Wednesday, June 17, 2009

What the Green Revolution in Iran Tells Us About Democratic Change

There has been much discussion about how Obama should react to the surprising, and inspiring, events taking place in Iran. He has, per usual, orchestrated a perfectly calibrated, nuanced response to a very complex and delicate situation. He has expressed concern about Iranian government violence against protesters, but he has stopped short of explicitly siding with the opposition, or explicitly calling the election a sham. He has been consistent in saying that what happens over the next few weeks and months “is something for the Iranian people to decide.”

But if the election was indeed rigged, and it almost certainly was, why not call a spade a spade? Why not use this opportunity to throw America’s weight behind a budding revolutionary movement that has an outside shot at ending a repressive and despicable regime? Republicans, most notably John McCain, think Obama should weigh in strongly against Ahmadinejad.

This would be a big mistake, as many pundits on the left have been right to point out. They correctly claim that making a firm statement in support of the protesters would likely backfire and give the Iranian government an opportunity to taint the protesters as “agents of the Great Satan.” This is a strong enough argument to end the debate right there.

But there are a few further points that need to be made.

Obama saying that what happens in Iran “is something for the Iranian people to decide” is not simply a prudent tactical statement that will best serve the protesters on the ground and thereby more effectively undermine the Iranian regime. It also happens to be a powerfully true statement that many people would prefer to gloss over.

As this so-called Green Revolution reminds us, all true revolutions are local. They are begun and fought by those who actually live in the community that desires a new government. Those who so vigorously support democracy promotion from afar—let’s call them “armchair revolutionaries”—often fail to recognize this self-evident point. Iraq recently experienced what could be called a democratic revolution; it was not begun in the streets of Baghdad, but rather in the airspace thousands of feet above those streets, by American fighter planes bringing “shock and awe.” And we know how that revolution ultimately turned out. If the Iranian people want to fight to change their regime, that is ultimately their decision, and their decision only. We should get out of their way and stop fooling ourselves that we are the ones who can, or ought to, deliver them to freedom.

Over-zealous democracy promoters like McCain should take note of Iran’s Green Revolution for another reason, which may seem counter-intuitive: the events in Iran reminder us that oppressive regimes do actually change. They must change. All governments—whether authoritarian or democratic—ultimately serve, to one degree or another, at the will of the people. If there is enough discontent in society, that discontent will out. And if there is no democratic mechanism available to throw out the incompetent bastards, the people will create their own mechanism—and that is revolution. The intensity and breadth of discontent with the Iranian regime, which has been so movingly expressed by the protesters, has come as a surprise to almost everyone—most certainly to the Supreme Leader of Iran. He will have to respond and adapt to that discontent, or face more upheaval in the future.

You can also bet that high officials in Moscow and Beijing have been closely watching--and frowning at--what is happening in the streets of Iran. They know full well that they are only able to stay in power without true democracy, without freedom of speech, and without respect for human rights, because a large portion of their county’s population is relatively content (or at least not extremely discontent) with their leadership. As time goes by, these regimes will have to adapt as well. And indeed, looking at the regime in China, that system has undergone many changes over the last twenty years, ever since they were served notice by the students who gathered at Tiananmen that the government did not have the support of the people.

It is quite possible that this Green Revolution in Iran will fail to bring about a true change in regime. Iran may become an even more repressive place to live. But have no doubt that, whatever happens over the next weeks and months, it will be a victory for democracy. It will bring the Iranian people a good measure closer to the day when they can enjoy a more accountable and more democratic form of government. And their brave actions will have accomplished more than any amount of arm-twisting or pressure that the “armchair revolutionaries” here in America could ever muster on their behalf.

7 comments:

Nate said...

A very well-reasoned take on events in Iran and what constitutes the proper response to such events. I do have a few questions, though:

You write, "[O]ppressive regimes do actually change. They must change. All governments—whether authoritarian or democratic—ultimately serve, to one degree or another, at the will of the people. If there is enough discontent in society, that discontent will out. And if there is no democratic mechanism available to throw out the incompetent bastards, the people will create their own mechanism—and that is revolution." This is true to a point, certainly. But I would tend to agree with what Jim Manzi wrote a few days ago: "In the end, if some group of people has operational authority over a preponderance of the military, and is prepared to use it, nothing else really matters. You either have to divide the military, capture its loyalty or create a greater opposed armed force; otherwise, all you have is a bunch of dead bodies that used to be idealistic people."

A few years ago I was in Uzbekistan when the people of Andijan decided, to use your phrase, to "create their own mechanism" for promoting change - but the Uzbek government was willing to do anything to suppress that sentiment, and the result was approximately 1,000 civilian deaths.

