|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
The Constitutionalist Party of Iran
CPI |
|
Table of Content
Introduction
Chapter
1 Nationalism
A - Foreign policy
B - Cultural policy
Chapter 2
Liberty
Chapter
3 Development
A- Economy
B- Civil society
C- Education
Chapter 4 Social Justice
Chapter 5 Campaign Strategy
Chapter 6 A Different Worldview
Chapter 7 A Party of Center Right
Introduction
Constitution and Constitutionalism
Since 1994/1373, when the Constitutionalist Party of Iran ("The
Constitutional Movement of Iran" at the time) was officially founded;
its charter, bylaws, and platform have been the subject of much
debate. This booklet tries to articulate on the party’s worldview and
its programs, reflecting our intellectual development of the past few
years. After a brief analysis of the Constitutional era it goes on to
discuss the new Constitutionalist platform and strategy in subsequent
chapters.
In the present discourse, political philosophy and practical solutions
sometimes come together. A political party ought to have clear ideas
about governance; and these ideas should be based on a certain
worldview, a political philosophy. Offering slogans and conflicting
strategies, has no place with us. Ideology with “I”, meaning a core
idea encompassing all phenomena and explaining all questions, is a
thing of the past and it is time to be pragmatic in social and
economic matters. Flexibility and yielding to the realities of life
and practical experience are the hallmarks of any successful political
program. However this is not the same as compiling a collection of
mutually exclusive slogans; and in every platform certain values take
precedence.
We are not today in a position to have detailed programs for all the
problems and it is not necessary. But as a sample of what we have in
mind and to highlight our values some cases are dealt with in more
detail.
* * *
In the Persian political
usage, the word "Mashrouteh” (Constitution or Constitutional) has been
confused with the word "Mashrout” (conditional) due to their
similarity; and at the first glance, it implies a government that does
not hold unconditional power. However, even the most despotic
governments are bound to abide by written and unwritten laws and
customs, which limit the power of a ruler (for example, the Saleec
Law, the succession of the first male progenitor to the throne). In
the final analysis, even history's most powerful dictators had to
abide by the rules of the "balance of power" and could not do whatever
they wished.
The word "Constitution" found its way to the Persian political jargon
in the latter part of the 19th Century through the Ottomans who
themselves had derived it from the French word "Chartre" itself
derived from the Latin Cartula or Carta. The name given to a board,
unto it decrees were inscribed." Magna Carta," the first
"Constitutional Law" of the world limiting the power of the kings
which was given to the House of Lords in the 13'h century by the king
of England, means the Grand Board." The Constitutional Law in its
present form and meaning, started with the American Revolution. Today,
all countries possess one. In the U.K., the common law and existing
legislature, are doing what a constitutional law does in other
countries and its government is indeed one of the most lawful in the
world.
In Iran the intellectuals of the time, translated the term
"constitutional government" as "hokoomat e mashrooteh," a lawful
government that derives its legitimacy from the popular will, versus a
despotic monarchy. In the literature of the era of the constitutional
movement, "mashrooteh" and "Constitution" were both used in parallel.
In a "government of law" or "constitution," the form of the government
has no importance, because both monarchical and republican forms are
based on a parliamentary system.
Those intellectuals, as the first generation of Iranians to be exposed
to western thought, decided to bring about a fundamental change in the
society, by establishing rule of law and freeing the country from
arbitrary powers of the king and the royals. The Iran of the epoch was
a country that was in total chaos, existing more as a geographic
entity -- no army, no finance, no communication or educational
infrastructure to speak of -- with a primitive rural economy and a
mass of illiterate people living in unhealthy conditions. The role
played by the then small Iranian middle class of that era, which,
single-handedly, took the task of modernizing Iranian society, is
unparalleled in our history.
The project devised by those intellectuals who were known as the
Constitutionalists went far beyond the mere form of government.
Rightly so, they gave priority to the political problem of Iran, but
reform of the government was only the first step of an overall program
to preserve the independence and integrity of the country and for
pushing Iranian society forward to the level of the most advanced
countries in the West. This is why the Constitutional Movement of Iran
is known not only as a democratic revolution but also the beginning of
the movement for Modernity in Iran. For the Constitutionalists there
was no distinction between democracy and Modernity. Democracy, like
nationalism, social and economic development, and social justices was
just one of the components of their project for modernizing the
country. Their efforts in all aspects of that project were at an
unprecedented scale in Iranian society.
Whatever we have today in our limited ways, goes back to that era,
from mass education to political parties; from newspapers to novels
and theatre; from railroad to heavy industry; from medical coverage to
equality between men and women; from the political rights of the
religious minorities to de-centralization of local government. It is
true that the Constitutionalists' plans were not wholly materialized
at the time. It is also true that the Iran of today has gone back in
many ways to the Iran of pre-1906, the Constitutional Revolution, but
that movement has always been and remains the moving force of a
society in search of progress.
Even today we are essentially preoccupied with the very same central
issue of defining Modernity, its meaning and applications; how to
catch up with the most advanced societies of the West. We are still
faced with the same conflicting dilemmas of decentralization of power
and the rule of the people versus a centralized theocratic system,
nationalism versus separatism, versus globalization; economic progress
versus the dominance of Bazaar; social progress versus gender
inequality; Shiites versus followers of other persuasions; and
finally, social justice versus the ever-growing gap between the rich
and the poor. Our society is now ready as never before to embrace
Modernity and reach the goals that naturally surpass those sought by
the Constitutionalists. However the problem in its essence has not
much changed; and the Constitutionalists’ project is still the best
for Iran.
From 1941 /1320, many writers divided the era of Constitutional
Movement into 3 periods according to their own partisans and
ideological preferences: The1st “Mashrooteh” from 1285/1906 to
1286/1907 and the bombardment of the parliament building. The 2nd
“Mashrooteh” from 1288/1909 to 1299/1921 and the coup d'Etat of the
3rd of Esfand (1921, the rise of Reza Khan, later Reza Shah, to
power.) The 3rd “Mashrooteh” from1320/1941 to 1333/1953 and the fall
of “Mossadegh” These authors sum up the entire history of the
Constitutional Movement to the periods of the parliamentary supremacy.
According to them, “Mashrooteh” or Constitutionalism existed when the
parliament was able to exercise power. Reducing the modernization and
reform movement in Iran to only one of its elements, does not conform
to the real dimensions of the movement and the true role played by the
parliament during much of its few years of ascendancy. In reality, the
period between the last decade of 19th through the7th decade of 20th
century should be known as the Constitutional or “Mashrooteh” Era.
During this period, the notion of modernization and development
dominated the entire national discourse, transforming the traditional
Iranian society from its 1000 + year old beliefs to the extent that
even the current reactionary Islamic theocracy is nothing but a
deviation of the movement and in certain fundamental fields, it is
serving the Constitutionalists' objectives.
Parliament was the principal achievement of the Constitutionalists.
However, at the peak of its power, the parliament was not able to
accomplish more than successfully resisting imperial expansion. After
its 2nd term and the amendment of the electoral law, big landlords in
smaller cities controlled the election results. Thus, parliament was
not the true representative of the people and its power was indeed an
obstacle to progress. In addition during the years before the
emergence of Reza Shah, Iran, as a country with a feudal system, was a
disintegrating land with some of its provinces under foreign
occupation. Even banks and custom houses were managed by expatriates
and their respective governments.
During the first 15 years of “Mashrooteh”, most often, parliament was
not even in session and the cabinets had a median life span of no more
than 2 months and 23 days. In the years after the occupation of Iran
the parliament did not play its role any better. Most of the cabinets
were short lived and the parliamentarians in general only concerned
with their personal interests and ready to play into the hands of
different power players. Even Mossadegh, who was critical of Reza Shah
for bringing the parliament under his control, called it "the house of
thieves" in his own time; and in his hostility towards the parliament,
went as far as dissolving the very parliament whose members were
elected during his premiership, ignoring the Constitution itself.
In order for democracy to work in a country, an independent judiciary,
able to maintain law and order, the rule of law, and a certain degree
of economic and social development must exist. In third world
countries, only those with strong central governments could eventually
reach a certain degree of democracy. Even some of the former colonies,
especially those under the British Empire were in better shape than
Iran of that period. There has been much talk about democracy in
India. But India at the time of its independence had a considerable
educational and administrative infrastructure; its judiciary was the
envy of any third world country. There were absolutely no correlations
between the situation in India and Iran of eight decades ago, where
Mullahs and bureaucrats were doing to people whatever they wished.
