You're nothing but a pack of cards....

Iran's attempt at change may have fizzled out, or at least it may seem like it has. But I, for one, am hopeful and somehow feel certain that we haven't seen the end of this just yet. Call it a retreat if you may, but even the greatest military strategists will confirm that sometimes it is better to tone down one's assaults and to recoup for a day when the enemy will be least prepared than to continue to barge into the bayonets.

Somewhere this entire episode has revealed to the Iranian people that the system, the establishment which was set up to rule in their name has subverted its purpose to rule, over them and to dictate how they, the people, may lead their lives. The Ayatollah may have thought the clergy a better bet than the nomenklatura of the Pahlavis to run the nascent Republic; the chances of ideological differences and strife breaking apart the Republic would have been remote. But even he would not have foreseen these troubled times when even the clergy is divided on whether or not to support the Establishment.

The incumbent Supreme Leader, a man foisted on the Iranians not by the dint of his own eligibility but by back-door politics, quite like a Pope in medieval or even recent history, seems a kindhearted and noble soul, but his pronouncements on the protests have shown him to be delusional and perhaps distant from those whom he is ordained to lead. He and his acolytes have turned Iranian against Iranian and for one brief moment raised the specter of the Iranian Revolution; just this time, the enemy isn't the Shah, it's the clergy and their baseej.

Lewis Carroll may not have been a prophet but his Alice in Wonderland somehow finds resonance in this sad and unpleasant episode in Iran's history. The cavalier attitude of the entrenched establishment towards the protests of their own people, their blatant and unapologetic attempt at denying the people their right to choose who should rule them, and their repudiation of all and any tenets of basic human courtesies makes this a very difficult game indeed.

Alice said of the Queen, “They're dreadfully fond of beheading people here; the great wonder is that there's anyone left alive.” To every call suggesting that the people have the right to think, the clergy retorts that the right is just as much right as pigs have to fly, to quote the Duchess. But in the end, the Iranian people, like Alice, though small and subdued now, will grow to her true size and will triumph over those who deny them their rights and privileges just as Alice triumphed over the Queen's and the Duchess' armies, and then will retort in their baritone voice, like she did, “Who cares for you? You're nothing but a pack of cards.”

A new revolution?

Iran stands on the cusp of a revolution. It may seem presumptuous to state so; after all, can a few thousands or millions on the street really shake a 30 year old regime? I say 'shake' because the stated aims of the protesters is not to uproot the 'Islamic' part of the Islamic Republic of Iran; it is to emphasize the 'Republic' part. And that would be an important step forward.

Ever since the Revolution of 1979, the conservative factions of the Iranian people have systematically silenced the more reformist and liberal voices in their society. A nation that was once at the vanguard of globalization (the Persian Empire, the Safavids) now turned its back on the world and chose to stay secluded within the walls. They have denied their people the right to choose their leaders, those who will rule the nation in their name; true, they have elections, but the candidates aren't always those who want to serve; they are those who want to serve and are 'permitted' to serve. Permitted by whom, pray? For in a democracy, in a Republic, that was founded on the rage of the people against a tyrannical king, who save the people can permit someone to serve them? To presume otherwise is to subvert the will of the people.

True, Iran isn't just another Republic; it is a theocratic republic, guided by its clergy, the 'incorruptibles'. Whether they truly aren't susceptible to human emotions and prejudices is a matter of debate, but even they cannot be entirely trusted not to take care of their own power source at the expense of those whom they are to 'serve'. It's a classic case of a conflict of interest: to loosen up would endear them to the masses, but may mean a reduction in their authority; to tighten down may earn them the undying hatred of the people, but will ensure that they enjoy absolute power for their lifetimes (or till they can muster the brute-force to silence their critics).

Critics of Mousavi's protests state that he, being just as much a creature of the Revolution as Ahmadinejad, cannot be trusted with genuine reform. Mousavi's intentions are best known to him, but the courage and the determination that he has shown to challenge the establishment, to suggest that there's something rotting in the system, is admirable and worthy of being emulated. Gorbachev too was a dyed-in-the-wool Communist, but his perestroika and glasnost were genuine attempts to reform the Soviet state before it imploded on its own people; that they failed were both his and his people's misfortune. Mousavi promises more, because the people back him, and yet the perils of failure are even more.

What is more important is that for the first time the reformists have gained a slightly upper hand over the conservatives. Khatami received a mandate but couldn't get past the clergy's machinations; his failures meant that Ahmadinejad seemed a better bet the last time around. This time, it's time for change, and the Iranian people must raise their voices, for their lives, for Iran.

P.S. I find this song to be particularly poignant and pertinent to the situation. Especially the lives "We're not going to live in silence; we're not going to live in fear. This time we know we all can stand together. We have the power to be powerful, believing we can make it better."