I agree, I think, with your conception of how a revolution starts. But I think you neglect the role that outside actors have historically played in successful revolutions. Take the French in the American Revolution, as just one example. Once a revolution has occurred (and I'm not sure it has in Iran at this point), in effect you now have not one, but TWO authorities within a country, both of which are claiming legitimacy, and both of which are ASKING, in various ways, for external support. At that point other nations can, should, and indeed must make basic decisions about which "side" they support, and what that support will entail. That support can come in different forms, and I think (hope) we'd all agree that "Shock and Awe" is generally (but not always) the least helpful variant. But to draw a line that NO support of any kind should be given, would be equally "idealistic" and at odds with a "realistic" foreign policy. To be fair, I'm not sure you're making this claim.

And Obama IS supporting the opposition in Iran. His State Department is working directly with Twitter to keep it maximally operational. That is DIRECT, MEANINGFUL interference in the internal political dispute of another nation.

One thing we need to recognize about Obama - and this can be a good or bad thing - is that he is very skilled at using his rhetorical skills to advance a particular position, while in fact DOING something very different - oftentimes, the exact opposite. I think that's exactly the game he's playing in Iran, and I expect more, not less, U.S. involvement if the protests continue along their current path.

lucasgrisham said...

Peter-
I agree with your sentiment that the US should not involve itself with these foreign disputes. It is actually immoral and repulsive to adhere to an ideology that the US should be the arbitrators and justice squad for the world. Although, we do play world police and have for sometime- our government is not even supposed to have the power to do so. The fact is- in the scope of protecting the individual liberties of its own citizens (which it struggles to do) and providing for a strong DEFENSE form foreign aggressors (again, to protect the citizens) the US should be neutral. Unless you support imperialism there is no justification for the US involving itself anywhere in the Middle East. It didn't work with the Taliban during the cold war, it didn't work with Saddam, and the list could go on infinitum.

Nate, I realize that the French aided the colonists in the revolutionary war, but that is not an empirical example that should dictate the future US foreign policy. I am sure the Jefferson was aware of Frances involvement as well when he said, "I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance, yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Lomax, 1799
(He did love France by the way).
Furthermore, what is so great about democracy? Plato saw democracy as the rule of the foolish, vicious and always potentially brutal. Morality and justice is not determined by a show of hands. It has allowed our own (US) country to increase the strength of its government coercively and at the expense of its citizens. Our country was never intended to be a democracy- but the weakness and ambiguity of the constitution has allowed the perversion to exacerbate over time. So to think that we should or even have the right- to go around the world spreading "democracy" is asinine.
Democracy = Tyranny of the majority over the minority. Case in point- look around you.
“Two very different ideas are usually confounded under the name democracy. The pure idea of democracy, according to its definition, is the government of the whole people by the whole people, equally represented. Democracy as commonly conceived and hitherto practised is the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the people, exclusively represented. The former is synonymous with the equality of all citizens; the latter, strangely confounded with it, is a government of privilege, in favour of the numerical majority, who alone possess practically any voice in the State. This is the inevitable consequence of the manner in which the votes are now taken, to the complete disfranchisement of minorities.”
--John Stuart Mill, Representative Government, 1861

Nate said...

I am actually fine with anyone who questions whether we should be supporting "democracy" - or "free trade," or "human rights," or whatever concept you'd like. My point is that the idea of neutrality is itself an ideological and unrealistic concept. We are quickly approaching the point where there will be two representatives of Iran's sovereignty, both with differing arguments regarding their legitimacy, and with different interests vis-a-vis foreign states (again, just to anticipate an argument, I don't think we're at that point yet, and we may not get there).

Now, you can say that you would rather not "get involved," but realize that this stance is NOT neutral. By advocating that course you are recognizing the legitimacy of one of those factions and are in fact fulfilling their precise wishes. I personally disagree with that course but respect it. What is to my mind non-sensical is to pretend that non-action is in someway an "amoral" or "neutral" stance.

As for your doubts about democracy, I acknowledge their validity, but I think, especially in the midst of the violence in Iran, it would be fitting to acknowledge that there is some value in being able to freely and without fear express your doubts about the government under which you live; and to expect, furthermore, that the expression of those doubts may have an impact in determining the future course of your nation. Call it by whatever noun you want, that is what the struggle in Iran is about and I for one do not hesitate to express my support for that struggle.

Peter said...

Nate, great points.

Manzi’s point about the military being key is certainly true, but it has very little bearing on what Obama should or should not do in this situation. America has precisely zero influence over the loyalty of the Iranian military (unless there are some CIA operatives hidden in its ranks), so the ultimate outcome of these events—if it does come down to the military--is totally out of our hands. Thus, it stands to reason that we shouldn’t try to mess with things since that messing is unlikely to influence the ultimate decision makers in Iran…at least in any positive way.