The Constitutionalists realized the enormity of the task of
establishing democracy in a backward country early on, and almost all
of them found the solution in a powerful hand. Reza shah came to power
with general support – except for a small minority -- and as proved in
practice, was the most successful in implementing most of the
objectives of the Constitutionalists. Whatever he did during the next
20 years, were in essence what had been advocated in the programs of
the Constitutionalist parties, parliamentary discussions and the
writings of journalists and authors of the time.
The main issue then was the priorities: an independent Iran in its
proper boundaries with a strong central government, and an extensive
social and economic development program; or democracy for a thin layer
of politicos and intellectuals mostly in Tehran, controlling the
parliament and press; and disorder, lawlessness and stagnation in the
society as a whole?
After the Coup d’Etat of 1921, many of those politicians and
intellectuals did not hesitate to opt for a strong government. The
Constitutionalist Movement had won because the society wanted to
modernize, but the constitutional government had failed because it
could not realize its ideals. Reza Shah too did not achieve what he
was after, partly due to scarcity of resources available to him, and
partly because of too much reliance on brut force in leading a people
who after centuries of oppression was thirsting to feel responsible
for itself, and for participation. However, he had succeeded in
administering one of the greatest turnarounds in Iranian history. He
had saved his homeland from inevitable disintegration. By organizing
an effective civil service and a powerful military (by the standards
of the time,) he had created a modern nation-state, uniting a divided
land and its diverse ethnic groups; had transformed the government
machinery into the instrument for progress and development; created a
modern day economic, educational, and communications infrastructure;
and emancipated women. This last reform along with Mohamad Reza Shah’s
Land Reform and the revolution of mass education, and putting an end
to Feudalism in Iran under the Pahlavis, form the greatest social
revolutions in Iranian history. He had dealt such a devastating blow
to the clerical dominance in education and judiciary that even the
Islamic republic has not been able to completely overturn it.
Most of Mohammad Reza Shah's 37 years rule was spent in conflicts and
crises that left little opportunity to follow up the
Constitutionalists’ modernizing goals. Only during the last 15 years
of his rule, and aided by greater resources, that effort resumed with
breakneck speed and unprecedented dimensions; characteristics that
underlined its strong and weak points. Once again, an all powerful
king from Tehran embarked on a vast plan of social and economic
progress that for the first time since the peak of the Safavid era,
enabled Iran to enter the economic "take off “ stage in the latter
part of the 2nd Millennium. But, due to concentration of decision
making and the narrow perspective of the project, not only it resulted
in corruption, waste, and improper priorities, it also caused
political weakness and social vulnerability, the extent of which
became finally apparent in the Islamic revolution.
Concentration of the entire decision making process in a single man,
with all the shortcomings of a normal person, led to every kind of
excess, erroneous judgment, nepotism and cronyism in public affairs;
to the extent that a small circle around the shah and a group of
politically connected capitalists had the lion's share of the national
wealth. It is easy to influence a single person who makes all the
major and minor decisions on a daily basis. The emphasis on progress,
primarily from a quantitative and statistical standpoint, prevented
the development plan to reach the depths of the society, and the
maximum exploitation of immense resources that for the first time was
at our disposal. Iran’s development in those years was not impressive
enough and was lacking in harmony. A greater deficiency and imbalance
emerged in the political arena.
One of the monumental contributions of the Pahlavi monarchs was to
create a modem and dynamic middle class for the first time in Iran. An
industrial and democratic society could not be realized without this
class. During the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah, the new middle class
had developed to such an extent that could, hand in hand with a
reformist monarch like Mohammad Reza Shah, have built an industrial
democratic society. However this middle class, instead of finding its
deserved place in the society, not only was blocked by different
political obstacles, was openly humiliated by the political
leadership. At least, from the 60s, Iranians could not be accused of
being unable to rule themselves and still needing some supreme leader
who knows it all, better than anyone else, to preside over their fate.
In the middle of all these great achievements and excruciating
shortcomings, the Constitutional era came to an end by the Islamic
evolution that crystallized all cultural, social, and political
failings of Iran. However, that experience with Modernity was profound
enough not to be erased by any means and under any Regime. Resurgence
of the dormant Iranian nationalism and a justified pride in the 3000
years history of the land, in its present name of Iran, was one of the
characteristics of this Modernity. Abolition of feudalism,
emancipation of women and peasants, and the emergence of a middle
class were other aspects of it. Iranians have never experienced such
standard of living either before or after. The Iranian society
acquired all the trappings of modern day living, albeit
insufficiently, and Iran regained its place in the international
community. The Constitutionalists, from every camp, and with all their
transgressions and shortcomings, did a great service to their country,
the extent of which becomes more apparent with the passage of time.
Nevertheless the undeniable failure of the Constitutionalist project
in its first phase until the Islamic Revolution demanded a thorough
re-evaluation both in theory and practice. This re-evaluation began
immediately after the Islamic revolution, resulting in the formation
of what is called the New Constitutionalism and has become the
foundation for the political programs of the present Constitutionalist
Party of Iran. The New Constitutionalism indeed reflects the original
message and significance of the Constitutionalist Movement. That
message is Modernity, which has been obscured in the partisan politics
of the past decades; by those in both camps who successfully gave a
one-dimensional interpretation of our recent history.
Constitutionalism had a much deeper and more extensive meaning than
what was instilled in people's mind particularly after the World War
II. It was reduced into just a form of government, and a despotic one
at that, by the Opposition; and a mere ceremony, and a forced one, by
the Regime itself. It was one of the major failings of the Pahlavi
Monarchy that as an offspring of the Constitutional Movement and the
one that realized most of the farfetched aspirations of the
Constitutionalists, so much tried to ignore it.
As indicated earlier, nationalism (the sense of belonging to, and
pride in, one nation, one country,) liberty, progress, and social
justice, in an integrated whole, made the Constitutionalist project.
At the onset of the 20th century, intellectual and political
leadership of the Movement saw these four elements as a whole. The New
Constitutionalists have taken this project in its entirety, cleansing
it of the philosophical and political contradictions and shortcomings
experienced in the seventy years of Constitutional era; re-modeling it
in its 21st century form.
CHAPTER 1
NATIONALISM
Nationalism was the most important characteristic and the driving
force of the Constitutional Movement, in the age of Imperialism and in
a country that every Power had its own plans on it, a preserving and
defensive nationalism in a dangerous world. The Constitutionalists’
starting point was to defend the country from foreign dominance and to
maintain a unified and independent Iran. Democracy and socioeconomic
development, later on termed as “Liberty” and “Progress” by the
historians, were only the means toward this higher end.
The outburst of nationalistic sentiments demonstrated in this epoch's
literature is perhaps the only explanation of the unusual
participation by a significant group of clerics, at least at the
beginning of the Constitutional Movement. During the Qajar dynasty,
the clergy, hand in hand with the king and the princes, exercised full
control over people. They had no individual or collective motive to
join a movement that was poised to reduce the power of the Shah and
his court. The Constitutionalists, however, managed to attract them to
their cause by pinpointing the humiliation of a Muslin nation falling
under the yoke of Christian Empires.
The nationalistic upsurge of putting "Iran" ahead and above of all,
came from a natural sentiment, which is still shared by almost all
Iranians. It also addressed a need. "Iran" is all we have as Iranians.
It is the embodiment of all the struggles and sacrifices and
exceptional achievements of a hundred generations of Iranians. The
greatest of these achievements is the survival of the country, without
which, "Iran" would be no more than a historical name. This is not the
so called jewel-studded land of the song, and its people are not
superior to other nations, but it was a tremendous feat to preserve,
in the span of almost three thousand years, in such a crossroad of
armies and tribes, such a vast and varied land between two seas, with
its resourceful and resilient people. It has been an exceptional
triumph of spirit for this nation to preserve its national identity
against all odds and still being able to raise its head in pride. What
is a higher duty, and closer to the nature of things, to preserve this
piece of land, hardened in the furnace of history; to elevate this
tested and weathered people again to their deserved heights?
