I Have Lost Hope in Government, Abdi Tells Rooz

In a recently published article, entitled “Why Silence?” journalist and political activist Abbas Abdi argued that “[f]or some time – at least six months – one must remain silent and refrain from speaking about current affairs.” Abdi provided several reasons for this viewpoint: “criticism and alarming the public is useless and may even have a negative impact on government.”

Abdi’s argument was met with counterarguments from other political activists, most notably Akbar Ganji. Abdi, however, still remains convinced. Why? “Because the government’s general condition is hopeless.” Futhermore, “opposition forces are not able or competent to advance their positions.”

Below is the text of our discussion.

Rooz ®: Before I begin the interview, I have to say that it is interesting that Abbas Abdi, who once participated in the Islamic Republic’s most controversial move, the U.S. hostage crisis, invites people to silence today, when the Islamic Republic is experiencing some of its most tumultuous times. This is interesting, is it not?

Abbas Abdi (AA): Well, when you choose a goal, regardless of its worthiness or unworthiness, you also choose a plan for reaching that goal. But when you see that no plan can help you reach your goal – and may even detract you from it – then you are better off not doing anything. Although I don’t think that the two events you mentioned are comparable, it can still be argued that at that time there were also some who did not want the hostage crisis to take place, but their views were not listened to – and, perhaps, had they voiced them louder it would have had a negative impact. Perhaps it was better for them to stay silent than to try to prevent that event. In any case, sometimes the situation calls for silence.

®: Let us not argue about whether that situation called for silence or not, because that takes our discussion into a different direction, which is not the topic of my interview today. So let me refocus the discussion on your recent invitation to silence. You have spoken about the ineffectiveness of criticism on “the self, society, and government.” “The self” and “government” are clear, what do you mean by “society”?

(AA): Every thing that does not fall under government is society: people, parties, associations, etc. I don’t intend to completely separate government from society. I brought up this division to help illustrate my point. By “society” I mean the general social sphere that is comprised of people, activists, and political groupings.

®: In any case, you said government and society. Now, to make the discussion easier, we will say that what you mean by society is people and parties. Can we say that you have concluded that the views of political parties and politicians such as yourself has no effect on society?

(AA): Yes, that is correct.

®: It has no influence on government either.

(AA): Not only does it not influence the government, but it actually has the opposite consequence. Government officials are reactionary people. In other words, as soon as their opponents bring something up, they do the opposite. This is why you see this administration propose policies that are in complete opposition to those of previous administrations. For example, the daylight savings time must be observed now, but because it was observed during previous administrations, this administration opposes it. When such a situation exists, if you do not have the requisite social capital to back what you say and pressure the government into accepting your viewpoint, the government does what it wants. Furthermore, you may harm your case, because the government defines itself in reactionary terms, as a reactionary force against you.

®: Is this the behavior of the Ahmadinejad Administration or the entire regime? In other words, have you concluded that your criticism has no influence on the totality of the Islamic Republic or just on the Ahmadinejad Administration?

(AA): Look, first we have to note that the regime is not a coherent whole, but its factional divisions must find a chance to erupt. One of the reasons preventing this eruption is our own stance. How so? For instance, we make criticisms, and sections within the government agree with those criticisms, but choose to stay silent because they fear being associated with us. One example is Mr. Nateq Nouri. He remains silent. Why? Because he may be accused of collaborating with the other side.

®: Has the ideology of the current Administration, which represents a financial powerhouse, overshadowed that of other players in the regime? Has it become the dominant ideology of the Islamic Republic?

(AA): Yes, and the Supreme Leader supports this ideology. You see right now that the judiciary is passive against this group; the Majlis [parliament] is passive against this group, and the Guardian Council collaborates with it. Generally, the dominant movement that is active right now is comprised of these people.

®: And this collaboration has resulted in the Administration’s ideology becoming the regime’s ideology. Is that what you mean?

(AA): Yes, that is correct.

®: And now you have concluded that political activists must remain silent in response to this dominant movement.