I want to make one clarification about the muddy definition of “revolution” I have been using. When talking about events like these, we should distinguish between, on the one hand, armed opposition to a government, which you rightly point out means that there are two vying powers in a country (this we can most certainly call revolution), and on the other hand, a bunch of people peacefully marching in the streets in opposition to a government, which we like to call revolution, but really isn’t. This is a confusion arising from all the “color revolutions” in the Middle East and Eastern Europe over the last decade (Orange, Rose, Velvet, Cedar). None of those where armed and bloody revolutions, but they nevertheless resulted in a change in power, and a partial change in the style of the regime. This Green Revolution right now is similar to the latter group, and really shouldn’t be called a revolution...yet.

My point is that even this non-armed revolution will result in some sort of change in the Iranian government, and that this is often overlooked. It may not result in a "regime change," but it will likely cause a change in the regime’s behavior. If that change is in the more oppressive direction, then more intense opposition to the regime is the people’s likely future response.

If these events do go in a more violent direction, civil war breaks out, and there are two power centers in Iran vying for leadership, then I think that the threshold for intervening does, indeed, come down. The chaos will have already arrived and it may be appropriate for America to put its hat in the ring. I emphasize MAY, because even with a real revolution, our support for one side or another could have very negative consequences.

The Uzbek example is a difficult one in that it appears that nothing good came from the protest movement. The scales are tipped so drastically in the government’s favor that “the people’s mechanism” doesn’t stand a chance. But I’m not sure that America, or anyone else, can do much of anything about that unfortunate reality. Over time, however, (and we unfortunately must have a long time horizon) Uzbekistan will have to either go down the road towards becoming North Korea, or change in a more positive direction. Their people are unhappy and that has consequences.

Lastly, I totally agree with your point about Obama and his skill of saying one thing but doing something a bit different.

Nate said...

So do we then reject the concept of non-violent revolution, and non-violence in general as a legitimate expression of political force? Doing so gives a clear incentive to the various opposition and separationist groups in the world to take up arms. In fact, this is more or less what happened in Kosovo, where a group of Albanians, having noted that their non-violent civil disobedience achieved absolutely nothing at Dayton, decided that the only way to get the world's attention was to take up arms.

We need to come up with a better toolbox for acknowledging and responding to non-violent expressions of discontent. The State Dept. support of Twitter strikes me as a step in the right direction. Of course such efforts should recognize the complexities on the ground, and not simply seek to impose our own vision of "the good."

I guess my central point is this: we can all agree that militarily intervening in foreign nations to impose our will is absurd; the opposite of that, however - simply refusing, as a matter of principle, and regardless of the facts, to EVER intervene - is the mirror image of that absurdity, and is just as much an "ideological" construction. Every nation, every region, every revolution is unique and immensely complex. We should approach each situation with a completely open mind and with all options on the table.

Peter said...

No, I'm certainly not trying to reject the concept of non-violent revolution. In fact, that type of revolution is ideal and I support it. But I find it more difficult to justify an intervention on our part in support of a non-violent revolution than an intervention on our part in support of a violent one. Under the non-violent scenario, the probability goes way up that our intervention will have major negative consequences (it will likely push the events in a more violent and uncertain direction, for one).

As a (very) general rule, the more chaos and destruction of society that has already taken place because of war or revolution, the lower the threshold becomes for intervention. Take, for example, Cambodia under Pol Pot. The country was absolutely non-functioning, thereby making the case for Vietnamese intervention to restore stability and institute regime change quite strong (which did happen). The relatively stable position of Saddam in Iraq prior to our invasion would be an example on the other end of the spectrum, where the case for intervention was weak.

lucasgrisham said...

Nate I do understand your point that neutrality is impossible. But I think it is wrong and I disagree with it. The responsibility of our government should be relegated to the protection of its own people, period. The only reason it would seem like nuetrality would be openly supporting a side now- is because of the long standing history the US has of intervening in conflicts around the world- playing world police. This holier than thou attitude the US brings to the world as supreme dictator/arbitrator of world events has surely caused more damage than good (I am sure you are familiar with the political science theory of "blowback").
While I do see how neutrality today can reasonably be seen as supporting a side- I believe that is purely a result of the precedent the US has set for itself by abusing its power in the first place. My only position is that it would be better for the US to permanently withdraw from foreign affairs- not just for this one geopolitical instant. Furthermore, the US should openly trade with all Nations. Had we not used mercantilist tactics throughout history in order to strong arm other nations we never would have been bombed by the Japenese in Pearl Harbor and our relations with Cuba, N. Korea, and other countries (we economically ostricize) would be stronger.