We embrace nationalism in its preserving, not expansionist; and
democratic, not Fascist form. Although "nationalist" and "democratic"
are not necessarily interwoven, their organic connection could not be
overlooked. One can be nationalistic but without democratic mentality
or beliefs; and there have been many leaders who could not reconcile
democratic methods with the task of advancing and defending their
land. Nationalism in the Europe of the New Age – since 17th century --
has developed both in democratic and un-democratic traditions. There
were times when un-democratic nationalism had the upper hand. But
victory has at last been with the democratic tradition. The former, in
central Europe, resulted in two world wars and the Holocaust. It still
is the greatest enemy of eastern European nations and ethnic groups.
In our own country, un-democratic nationalism, despite its tremendous
achievements, failed in its goals and again and again met with
disastrous defeats. Putting an individual or an oligarchy above the
people, and gradually instead of people, at its best prevents popular
mobilization, and at its worst leads to political and moral
corruption. Even the most ardent patriots and nationalists could not
deny the rights of the individuals who make up a nation -- along with
history and culture, in other words, the national memory and heritage
-- without intellectually undermining themselves. It is true that a
nation is more than the sum total of the individuals comprising it.
But could it be also against that sum total? Could it be said that
individuals have no part in that collectivity? Is it possible to
ignore the individual citizens who are real, and only think of the
State or Nation, which is an abstract concept; and give them no other
right than sacrificing themselves for a goal set by the leadership?
Politicians and propagandists always tend to concentrate on and
publicize the best and brightest spots and periods of any historic
era. This is the “art” of narrowing historical outlook, and serves the
purpose of deceiving oneself and others. The most alarming form of
this can be detected in the radical Islamist, fundamentalist movement.
They narrow the scope of their analysis to the first two generations
and completely overlook the harsh realities of 1400 years of Islam in
the realm of thought and action. In the name of a “realized utopia.” a
"glorious past" that could be brought back, they are creating Irans,
Turkeys, Algerias, Afghanistans and Pakistans of the world. However in
a broader and longer-term perspective the cult of personality or
Ideology is always overshadowed by democracy. (That Age, after all,
was not so golden. Of the first four Califs, ”the Rashedin,” only
Abubakr, who soon passed away, died a natural death. All the rest were
assassinated, and by Muslims. The reign of the last two of them was
steeped in corruption (Othman) and civil war (Ali.) The Golden Age
became possible only by conquest and pillage on an exceptional scale
and for a limited time.)
Democracy, meaning popular participation in governance, has in the
long run outperformed even the best of dictatorships. Today we are
witnessing its worldwide and probably final triumph over regimes in
which people, in the name of an abstract collective (Nation, Class,
Umma, Mass) or a transcendental right (the right of a superman called
Imam, Fuhrer, King, Leader) have been deprived of their sovereign
rights. Societies where people, those under-educated, un-informed,
busy with making ends meet masses, have been in control of their
destiny, have enjoyed more stability and strength and faired better.
As a Greek philosopher noted wisely 2500 years ago: "People may not
make good judges, but they can elect great ones".
The fathers of Constitutional Movement were influenced by the European
progressive ideas, before being poisoned by Fascism and
Marxism-Leninism. They, from theoretical point of view, defeated
religious traditionalism and the first waves of fundamentalism for the
next fifty years. We, as their children, four generations later, have
those life-giving sources and the sweet and mostly bitter experiences
of those four generations at our disposal; and can, with firmer feet
and clearer eyes pursue the path opened to humanity by the most
enlightened minds and societies.
Nationalism, as we perceive it, influences the Party’s political
program in the fields of foreign and cultural policies.
A - Foreign policy:
Twenty first century will be the age of interdependency; the constant
interaction of patterns of thought and action and, in some cases, the
inevitable assimilation and conformity. This phenomenon has been
called "globalization". It goes without saying that it will work to
the benefit of the most advanced and developed countries and
civilizations. There have been three courses of action in relation to
this phenomenon: joining this process in full force, as has been done
by the European countries, North America, Japan, south Korea, New
Zealand; adjust oneself to it, like India, China, a few east Asian
lands and one or two Latin American nations; or stay out like the rest
of the world. In this respect, the Muslim countries have taken the
unique position of not only refusing to participate, but also
defiantly rejecting globalization; using Islam as a shield for all the
forces of obscurantism and reaction.
However globalization is another, more developed form of Modernity,
that started six centuries ago and with which the Muslim world has
been engaged in a losing battle for the past three hundred years.
“Islam against Modernity or as a substitute to Modernity” has been a
strategy for failure and backwardness. Islamic conservatives have only
been able to slacken the pace of Modernity to the detriment of their
people (Saudi Arabia is one example; Afghanistan is another,
catastrophic example.) The Islamic fundamentalists who wanted to make
a revolutionary force out of Islam have inflicted so much damage to
Islam in Iran, Turkey and Algeria that political Islam will never
recover from it. No culture has been able to resist Modernity.
It is futile to reject, stay aside and bring up the walls against
globalization. This is the irresistible trend in world economy and
culture, because it is the very nature of progress itself. To deny it,
is neither practical nor dose any good to nations. Joining
globalization will not jeopardize Iran’s national identity or
interest. Two hundred and one hundred years ago we had the same
situation vis-à-vis Modernity. The conservatives hindered
modernization and reforms, because it was supposedly in conflict with
our “Iranian-Islamic” identity, meaning those characteristics of the
Iranian society used by the ruling groups for suppressing people. (We
have but one identity and that is Iranian.) Today, in spite of the
Islamic revolution and government, we are more Iranian, and better
Iranians. We must join globalization and take a seat on the saddle; in
other words become a player and not merely a puppet, and help to
moderate its excesses. The circle of winners in this global economy is
widening. We want to be included in this circle and help others in our
region.
While we will go along with the mainstream of world economy and
culture in every respect, we will strive to enhance Iran’s
contribution and its presence in this process and at the same time
preserve Iran’s distinct identity in a world of ever uniformity. We
cannot build a dam around us against this rising tide. Those
reactionaries, who denounce the free enterprise and the multinational
corporations, are wasting their time. Without taking part in the
accelerating progress, they are mere petty consumers and can go on
living thanks to the same corporations and Capital. We cannot
eliminate multinationals and they are ever proliferating; but we can
have our own multinational corporations. Capital is bound to expand
and concentrate and if it is not monopolistic and works to our
national interest, it is not bad at all. Iran should be hospitable to
the inflow of capital, technology and management at the highest
possible level, until we became players in our own right.
* * *
Iranian foreign policy is
based on one simple ideology: promoting Iranian national interest. But
this could be interpreted in many ways. Some could even invade other
countries under this pretext. Iran is situated in a region, most
turbulent and unstable and politically and culturally backward. Of our
neighbors Turkey and Iraq are in a state of national crisis and the
latter will remain so for the foreseeable future. Afghanistan is a
catastrophe called a country. The Republic of Azerbaijan has fallen to
the stranglehold of the remnants of the communist Mafia. Pakistan, in
the grip of Islamic fundamentalism and perpetual political crisis,
could at any given moment, like Afghanistan, send hundreds of
thousands of refugees into an affluent Iran.
In the Persian Gulf, which until the eighties had become more of an
Iranian lake, the American symbolic presence, due to the unwise and
aggressive policies of Iraq and the Islamic Republic, has expanded to
the establishment of a full carrier battle group (the fifth fleet has
been organized for this purpose.) Now Iran’s southern neighbors in
Persian Gulf can feel secure under its shadow. In central Asia and the
Caucasus everywhere there are danger points and we are still in a way
dealing with Russia and its ambitions- although fortunately for the
first time in three centuries we do not have a common border with her
and this permanent danger has been removed.
In such a volatile region, a genuine foreign policy requires much more
than repeating formulas about reciprocal and friendly relations with
neighbors and other countries or compliance with the U.N Charter. We
neither have any commitment nor owe any thing to others and do not
expect any favors. Defending the rights of the Palestinians or the
Shiites of southern Lebanon or the Shiite and Muslim minorities in
other countries is not our obligation. It is irrelevant what
percentage of the population of our neighbors are Shiite or how many
Muslims live in Bosnia. Iran's resources, apart from humanitarian
interventions, should be utilized to improve the lives of the people
within its borders and to expand our trade and culture beyond. In
western And central Asia and the middle east and, fact that we are not
a revisionist nation and do not advocate any redrawing of
international borders, unlike many others, makes us a stabilizing
force for the whole region. As we did before the Islamic revolution,
our presence should deter others from acts of aggression against each
other. We should start this by setting an example. An Iran that
pursues a non-aggressive policy and at the same time fiercely defends
its national territory, for example in Persian Gulf, would undoubtedly
curb such irresponsible regimes as former Ba’thists in Irak. We
obviously would not tolerate any country’s aggression in our region.
