Blogs and Stories
Mousavi's New Revolutionary Manifesto
Alfred, Sipa / AP Photo
The Iranian protest movement reached a tipping point today, writes Gary Sick, the key White House official during the 1979 hostage crisis, and what has emerged is nothing short of a platform for a true Islamic democracy.
Plus, read more insight on Iran's election from other Daily Beast writers.
Today, Mir Hossein Mousavi, the presidential candidate who has come to represent the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, issued a formal statement.
Although he denounces the "lies and fraud" of the leadership, particularly in the recent election, he views the fraudulent election as only as the symptom of something far more serious. He describes a revolution gone wrong, a revolution that was originally based on attention to the voice of the people but has resulted in "forcing an unwanted government on the nation."
It is apparent from this statement that Mousavi's movement—and Mousavi himself—have evolved enormously in the past week.
This moment is "a turning point," he says, and he defines the movement that is forming around him as having a "historical mission" to accomplish nothing less than "renewing the life of the nation" according to its own ideals.
He acknowledges, interestingly, that his own voice at the beginning was less “eloquent” than he would have wished and that the people were ahead of him in turning the movement green. But now he accepts the "burden of duty put on our shoulders by the destiny of generations and ages."
He denounces both extremes of the political spectrum: on one hand those who believe that "Islamic government is the same as Tyranny of the Rightful;" and on the other, those who "consider religion and Islam to be blockers for realization of republicanism," i.e. those who believe that democracy is incompatible with Islam.
Mousavi says his call for annulment of the election and a revote, supervised by an impartial national body, "is a given right." The objective is nothing less than "to achieve a new type of political life in the country."
That is truly a revolutionary statement. He says he will stand by the side of all those seeking "new solutions" in a nonviolent way. He accepts the principles and the institutions of the Islamic republic, including the Revolutionary Guard and the basij, but denounces "deviations and deceptions." He demands reform "that returns us to the pure principles of the Islamic Revolution."
He calls for freedom of expression in all its forms, and says that if the government permits people to express their views freely, "there won't be a need for the presence of military and regulatory forces in the streets."
It is apparent from this statement that Mousavi's movement—and Mousavi himself—has evolved enormously in the past week. The candidate started as a mild-mannered reformer. After the searing events of the past several days, he has dared to preach a counter sermon to Khameni's lecture on Islamic government. Although he never mentions the leader by name, there is no overlooking the direct contradiction of his arguments. This open opposition to the leader by a political figure is unprecedented.
Mousavi has in fact issued a manifesto for a new vision of the Islamic republic. The repression and disdain of the government has brought the opposition to a place they probably never dreamed of going. And no one knows where any of the parties are likely to go next.
But for outside observers, it is like standing on the edge of a glacier and feeling the ice begin to crack under your feet.
Gary Sick served on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. He was the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis and is the author of two books on U.S.-Iranian relations. Mr. Sick has a Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University, where he is senior research scholar, adjunct professor of international affairs and former director of the Middle East Institute (2000-2003).









"Loser in American elections calls for revote under foreign supervision."
Yah, that would play in Peoria.
I'm sure no one will ever find out just how much the Bush administration, with congressional approval, spent to destabilize Iran. Surely that wouldn't delegitimize any putative new government, now would it?
Why, we've intervened in Cuba four times, Haiti four times, and lots of other countries over the last 120 years, and it has never done anything but goodness and light and joy.
Stupid meddlers.
This is an Iranian affair. Unlike the Communist Manifesto that advocated spreading communisim around the world, there is no mandate for spreading democracy around the world. It was a strategy adopted for the cold war and it is well past time to boot it. I hope the Iranian people get a true democracy, but for it to survive it must be achieved by the Iranians themselves. How long do you really think democracy is going to survive in Iraq when we finally leave?
No. Spreading democracy is a good thing. Forcing it is a bad thing. The more pragmatically democratic a nation is, the better everyone is off. It's only nations ruled by tyrants (sometimes elected) that we run into major problems. Western Democracy is not perfect, but it's by far the best thing going.
Mousavi's helped start the nuclear program and was Prime Minister during the 1o year war with Iraq.
He's a hero now?
He status is so accidental, the real heros are not politicos hacks like Mousavi but the actual, brave everyday citizens if Iran.
We're meddlers? And that must be a problem because no other country meddles, not Iran or Russia or China or Cuba or Venezuela or anyone else. Yep, we're the lone baddies out there, unwelcome everywhere.
Have you asked yourself why so many of the Iranian protesters have signs in English that say, "Where's my vote?" To whom exactly are they directing that particular message? Russia? China?
Mr. Sick,
Thank you for your analysis. I agree with most of it, but I interpreted one part of Mousavi's statement very differently from you. Just now I've read a different translation of it, on Juan Cole's blog, and this reinforces my opinion. It has to do with Mousavi's reflection on what has happened in the past 9 days. Here is the section from the original translation you reference:
"As I look at the scene, I see that it has been set to achieve more than just forcing an unwanted government on the nation, it is set to achieve a new type of political life in the country."
This is somewhat unclear. But because of the construction, I immediately took it as a warning--that Mousavi was gravely concerned that the government's fraud was heralding a dangerous "new type of political life" for Iran. This is clearly opposite to your interpretation, that Mousavi was declaring it his "objective" "to achieve a new type of political life in the country."
Here is the different translation from Juan Cole's blog:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/mousavi-letter-translated.html
"As I gaze upon the political landscape, I find it engineered for purposes that transcend the mere imposition of an unwanted Chief Executive. It's an attempt to impose a new political reality on the nation."
This reading is much closer to my own. It's a dire warning that if the nation allows the government's fraud to stand, they will be helpless to stop the dissolution of the Republic into an fully authoritarian regime that will never again recognize the will of the people.
I do agree that Mousavi's goals have evolved quickly to encompass the enormity of the crisis. But I'm not so sure he's calling for revolution as much as he is stressing more prosaic "new solutions," whatever those forms those might take. (One potential new direction is the intriguing Al Arabiya report of Rafsanjani's push for a "collective ruling body" "alternative to the supreme leader structure". http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/21/76567.html )
I'd be eager to hear your thoughts on the different interpretations.
-Andrew Long
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.