Saturday, June 20, 2009

it is whatever time you want it to be general...

It started as a twitter topic #iranelection...
I noticed individuals in Iran were talking about the experience of their election and questioning the outcome of the results. Complaints about voting irregularities...followed by reports of facebook being blocked in Iran and other Internet portals. Iran's supreme leader sought Friday to end the deepening crisis over disputed elections with one decisive speech — declaring the vote will almost certainly stand and sternly warning opposition leaders to end street protests or be held responsible for any "bloodshed and chaos" to come. 
But a first sign of possible resistance came shortly after nightfall in Tehran. Cries of "Death to the dictator!" and "Allahu akbar" — "God is great" — rang from rooftops in what's become a nightly ritual of opposition unity.
The sharp line drawn by Iran's most powerful figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, pushes Iran's opposition to a pivotal moment: either back down or risk a crushing response from police and the forces at Khamenei's disposal — the powerful Revolutionary Guard and their volunteer citizen militia, the Basiji.
This direct threat from "the State" and the agents of the State, in this case the Ayatollah, runs against the whole idea of the "social contract" that citizens accept in modern nation-states. "The State" does not exist completely outside of the people it governs, in fact it is supposed to represent "the will of the people" and act on its behalf. So when the State responds to the people claiming it has no other recourse but to respond with (deadly) force, it seems like an inherent contradiction of this principle. This State is not some abstract monolith, it is composed of real people, who makes real decisions that benefit their positions and the positions of their constituents. Its agencies, department, and symbols coalesce 
In any given State there are vast numbers of individuals all with different needs, desires, and motivations. Those needs and desires can drive people to bond together with others of similar views causing the rise of factions. The ideal political life states would uphold all rights of an individual and solve problems on the basis of collective national views and autonomously defined interests of nations and citizens. However, power seeks to increase its hold on power and the same revolutionary elements that sought to overthrow the Iranian government in 1979 are not open to the same ideas of change and social progress when the will of the people challenge their hegemonic hold on power...
...let's how many people in Iran will be beaten, "disappeared", or killed by a State acting "in the name of the people"!!!

No comments: