the cause of democracy because they limit working class struggle. Thus, in the face of a harsh winter and petroleum sanctions, militant oil workers (who played a key role in the revolution of 1979) are now wondering whether to go on strike at all due to the effects that this could have. This clearly underlines how solidarity with Iranian workers which does not flow from steadfast opposition to US and Israeli war threats and sanctions is absolutely pointless.

 Radical democratic change in Iran (and indeed in the imperialist countries such as the US and UK) can only come from below. It cannot be gifted by the likes of Moussavi, or imposed by the imperialists. Not that either would wish to see such. We must seek to aid such advances through the propagation of working-class internationalism - the very politics that Hopi embodies.

Links:

Hands Off the People of Iran

Campaign Website

Contact email: office@hopoi.info