Situated in one of the world’s most volatile areas, Iran needs a
strong defensive force not inferior to any potential rival. The
existing military chaos and the divided armed forces -- the Army and
the Revolutionary Guards -- has deprived our country from its needed
defensive capabilities. The humiliated Army of Iran should be restored
to its deserved position and given its appropriate share of the
national resources. The Revolutionary Guard should be absorbed into a
unified military, and instead of its intended role as a means of
suppression, plays its part in defending national sovereignty and
territory.
Iran’s unique strategic position in the region -- access to two seas;
communication crossroad to central Asia, the middle east, Europe, the
sub continent; the land rout of a new Silk Road; close to most of the
world’s oil and gas reserves; in the middle of a market of a billion
and several hundred million people -- is our winning card. Our country
can exploit this position to become a major player in world arena. For
this to happen, we require an intelligent foreign policy and
developing a modern communication network and industrial and financial
infrastructure.
As far as world powers are concerned -- America, European Community,
Russia, Japan and soon China and India -- they all can help us in our
progress. Western countries specially have many useful things to teach
and give us. From the tiny Finland to the super power America. We bear
no animosity towards countries richer and more powerful than
ourselves. We only want to catch up with them as much as we can. Among
these, Russia is our competitor in Caucasus and central Asia, but has
common interest in fighting terrorism and because of proximity, could
be one of the greatest sources of technology transfer and trading
partners for Iran.
B - Cultural policy:
On the cultural front we should again replace the policy of regression
and inward looking by a policy of inclusion and outward movement. To
brag about the glories and achievements of the distant past -- in a
world that its cultural products, at least in technology, doubles
every ten years -- only helps to keep us in our eight hundred years
old deep sleep. Iranians have all the potentials to once again join
the forefront of the world’s culture. Only in the past two or three
generations, we have been able to bring a degree of modern culture
(science, arts, way of life) to the Iranian masses. In the world arena
we are just starting to contribute. Educating masses of the people and
developing talents, acquiring the new technology, expanding national
cultural infrastructure and opening our doors to the best of the
world's technological and cultural products would be our answer to the
question of preserving national identity. To have a future as a
distinct nation we have no other way but to become a cultural and
economic power in our own right. Throughout history, our culture and
economy blossomed when we were commuters of the global highway. Our
“acculturation” (adoption of foreign cultural influences) in the last
two centuries, though reluctantly, has changed our national lives
forever, but it has not damaged our national identity. To the
contrary, today we are more conscious of our Iranian-ness and so is
the international community. This precisely is what is meant by
national identity, and not just the mental habits of a certain group
or a generation during a certain time span, no matter how long that
may be.
Chapter 2
Liberty
Nowadays, the notion of liberty is so universal that any emphasis on
democracy seems redundant. There is ample evidence of successful
democratic governments throughout the world and they can easily be
learned from. Majority rule; minorities changing into majority;
pluralism; the separation of church and state; equality under the law;
freedom of speech and assembly; are alphabets of modern day’s
governance and those societies which have not complied are in constant
crisis and are struggling to reach that point.
The new trend in today’s understanding of liberty is the growing
influence of human rights on government and sovereignty. By government
we mean the authority given to the representatives of the people or
acquired by the governing apparatus to exert over public affairs and
social relations. Sovereignty is a right; government is the means to
exert this right. Historically, that authority could not be
contravened. All governments even democratic ones, confined by the
law, have enjoyed vast powers that are under attack from the
standpoint of human rights. Until recently, ownership and control over
audio-visual media; the licensing of media by governments; police
surveillance over the citizens (e.g. tapping phones) were considered
as necessary and commonplace. Today, the governments’ powers, wherever
it infringes human rights, is diminishing. In democratic societies,
state-control over media does not exist any more and the courts of law
play a major role in protecting citizens’ rights. Many of the rules
set for regulating socio-economic relations are being eased or
eliminated.
The impact of human rights on sovereignty is equally significant.
Sovereignty, is similar to ownership, an abstract concept, and has two
manifestations: first, as the right to govern, for instance the
sovereign right of the people, i.e. democracy; or divine right of
kings, theocracy, or oligarchy (Iran and China.) and second, as the
sovereign right of a state over its territory and people, i.e.
national sovereignty. The state according to the international law has
a free hand inside its territory. However with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights signed by all member states of the UN, and
especially after the adoption of the Covenant on the crimes against
humanity, that has been ratified by many parliaments in the member
states, as well as the establishment of the International Tribunal,
national sovereignty has also been curtailed. The international
community assumes the right to prevent by force and punish those
governments that commit crimes against their own people. The leaders
of such governments could be arrested and persecuted in countries that
have ratified the Covenant.
Liberty for us exists only in the framework of human rights, in other
words democracy limited by human rights. No laws even by a majority or
in the name of religion can violate individual rights under the
Universal Declaration. For this concept the world is indebted to the
writers of the American Declaration of Independence, who says all
people are equal at creation and have inalienable rights. The powers
of government, which includes the executive, legislature and the
judiciary, should be as limited as possible and an independent
judiciary safeguarding the rights of the people and the government. We
also, with all our emphasis on national sovereignty, defend the right
of international organizations to interfere in internal affairs of
states for protecting human rights.
Liberal democracy as developed in the West during the past two hundred
years and still developing, is what we have in mind for Iranian system
of government. The most important institution in such a system of
government is the parliament, which reflects the will of popular
majority in its resolutions; and the executive is responsible to it.
For a democracy to work properly, first of all the parliament should
be both democratic and efficient. A good electoral law is crucial in
this respect. Electoral systems are either absolute majority or
proportional. In absolute majority a candidate that takes fifty per
cent plus one vote wins all. In proportional systems the seats are
divided according to the proportion of votes won. A proportional
system is more suited for societies with more fragmented politics and
greater danger of clashes. However, it should be moderated, as in the
German model, by a relatively high minimum (five per cent in that
case) so that any one who wins less than that would not take a seat.
Likewise the candidates should deposit a certain amount of money to be
confiscated in the case of not winning the minimum percentage. These
precautions are necessary so to prevent the trivialization of our
electoral process, like so many other things, and all the more
necessary in a country prone to proliferation of political groups and
a thousand candidates for presidency. We have the example of so many
parliaments at the mercy of fringe groups (Israel, Italy before recent
partial corrections) to take our lesson. To eliminate the influence of
money and special interest in politics, free radio and television time
and public financial support should be provided to the parties
according to their share of the vote.
It is self evident that in a liberal democracy the form of regime,
monarchy or republic, is not important (Spain or Portugal.) So is the
case with a dictatorship (Saudi Arabia and Syria.) Nevertheless we
prefer a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic, since it is
more compatible with our enduring traditions. In our view the task of
preserving democracy, which needs nurturing for a long time, would be
more attainable under a monarchy than a republic. In response to those
who indicate that democratic or parliamentary monarchy in Iran has
never been successful, suffice to say that, in the past, all political
tendencies, even those considered the epitome of the rule of law and
democracy, proved to be authoritarian and intolerant. What makes the
future of Iranian democracy more secure is the considerable social
infrastructure and the maturity of Iranian society, as well as the
valuable experiences of the last hundred years; most of all the 20-30
million strong Iranian middle class of educated men and women who
culturally, if not economically, come under this category.
Those who from a strictly logical point of view see a contradiction in
emphasizing monarchy’s traditional value and at the same time
believing in a constitutional monarchy, have a point. After all there
is precious little constitutional in our monarchical tradition. But it
is what all constitutional monarchies in Europe and elsewhere have
achieved. They have, in a historical moment that could last for years
or generations, adjusted a traditional institution, which, in spite of
its longevity, has been able to go along the flow of time and totally
different conditions, so combining both tradition and Modernity. Our
people were not able in the past to hold on to a constitutional
government, but if something have not succeed in the past, there is no
reason that it should not succeed in the future, even though it dose
not seem “logical.” We recognize the heir to the throne of the Pahlavi
monarchy, as the next constitutionalist monarch of Iran. However, it
is up to the Iranians to choose the future form of their government.
As in all other cases, we will abide by the will of the people.
Freedom of speech and political, professional, social, and cultural
associations of all kinds are the obvious prerequisites of a
democracy. However freedom of speech is conditioned by civil
responsibility enforced by the courts; and freedom of association
means that nobody could be coerced into joining a party or union or
council.