(AA): To remain silent is not to collaborate with the dominant movement; it is to protest it. The point is that, when you want to say something or make a criticism, you must calculate whether that criticism is influential or not. Otherwise, who wants to say that you must remain silent in response to a perverted movement? This is not the right thing to do. You sometimes want to criticize your child and are unhappy with his or her general conduct, but you still think about how you can articulate your criticism to make it more effective.

®: The point about how to say something is a different one. Your suggestion is not to say anything at all, in the significant six-month period ahead of Iran.

(AA): Yes, because whatever you say would have no influence. The dominant faction essentially defines its identity in terms of its opposition to other factions. Therefore, any criticism that you make will consolidate this identity and elongate its life. On the other hand, it also prevents other factions within the regime from voicing the same criticism in order to avoid being labeled as collaborators with the opposition. In addition, no criticism can by itself turn into a social movement that can mobilize the public to pressure the government and force it to reform itself.

®: You approve of criticism only when it has an influence on government.

(AA): Regardless, if you can turn criticism into a social movement, that is hundred times more desirable, and you must do it. But my point is that nothing can be done from inside society.

®: Why not?

(AA): For the very same reason that you see nothing happening.

®: What do you mean by nothing happening?

(AA): Old, repetitive slogans do not move the people anymore. The crisis that has emerged within the past two years has had its consequences. There is no longer a force that can articulate reformist views in an effective way and propose them as the dominant discourse. There is another reason for this also: the critics of the current situation, because of their own lack of credibility, must reform themselves first; and you can’t reform yourself by criticizing the government. Rebuilding one’s credibility is an affirmative action. They have to rebuild themselves affirmatively.

®: What must they do?

(AA): Look, the reformists did not win the 1997 presidential election by criticizing the government. They introduced themselves to society by providing an image, a general picture of their ideals, behaviors and capabilities. They portrayed a positive image of themselves.

®: Mr. Abdi! I recognize in your argument that you are disenchanted not just with the government, but also with the reformists. You don’t think that they play an influential role any more, is that correct?

(AA): Regarding the first part of your statement, do you have any doubts? Why do you even ask? Yes, I, in a sense – I do not want to use the word “regime” – am completely hopeless when it comes to the general condition of the government and believe that this situation leads us to nowhere. I still remain somewhat hopeful when it comes to movements outside the ruling circle. Other things can happen too. I also agree with the second portion of your statement. In my opinion, current opposition forces are not able or competent to advance their positions. In any case, we cannot overlook defeats and say, okay, we will start again. We can’t start now from 1997; we have to start from 1989.

®: So the theory of passing Khatami has expanded. It is now passing the reformists.

(AA): I didn’t use the “passing” expression and do not agree with it. I still think that the reformists must reform themselves. We say “passing” when we believe that someone has no chance of being reformed.

®: So they can reform themselves, but they must do that not through criticizing the government. What can they do? Choose silence?

(AA): Look, when I say silence, it doesn’t mean that we should not speak up. If people think that their opinion can have an influence they must voice it. In the past year, I myself published 218 articles, and will continue to write…

®: Mr. Abdi! What you are saying is contradictory. You say I will keep on writing. What will you write about? Right now, the nuclear crisis is hot, and so is the situation of students, women, labor activists…. If you are not going to write about these things, what will you write about as a political activist?

(AA): We said and wrote so much about the nuclear crisis, what happened? Could it have turned out to be any worse?

®: But the question is, what will you write about as a political activists, if you don’t write about these things?

(AA): Many other things, issues not related to politics.

®: For example?

(AA): I will write and you will see. Right now, writing about the nuclear crisis, foreign policy, social policies, etc., has no effect other than making matters worse and distracting those who are really trying to reform things. It also prevents government officials from reconsidering their mistaken policies.

®: So you propose passivism. A long time ago, because people in Iranian cinema could not talk about realities, they did what you preach and talked about Tarkofski instead. He was someone that society did not know, and did not care enough to know. So I ask again, what do you want to write or speak about as a political activist?

(AA): Look, you are free to talk about anything you want, but before doing that you must answer one question: does what you say have an influence or not? Suppose I say, ‘don’t eat the food that is in front of you. It is poisoned. If you eat it you will become ill. Don’t eat it.’ Then you say, ‘what should I eat?’ Eat whatever you want to eat.

