Mousavi the changer?—Part II
Two days ago I wrote a post speculating on whether Mousavi was a “changer.” I didn’t know the answer, and I still don’t know. But I wrote:
…the reasons for Mousavi’s retirement from the public scene in 1989 are mysterious (at least, I haven’t found anything yet that sheds light on them), and twenty years is a long time. Was he undergoing a metamorphosis and biding his time? Or was he just biding his time?…
But if Mousavi has really reformed (as opposed to just being a “reformist candidate”), he is not alone. Many revolutionaries who are gung-ho in the first flush of a movement’s victory later become disgusted with the wretched excesses that ensue. If Mousavi goes that way, he wouldn’t be the first Iranian to do so…
In yesterday’s Guardian there is an article by Mohsen Makhmalbaf, the official spokesperson for Mousavi. Makhmalbaf writes:
People say that Mousavi won’t change anything as he is part of the establishment. That is correct to a degree because they wouldn’t let anyone who is not in their circle rise to seniority. But not all members of a family are alike, and for Mousavi it is useful to understand how he has changed over time.
Before the revolution, Mousavi was a religious intellectual and an artist, who supported radical change but did not support the mullahs. After the revolution, when all religious intellectuals and even leftists backed Khomeini, he served as prime minister for eight years. The economy was stable, and he did not order the killings of opponents, or become corrupt.
In order to neuralise his power, the position of prime minister was eliminated from the constitution and he was pushed out of politics. So Mousavi returned to the world of artists because in a country where there are no real political parties, artists can act as a party. The artists supported Khatami and now they support Mousavi.
Previously, he was revolutionary, because everyone inside the system was a revolutionary. But now he’s a reformer. Now he knows Gandhi ”“ before he knew only Che Guevara.
Well, I still don’t know; under Mousavi as Prime Minister there was certainly a lot of killing, although I’m inclined to credit Makhmalbaf’s assertion that Mousavi didn’t order the deaths. As Prime Minister he probably didn’t have that sort of power because the mullahs were in charge back then as well (this is in agreement with me, although it’s hard to know whether the information there is correct or not).
At the very least, however, we know that Mousavi remained as Prime Minister for many years while repression was happening. But his retirement from public life afterwards indicates the strong possibility of the sort of disillusionment I referred to in my previous post.
Mousavi has now said he’s ready to be a martyr. For a man in his position, these words are not mere hyperbole. And it’s hard to believe he would be willing to die merely to gain personal power, especially since his absence from politics all these years seems to have been at least partly voluntary.
Makhmalbaf is a fascinating figure himself, and another “changer.” A few years before the 1979 revolution, he was arrested and imprisoned for activity as a seventeen-year-old revolutionary in an underground Islamic militia group. After 1979 he was released from prison. But instead of entering official political life he became one of Iran’s premier film personalities, a director, writer, and producer, and some of his films have been banned in Iran. Therefore when he talks of artists as a form of underground political power and protest he knows whereof he speaks.
Besides his characterization of Mousavi as a changer, Makhmalbaf offers other interesting observations in his Guardian piece. Speaking of the 1979 revolution, he writes:
The people of Iran have a culture that elevates martyrdom. In the period running up to the revolution, when people were killed at demonstrations, others would gather again in the days following the death. This cycle carried on for six months, and culminated in the revolution. Today they are gathering in Tehran for those who were shot on Tuesday, and if there are more killings, this will continue…
Thirty years ago we supported each other. When police used tear gas, fires would be lit to neutralise its effects. People would set their own cars on fire to save others. Since then, the government has tried to separate people from one other. What we lost was our togetherness, and in the past month we have found that again. All the armed forces in Iran are only enough to repress one city, not the whole country. The people are like drops of water coming together in a sea.
No doubt Makhmalbaf wishes very hard that that sea—like the waters that engulfed and drowned Pharaoh’s armies—would overwhelm the hated mullahs of Iran. I believe that this is what Mousavi wants, as well—not just his own election under them.
Exactly what sort of government Mousavi would attempt to form if he were to succeed against so many odds is hard to tell. In what direction did his change go? Is he a man of the Left now? Makhmalbaf speaks admiringly of Obama and disparagingly of Bush, but that is so common these days that it’s hard to know whether it has any particular meaning, especially in terms of Mousavi. Perhaps we’ll get a chance to find out.
Boris Yeltsin was also part of the establishment. Change can come from strange places.