Democracy is incompatible with concentration of power. Democracy means
to empower as many people as possible. Democratic institutions were
formed as a counterweight to the concentrated power of governments. In
addition, devolution of power leads to greater efficiency because more
capabilities were mobilized at every level. Concentration of power
should not be confused with centralization. There are central organs
even in the most democratic entities to coordinate or accumulate
resources, while concentration entails stripping the parts of a
collective from individual initiative and voluntary action. The
imperatives of promoting democracy and achieving development, requires
ever more devolution of governmental power. There is also another
imperative.
As indicated earlier, we are in a region that is suffering from
historical instability. Its borders were drawn by colonial powers or
as a result of foreign invasions; and the whole region is prone to
foreign manipulation and centrifugal pressures. Iran itself between
16th to 19th centuries, was al the time carved out in its four corners
- from the battle of Chaldoran when the Ottomans annexed the greater
portion of Kurdistan, to the Russian expansion into Iranian lands of
Caucasus and central Asia. Throughout the 19th century the British
redrew Iran’s eastern and western borders according to their colonial
designs, including the one-sided river border settlement of “Shatt ol
Arab” and cessation of Persian Gulf islands. As a result, most people
living on our borders have relatives on either side. This can be a
good opportunity for the expansion of cultural and economic ties; a
source of constant tension and possible conflict with its neighbors as
well. In the past, the government reacted by concentrating all power
in Tehran. The Constitutionalists realized the pitfalls of this
solution and suggested the creation of locally elected provincial and
regional assemblies.
Today, we need to go even further by allowing division of power
between central and local governments and by giving the locally
elected authorities all the powers to make local decisions. They
should also have their fair share of national resources, which will
simultaneously strengthen national unity and democracy. The borders of
a province should be determined by the will of the local people and
with regard to economic development.
Our policy on devolution or local government is based on three
principles:
1- The principle of one country, one nation. Iran is not a multination
country. No “nation” has been forced to join Iran; it is a country
that different people, with different languages and religions have
inhabited from the dawn of history, and have defended it hand in hand
and have left us this much of the fatherland. We under no
circumstances will allow any further diminishing of its borders. Iran,
within its current borders has always been the core territory of any
Iranian state, from the time of the Medes to present day. Its name in
various forms of the root word “Aria” dates back to some 3000 years
ago. Such a country could not be called multination, and since, most
of Iran’s ethnic groups have ruled Iran, sometimes for centuries, it
would be hard to talk of national or ethnic injustice.
2- The principle of indivisibility of sovereignty and divisibility of
government. By that we mean the preservation of territorial integrity,
one law for all, and a government representing the whole of Iran. The
official language of the country will be the national tongue, i.e.
Persian. But Iran will not have a centralized government. Each region,
province, town, and village will administer local affairs through its
own elected organs, and a senate, with equal number of representatives
from each region will consist the legislator along with parliament. In
development projects those less endowed regions will have priority to
catch up with others.
3- The principle of cultural and civil rights of different religious
and ethnic groups. In accordance to the Covenants of civil and
cultural rights attached to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
we acknowledge the rights of all Iranians’ to speak and be educated in
whatever language, with access to the mass media in their mother
tongues, and to preserve their customs and to practice any religion.
We recognize no ethnic or religious minorities because there would not
be any special right for the majority; only the majority of voters,
which is a temporary phenomenon.
Federalism, for a country like Iran with its history of central
government, is an artificial solution and a threat to its national
integrity. The terms autonomy and self-determination, revives the
unhappy memories of the World War II, when foreign occupation forces
were trying to dismember Iran under those banners. Any unnecessary
insistence on such heavily laden terms would complicate the essential
task of devolution of power and preservation of Iran’s ethnic groups.
Chapter 3
Development
Development is relatively a new, post-war term. Before that Iranians
used terms such as progress and advancement. What is meant by
development is for a country to achieve the “take off” stage; the
stage of being able to solve its own problems and reach modern
standards without outside assistance. Development is a multi faceted
process, encompassing economy, politics, and culture.
A- Economy
In political economy our first priority is to replace Ideology with
pragmatism. Iran now has a population of some 65 million, half of
which living at around or below poverty line - even by Iran’s low
standards. It also has one of the weaker economies in the world that
can barely survive thanks to oil exports. Such a economy could only be
invigorated by applying, in an intelligent and innovative way, those
strategies and policies that have proven effective in other similar
conditions. There is no room for retrying failed experiments.
A pragmatic economic policy has the following characteristics:
1- To encourage private enterprise, taking the government out of
economic activities, and deregulation of economy to the necessary
minimum. The society’s productive forces should be unshackled and the
field for competition opened up. People should not be denied the
fruits of their work in the name of justice or “national interest.” At
the same time, by expanding the ownership of enterprises by the masses
of people, especially the workers, through the ownership of public
corporations, the national wealth must be spread across the society.
If capital market takes the place of bank credits or bank ownership,
companies will increasingly would go public and issue stocks of their
companies.
2- The role of government in economy should be essentially confined to
investment in public services; regulating capital market in
cooperation with private sector, and protection of consumers,
producers, and the environment. In Iran, due to the vital role of the
oil revenues, as long as the income tax does not cover public
expenditure, or the greater part of it, there is no alternative to
government control of the oil industry. Also it would be advisable for
a while to have the government control of the power sector, railway
system, and postal services. However, state enterprises must be
privatized whenever possible. To reconstruct the nation’s industrial
base and enable it to compete in the world markets, the government can
help by expanding educational, research and physical infrastructure of
the economy; and providing different industries with assistance in
R&D, directly or particularly with participation of universities and
research institutes. Protectionist policies are useful only for a
limited time and in industries with a chance to compete. An industry
relying on the crutches of protective tariffs and government subsidies
is useless. Strategies of import replacement should be adopted in a
limited way, because in the final analysis its costs would be too
high. In today’s economy autarky is out of question and there is no
other choice than division of labor and concentration on industries
where there are structural advantages (natural resources, a proximity
to consumer market, labor force…) There is no need for each nation to
be self-sufficient in every thing. Manipulating currency rates,
imposing quotas and controls that bread black market practices should
be excluded from the economy.
Although the service sector, from electronic trading, banking, and
insurance to restaurants, has an ever-increasing role in national
economies, Iran should become a manufacturing nation. With a large
domestic market and access to a huge area and a trained and
potentially capable work force, Iran has many advantages not least of
which its natural resources and great economic potential. These are
factors in creating a sizable industrial base in the region.
There are two key elements to Iran’s industrialization. The first is
education: to train a labor force familiar with modern knowledge and
technology; skills that make workers employable. The second is
transfer of modern technology and business management that comes
partly through foreign investments; something very much needed in
Iran. We should not resent foreign investors’ profits. A country that
is a mere importer of goods and services is poorer than the one who
thanks to foreign capital would become an exporter. A comparison
between South Korea and Thailand with present socialistic countries or
state capitalisms of the past shows the differences.
The government’s task is collecting taxes, not paying subsidies.
People should stand on their own feet and the government should turn
from provider into accountable to the people. Taxes have a more
important role than paying for public expenses, and regulating
economic fluctuations or even reducing income inequalities. It is
impossible to democratize a political system without an efficient tax
system. A society that does not pay enough taxes is a “rentier” one,
with a government not relying on popular contribution. A government
that could continue without adequate taxation would not be responsible
to its people and depends on factors or forces other than its people
(ample resources of oil, foreign backers, multinational companies).
With taxation comes responsibility and accountability. However fiscal
policies should not merely be for providing income or leveling
inequalities. Even those policies should serve producing wealth, such
as encouraging investment, savings, and charitable contributions. In
the name of protecting the less fortunate, free enterprise should not
be squeezed out of producing wealth, and force out the capital,
expertise, and know how. No iron curtain can prevent brain drain and
capital flight.
B- Civil society:
Civil society is voluntary organizations including political parties,
and the existence of a space for the people to work together, without
government interference, on issues of their choice. Civil society is
also citizens’ rights and duties and civilized social relationships;
it is an open and inclusive society based on individual rights and
responsibilities. Civil society is essential for pluralism, which is
as important to democracy as majority rule. Strengthening its
institutions is necessary for curbing the excesses of government and
market forces. In such a society, participation in and campaigning for
any cause, and school of thought would be allowed, as long as it does
not involve in advocating violence, mixing religion with politics, and
resorting to arms.
In Iran with its longstanding culture of violence that has corrupted
politics and poisoned social and even family relations, and e
especially after the 1979 revolution that has sunken Iranian society
to the infernal depths of violence, the advancement of civil society
needs radical and innovative decisions. We are against the death
penalty; and to root out violence from Iranian politics, reject the
whole concept of political crime, which is meaningless. People cannot
be persecuted and punished for having beliefs or taking political
stands or decisions or holding political office; except in case of
abusing power or committing crimes against humanity. Iran’s politics
and society should come out of the vicious circle of bloodshed and
vendetta; and from the deadly heritage of Islamic Republic. To this
end we propose, once and for all, the formation of the “Court of
Truth” or the court of condemnation without punishment, to bring all
leaders, operatives, and servants of the current regime to justice, to
uncover the crimes and their perpetrators. Obviously, all national
wealth that has been looted must be returned. This would be a bitter
medicine that nevertheless should be taken for the sake of our present
and future national well-being.
Inequality in human ability is a fact of life. Even totalitarian
persecution and terror has failed to erase its consequences. But
equality in rights can be established. Iran does not have a racial
problem; however religious or gender biases, which are our most
disgusting pretexts for discrimination should not have a place in our
society either. An Iranian is, first and foremost, an Iranian
individual and then any thing else. Our society is now mature enough
to respect the freedom of religion and preserve the rights of all
faiths -- including the freedom of dress -- and distract religion from
legislation and public education.
In the light of this, equal rights for women are an attainable goal
and Iranian women have already started their struggle for it. Work
outside the house is a woman’s right, and sharing the burden of house
keeping is a man’s duty. Women must enjoy the same educational
opportunities as men and the labor market should be as open to them as
to men. Discrepancy in men and women’s payment must be eliminated and
the government should, with the participation of the people themselves
establish a network of day care centers for the children of
workingwomen.
C- Education
Education: is both the greatest equalizer and source of inequality in
today’s world, both on the national and international levels. In the
age of high technology, one cannot overcome backwardness but to attain
that technology. Technology could be bought, however, like industry,
unless it became native, backwardness would remain. The solution is in
education; reaching to the level of the most advanced countries which,
for us is well attainable. The largest share of national budget should
go toward free education, general and technical, education. Higher
education would be free for those who have the intellectual
requirements but not the financial means. The private sector should
also be encouraged to invest in this field. The educational program,
albeit basically uniform, has to be flexible and take the needs of
different social segments and parts of the country into consideration.
Emphasis should be on an extensive program of apprenticeship with the
participation of industries, on German lines, to train a skilled work
force.
Formal education and apprenticeship is only one part of the
educational program; equally important is sports, and arts. Raising
the country’s Cultural standards and exposing the masses to the best
in world Culture are the other and no less important parts. We who,
for long, had been world-class producers of culture are now entangled
in a race against banality and backward looking. The government
without becoming the cultural arbiter, can cultivate potential
artistic talents of the masses by measures such as extensive Cultural
education; creating a national network of cultural institutions -
libraries, museums, exhibition centers, concert halls, operas,
theaters, cinemateques, culture houses and the like. In this field,
again, policies that make cultural creation dependent on government
should be refrained from. Only those who create works of distinction
could be rewarded -and only afterwards; and by independent and
competent bodies.
Charter 4
Social Justice
In the field of social justice the final word was said by the 17th
century English man, Jeremy Benhtam: greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people. In our time, technology has so much
advanced that could provide all people to a degree of welfare and
comfort unimaginable in the past. Today the problem is political and
cultural: governments should work for people and people should be
educated for living in this “Brave New World.” Even the poorest
countries, if in their outlays and the use of their national resources
give priority to providing people’ needs and increase their economic
potential, could reach a satisfactory standard of living. The greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people has two preconditions:
first, preparing the necessary conditions for creating wealth; second,
the society be made responsible for individuals.
Iran has all the potential to become one of the richest countries, and
raise the living standard of its masses to one of the highest in the
world: an extensive territory between two seas, the highway of western
and central Asia and the middle east; a large body of intelligent,
hard working people; a considerable internal market and overland
access to a market that encompasses from the sub continent to the
middle east and Persian gulf; a cultural and economic infrastructure
that, even though not at a high level, could be improved with no great
difficulty; and natural resources, looked upon with envy by many
countries.
These assets could be utilized by Iranians provided that they:
First, participate in public affairs i.e. politics, and leave their
destiny not in the hands of any authority, be it a leader or king or
Imam, so that in policymaking the priority is given to the interest of
the greatest number of people.
Second, equip themselves with the highest levels of education and
technical skill, upon which the modern world is dependent and no
political system could get our country to where it deserves without
it.
Third, do not seat idle and depend on government for their well
-being; work as much as they could and should and expect due security
and rewards.
Government is people’s representative and trustee, not their nanny
from cradle to grave. There are, and always will be, those who are
unable to support themselves. It is the duty of society and the
government as its representative to help them. But the rest should
work hard to earn their living and also pay for the cost of the
extended social welfare programs. A rentier society cannot live by
even the world’s fourth oil, and second natural gas reserves. Oil and
gas are an additional factor in Iran’s development, like what it was
in Reza shah’s time; it should not be the mainstay of administrative
expenditures. Welfare programs, if they dilute the difference between
working and not working, or the good and bad in work, would lead to
stagnation, brain drain, capital flight, and idleness. In our view,
social justice must go hand in hand with economic development and
creation of wealth, and none of them must be sacrificed.
We will follow these strategies to achieve that goal:
1- We give equal opportunity to all, so each individual, cold,
according to her or his abilities, pursue the road to happiness;
education and technical training for everyone, to whatever level of
her or his intellectual capacity; fair and legal protection for
employees and employers, consumers and producers; opening up the field
for productive activities without unnecessary regulations, and a tax
system that does not discourages creation of wealth. The government
should care for the well being of all and especially those who are
deprived and left behind.
2- We provide comprehensive health and retirement insurance, as well
as coverage for unemployed and disabled.
Employers, employees and the government share the burden of welfare
programs. Law sets minimum wage and maximum working hours, but
enterprises must have a free hand in hiring, firing, and work
schedule. Those who lose their job would come under public sponsored
programs of apprenticeship and reeducation and until they find another
employment, be compensated by unemployment insurance, in accordance to
their previous salary. Obviously, if someone declines taking new,
appropriate job offers or undergoing reeducation, or participating in
social work, would have lesser benefits. Our goal is to give free hand
to enterprises in employing people without fear, and to the employees
the flexibility in scheduling their own working hours. The new economy
has transformed working conditions. Many people have part-time jobs or
work from their homes.
We do not want to create conditions that, in the name of protecting
workers’ rights, only lengthens unemployment queues, and suits a
workers’ aristocracy. In today’s competitive world, producers and
entrepreneurs need freedom of action.
3- We establish a system of obligatory health insurance for all
residents of Iran. Health insurance should be privatized and insurance
companies obliged to insure everybody. The government would partly or
wholly pay for those who could not afford their premium. Responsible
government agencies, as in other fields, are for supervision over the
working of the insurers, hospitals and health institutes, and
protecting the rights of patient and not establishing and running such
institutions.
Chapter 5
Campaign Strategy
The Islamic Republic with its archaic seminarian worldview, its
despotic and unworkable constitution, and mafia type power structure,
is a barrier on the way of joining the progressive world under any
political program. To oppose it in its ideological and political
totality, and empower the people to take hold of their destiny, is the
first priority for any oppositional force. We are engaged in all
aspects of this struggle, not to redeem our past, but because the
ultimate goal of fighting the Islamic republic is basically the same
as the Constitutional movement, i.e. a fight against political
despotism and cultural backwardness --the twin causes of Iran’s
centuries’ old slide. We are essentially those same Constitutionalists
but try to be better and more knowledgeable and progress with the
times.
Our campaign strategy is defined by our goals. Since there is an
organic relationship between the goal and the means, and people and
groups are made by what they do and how they are doing it, anything
that has the mark of political despotism and cultural backwardness,
would in fact strengthen the very world view and political system that
we are fighting against. Thus, two approaches are left aside at the
very beginning; those that used to dominate political discourse in the
first decade and half after the revolution. First, using religious
beliefs and symbols; and the second, to resort to arms or violence in
political struggle. Platforms, declarations and speeches do not show
and define what political groups are; it is their behavior, which
shapes them all the time and becomes their nature. Even if they
sincerely believe in what they say, the daily contradiction between
their thought and deed, leads to cynicism and hypocrisy, eventually
leaving nothing of the original beliefs. Not one instance of armed or
violent struggle -- which essentially means the rights of one group or
ideology at the expense of all others -- has led to democracy and
pluralism. The experience of innumerable movements has shown that
strategy and tactics of the struggle has a direct bearing on the
outcome. The end does not justify the means; it is shaped by it and
becomes its servant.
A political organization with the aim of bringing democracy and
pluralism to Iran, would not deal with its rivals and opponents
through shouting matches or stones and sticks. The right of
self-defense is something else, but to resort to violence because
others have done so in other times and places, is not a legitimate
reason for advocating undemocratic practices. A political, popular
struggle has no need for Fascistic or Hezbollahi methods. In the same
connection, if some groups want to fight Mullahs by brandishing Islam
and the martyrdom of Karbela as their weapons, either they believe in
such things in politics and statecraft, and only want to implement
their own brand of Islam; in that case they would not be different
from the Islamic government, and unavoidably would treat the people
and religion on the same principles; or are hypocrites and try to
mislead people which makes them worse than the Islamic government,
because the latter at least says what it wants.
Our strategy, popular political struggle against the regime, could
only succeed if it goes along with the people. No need to stress that
when the masses of people are concerned, the first precondition for
success is to have their confidence. This confidence comprises moral
and political factors, all of which necessary. Honesty and telling the
truth and putting every thing over the table is one factor; to
convince people about one’s competence and correctness of positions
and methods is another; with reflecting popular demands again going
along with their movement is yet another factor. But here again
honesty must take the front seat. There may, arise though rarely,
situations when even a majority of people go astray. A political
group, if it has the courage of its conviction and does not mind
contradicting that majority, would better serve the people and enhance
its own credibility. It is imperative to avoid hypocrisy, and resist
submission to the lure of short-lived fads and even popularity.
Especially when mobilizing all popular energy and sacrifice for common
good is needed, as is in today’s Iran, when the whole truth is told,
people would be more ready to fight and sacrifice.
A party’s platform and the positions taken by it, should present the
best available and most practical solutions for the nation’s problems.
Outlandish claims, general statements, and repeating clichés; putting
emphasis on sheer emotion, have been effective in Iranian society for
a long while. However our people have matured and distinguish
responsible opinion and action from demagogy or idle talk.
Acting and thinking responsibly requires going to the depth of issues
and move forward with the times and intellectual and political
developments. We try to bring the individual parts of our program and
action into an integrated whole. As a result we are not all things to
all people and would not enter into a beauty context with others. It
is not an auction for us; we would not outbid others in talk or
promise. No one could ever outbid Khomeiny who promised to give every
Iranian her or his monthly share of the oil income. We tell people
beforehand that achieving our goals and enacting our party program
needs sacrifices by all and would come only after a long, hard
struggle full of disappointments; and not only that. Even after the
overthrow of the Islamic regime all of us have to work over the limit,
and be paid below what we deserve, to reconstruct Iran after this
ruinous regime.
In a popular struggle what is important is mobilizing people and take
advantage of internal and external factors to wear down and destroy a
corrupt, unpopular ruling group. The theoretical foundations of this
strategy are the belief in a democratic future for Iran; the Islamic
Republic’s increasing vulnerability; and the inadequacy of repression
for sustaining corrupt and despotic governments. The Iranian society
of today has no relation to what it was twenty or forty years ago;
deep sociological changes and the unprecedented political education of
the great masses, is going to somewhat cure our society’s historic
political weakness. People’s victory over the clerical regime is only
a matter of time.
The tactics employed in this struggle are as follows:
1- Underlining the regime’s weak points, setbacks, and crimes,
especially in the field of terrorism and human rights that are
important for mobilizing world opinion so that other states put
pressure on the Islamic Republic and link the expansion in their
relations to improvement in human rights in Iran.
2- Strengthening the activities of the regime’s democratic and
progressive opponents everywhere.
3- Supporting Iranian people’s struggle under the leadership of
students, and taking advantage of the regime’s internal
contradictions; concentrating attacks on the leaders of political and
financial mafia, and suppressive elements; distinguishing between
different tendencies both in the Iranian society and inside the
governing elite that has transformed it from a monolithic structure.
This is a development well understood by many people in Iran and taken
into practical account.
4- Expanding cooperation of different and differing groups in
advancing the cause of human rights and democracy in Ian, and
preserving the country’s independence and integrity.
5– Increasing indirect dialogue with the forces of freedom and
progress inside of Iran and advancing their struggle in practical and
theoretical fields. We welcome any development in the Islamic Republic
leading to more empowerment of the people. The difference between the
two ruling factions lies in that whatever the Hezbollah, the more
powerful mafia, pursues is detrimental to the people, while some of
the goals of the reformers could be beneficial. Nevertheless there
exists a fundamental difference between the struggle from within and
without. We working outside of Iran do not have to observe the rules
of game in the Islamic Republic. We can voice what they are unable to
express; but should not in anyway engage in internal politics of the
regime, as it leads nowhere but to discredit. Now with the rise of a
third force that is independent of both government factions, the
struggle for secularism enters a new phase on which rests the future
of democracy in Iran.
Although returning to Iran and taking part in the popular struggle is
the wish of any opposition group, we only return on our own terms:
when the machinery of suppression is dismantled in the course of
struggle, and people could defend their freedom and security, and we
could take part in political contest with all other tendencies in free
and equal conditions.
Our effort is directed towards bringing down in a step-by-step
process, and without chaos and bloodshed. This process has already
started, but the opposition could not guaranty a peaceful outcome. If
Hezbollah persists in imposing itself at all costs and brings popular
disgust and wrath to the point of explosion, nobody could withstand
it. We support the right of people in defending themselves, our
abhorrence of violence notwithstanding.
Chapter 6
A Different Worldview
All platforms and legal preparations, in the absence of a profound
cultural change, a change in our view of the world, would be
insufficient. Iran is a third world, Islamic, and Middle Eastern
country and here is where lies the problem; in these very adjectives.
We are in such a sorry state, because we think with a third world
mentality, live by Middle Eastern standards, and have allowed
ourselves to be defined as an Islamic society. Our values and the way
of looking at things have been Islamic and Middle Eastern and that of
third world and we are in the regrettable situation that we find
ourselves. If we wish to get away with this unhappy fate we should,
even if we cannot interfere with our geography, migrate from our
spiritual world.
Belonging to third world is another term for backwardness. Dwellers of
third word are those left behind the caravan; in appearance they have
similarities with more advanced societies, while in reality are still
stuck in their medieval swamp, imprisoned by irrelevant traditions and
bygone eras, imbedded in violence of all sorts: man to woman;
government to the governed; master to servant. Third world denizen is
a victim and an oppressed one, with no fault or shortcomings. His
oppression goes back to the time of his encounter with the West – the
same West that forced him to realize the true dimensions of his
centuries’ old corruption and haplessness. He does not lose a moment
to blame the West, but even in his victory in the struggle for
liberation, still is obsessed by a belief in the providential power of
the same West and considers and makes himself a puppet of it.
An Islamic society by definition entails a very limited perception of
personal freedom and responsibility, which go hand in hand. As an
Islamic society, and not a country with a mostly Moslem population,
Moslems automatically live in a more closed space. The Islamic society
is a sacred one – whatever the scale of the corruption, rampant in
such societies – its value system and deep-rooted institutions could
not be scrutinized by free thought. Whatever its stage of development,
it has a strong millennial element in it. It has a predestined fate;
its salvation lies in the paradise of the world beyond this one, and
its future goes back to a past that was superior to whatever there is
and shall be in the future. There is always, deep in the people’s
heart, a supposedly credible alternative, superior to them all, to
every failed worldview and policy.
In its third world attributes, the Islamic society is even more
steadfast than other third world denizens. If in a third world society
it is time honored value systems and beliefs that put obstacles to
progress, Islamic society also adds its sacred laws especially in the
vital field of Human rights. Governing a society according to Shari’a
could lead it anywhere, but not to Modernity. All efforts by Islamic
thinkers of all colors from late 19 century to reconcile Modernity and
Shari’a have been in vain. Nobody has been able to find a theoretical
foundation for Modernity in Islam. To modernize Islam has remained the
impossible dream of those who see the dead end and still stand over
there.
Middle East is more than a vague geographical definition. Like third
world it is a state of mind; it is a third world that is Arab and
Moslem. However the Middle Easterner, in his particular cultural and
political atmosphere, even if not Arab and Moslem is known for his
anti western, especially anti American sentiments. This enmity, he has
learnt from his history – a history, subjective and selective. The
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which is the most complicated and
ancient in the world, has made him totally and one-sidedly anti
Israeli and by definition, anti Semite.
We are, all in all, living in these three worlds and along with them
have come to the end of the road. Third world, that finds its most
complete embodiment in black Africa, is facing the terrible
hopelessness of its situation. Islamic world in its last stand against
Modernity has ended up with the absolute guardianship of the supreme
cleric, Taliban, and Ben Laden. In the Middle East a combination of
stagnant conservatism, obsession with Palestine, and Islam as national
identity, is condemning more and more societies to Islamic
fundamentalism.
Iran is spiritually outside these worlds. Our society has advanced
enough to be able to understand the meaning of responsibility; remove
violence from the realm of social and political relations; block Islam
from interfering in politics and running the country; and free itself
from the hold of Middle Eastern politics – as in this case has done
Turkey with a much more devote population than Iranians. We deserve a
better life and are not bound to keep ourselves at the level of these
people, in the lower echelons of world civilization. Third world could
remain entangled in its tradition and postpone its salvation. Islamic
world can look at Islam as its identity and an alternative to failed
strategies and deepen its backwardness. Middle East can put the blame
of its own political and cultural shortcomings on American and Israeli
shoulders and make its future a hostage to the Palestinian issue.
We no more wish to be identified with these “worlds:” do not want
third world as our standard of progress, Islamic world as defining our
culture, and Middle East as our political framework. Our national
identity aside from history and language does not depend to any part
of our culture. We can interfere into this culture and our identity
would remain intact. The world is awash in strife and calamity and
there is no reason why Palestine should become our most important
problem. The future of our country, if it is to be better than its
present, lies in making our exit from these worlds: turning our back
to third world; getting away from Middle East; forgetting Islam as a
way of life and not a personal tie with the creator. We have to become
a first world country because essentially are not inferior to them. An
Iranian anywhere, as soon as having access to the cultural means of
the West, catches up with the westerners.
We are less burdened than many third world people. Islamic world has
never been our universe, as has been for the Arabs. We have always
remained Iranian, neither forgetting those two hundred years of Arab
killings and pillage, nor the fifteen hundred years that preceded it.
Islam is the religion of many of us but not our existence. We are too
different from Arabs. It is not a matter of superiority or
inferiority; it is a distinction that fourteen hundred years of Islam
has failed to erase.
Middle East should be left to the defeated and failed, those who in
every defeat, find new reasons to stick to the main reason of their
failure. It is a dead weight on our wings; a true cultural and
political quagmire and we should free us from it. We must know and
understand the Middle Eastern countries and have the best of relations
with them, like the rest of the world, but ours is another way.
Iran of tomorrow should be built right now. The Cultural campaign that
has become a priority for us as a political party, could be fought in
these freer environments and extend to Iran. We are not alone in this
endeavor. Apart from the Islamic government and Hezbollah, meaning the
mainstay of religious obscurantism and dictatorship, Iranian people
are more and more alienated from a culture and politics that breads
violence, suppression, and superstition.
Chapter 7
A Party of Center right
The Constitutionalist Party of Iran, among other Iranian political
organizations outside of the country has the distinction of being
founded in exile from the scratch. The others have either come out of
Iran or are breakaway groups from organizations founded in Iran. Its
other distinction is that it is not a party of cadres; indeed a dearth
of cadres is its greatest deficiency. It is a party comprised of
Iranian exiles of all walks of life and for this reason has few other
equals in its organizational reach. Its third distinction is total
transparency. The full name of all party officials and its internal
debates and differences are open, as are the doors of its gatherings.
The party’s organization in accordance to its principles is democratic
and its administration localized. Members of the party in each city
are organized in branches or cells. The cells are smaller, unofficial
party units and can join the nearest branch. A council elected
annually by the members of the branch is in charge of its affairs, and
has considerable freedom of action in the framework of party bylaws
and platform. Party activity, is essentially conducted by branches
themselves and they are encouraged to cooperate with other political
tendencies. The congress (party convention) is the supreme authority
in the party, and is made up of the members of the branch councils.
The congress, every two years, elects the central council, which is
the ruling body, and sets general policies and can change the party
bylaws and platform. In addition, each year at least one continental
conference, working as a forum, is convened.
The constitutional tradition in Iran had never found its proper
political party. Parties of the Constitutional Revolution remained
small, and did not survive unfavorable circumstances and their own
lack of experience The Pahlavi monarchy did not tolerate any
independent center of power and considered parties either as enemy,
nuisance or stage managers for arranged elections. Even a
constitutional party in the more limited and undemocratic context of
those days) founded by Mohammad Reza shah himself went out of favor,
and sooner than others, because it was striving for popular political
participation. In a regime that was an inheritance of the
constitutional revolution there was no place for a constitutionalist
party. The oppositional parties while attacked the monarchy from the
constitutionalist standpoint, did not think of forming a party on that
line (there still is this ironic dichotomy in exile politics; on the
one side condemning monarchy for its deviation from constitutional
principles, and neglecting constitutionalism to the point of
avoidance; on the other side; claiming a monopoly over
constitutionalism ignoring many of its principles (as was the case
during the monarchy.)
The Constitutionalist Party of Iran by reviving and updating the whole
range of the Constitutionalists’ message, in its political platform,
which is in line with the general center right tendency, tries to fill
a large gap in Iranian politics. This is a party that is a direct
descendant of a movement which has been the driving force for change
in Iranian society: in its unshakable resolve to defend the integrity
of the fatherland; in giving people the right to rule themselves,
nationally, and direct their affairs locally, under a constitutional
monarchy; in separating religion from state wanted by the most
progressive constitutionalists. It is like its revolutionary
predecessors intent on catching up with the modern world in a
constitutional monarchy; and coping with today’s world, in
development, prosperity, and social justice. Looking to the west;
learning the ways of thinking and living of a civilization that has
removed savagery from relations between the government and governed,
man and woman, employer and employee, is almost as much relevant to us
as it was to Iran of a hundred years ago.
The historic principles of Iranian constitutionalism, as far as can be
seen, are valid for twenty first century; they can be a solid bases
for up to date political programs. The Party’s program is a center
right one, in its emphasis on national unity and integrity; the
government’s role as the society’s representative in matters of
economy and regulating social relations; in its balance between
economic development and social justice. It can significantly differ
from the center left; while its differences with hot headed radicals--
the royalists of the old school, Aryan nationalists, and Islamists on
the Right, and Marxist-Leninists, anarchists, and those advocating the
dismemberment of Iran on the Left -- are too obvious and unbridgeable
to need mentioning.
This program is far from perfect and we are following with great
interest what in economic and welfare policies are experimented and
discussed in the more advanced countries. It is too soon for us to
busy ourselves with day to day details, but it is our guiding
principle that wherever private enterprise and individual initiative
proves inadequate, the government’s duty begins, and the criteria here
is public good. The experience of the US, that is the freest
environment for individual initiative, and has created the world’s
most dynamic society, proves that private sector comes too short and
goes too far. On the other hand the excesses and shortcomings of the
welfare state in Western Europe has proved a formula for extensive
abuse of national resources -- encouraging idleness and dependence,
working against entrepreneurial spirit. Rigid labor regulations has
reduced productivity and increased unemployment; punitive taxation has
resulted in capital and brain drain; and the crushing burden of
welfare spending has everywhere led to all out revisions of welfare
programs.
Nobody is bound to chose between these two models; especially now that
in both the US and Western Europe they themselves, since seven decades
ago, have been trying to correct their policies. The Democratic
party’s (and to some extent the Republican party’s too) leftward
leaning in the great movements of New Deal and New Society, and the
sharp tilt to right among western European social democrats, in the
past two decades are all signs of a continuous attempt to reconcile
the supremacy of private enterprise, to the social responsibility of
government.
 We have created a party for the present and future of Iran.
C.P.I.
P. O. BOX 18436 Encino, CA 91416 Tel: (818) 699-9166 Fax:
(818)704-9827
www.irancpi.net
|