®: That is a strange thing to say. You have identified yourself as a political activist, unless you decide to abandon that title. Suppose a patient goes to see a doctor, someone who advertises at his office that he is an expert in such or such a field. If this expert cannot tell the patient what to eat or does not want to, he has to shut down his practice. You advertise yourself as a political activist. You have to say what your suggestion is.

(AA): Two things can be done: the first is to return to the past, reform one’s self and behavior; and the second is to speak about matters that are not sensitive and would not spark a government reaction. Even though I have made this suggestion, I myself continue to write and I don’t think I will write any less in the next 6 months.

®: You will write about issues that are not sensitive?

(AA): Yes, [I will write about] rebuilding infrastructure, rebuilding thoughts. They have not yet provided a general analysis of why things have unfolded in the way that they did.

®: Who are “they”?

(AA): The reformists.

®: Do they have to get together to come up with such an analysis or not?

(AA): Yes, if your website has a problem you will get together to talk about it.

®: A political party is different from a website. When the head of the Majlis commission on political parties is a military commander, you must suggest how these people could get together, and what they must do – in sum, what is your practical suggestion to them.

(AA): This is why I say, when a group is in such a situation, why should it even do anything?

®: So they shouldn’t do anything, or say anything?

(AA): Look, anyone who thinks that his work is influential must certainly continue to work. I believe that any criticism, especially in the next six months, when the situation is bound to get more serious, helps the government single out a group and blame everything on it. Therefore, these criticisms are not influential. They actually have negative impacts and contradict our goals.

®: Mr. Abdi! This argument of yours reminds me of the hardliner Hojjatiyeh group. They say, “sit aside, so that the situation gets worse and worse until the Twelfth Imam, the Shia Messiah, returns from occultation.” Suppose you sit aside in the next six months to let things unfold. What happens to the country?

(AA): This is strange!

®: What is strange?

(AA): On the one hand, you are speaking to me as a journalist, while on the other you are asking me why one must engage in political activism.

®: No, as a journalist, I am asking a political activist what he intends to do.

(AA): Look, I am aware of dangers that threaten the country. I tell others who think that they can make a difference to keep doing what they do. But my opinion is that nothing can be done because of the current structure.

®: What does that imply? Staying in your elite circle?

(AA): No; aren’t you talking to me right now? Why?

®: Because despite your own invitation to silence, you have not remained silent.

(AA): I am not concerned with that issue right now…

®: But you must be!

(AA): You are trying in this interview to dissect the discussion that I have brought up. But suppose I don’t answer your questions and add to the confusion. What will you do? You will stop the interview, isn’t that correct?

®: I may stop interviewing you, but I won’t set aside interviewing altogether. You invited people to silence.

(AA): Yes, because whatever we say must have some relative influence. If it does not, another route must be pursued.

®: I am asking you the same thing! What is the other route? As a political activist who has brought up a problem, you probably have a solution. Isn’t that correct?

(AA): That is the next issue.

®: Look, your silence is respected. It is your right. Now, I ask you, as a political activist – unless you announce that you no longer engage in political activism – is that what you intend to do now? What will you do in the next six months?

(AA): I am one person. One person is not expected to have an extraordinary influence. I write about other areas, which are many.

®: So you have announced that you will stay silent. You have not suggested that the political society does so. Is that correct?

(AA): No, my view is that they should do so. However, they must reach that decision themselves.

®: Well, you can convince them by arguments that there is another way.

(AA): I have written about that.

®: But your writing leaves many questions unanswered.

(AA): You can ask the questions.

®: So we begin again! You believe that criticism does not influence the government. What about society? Does it not inform society?

(AA): No, because people are not concerned with these things. The influence of one percent inflation is hundred times greater than what we have to say.

®: Perhaps you should talk about other things to have society listen to you.

(AA): This is why we are doing something contrary to what was done in the past. We will do that as well.

®: What will you do? What will you write about?

(AA): Maybe not about current affairs, but things that will affect people’s mentality nonetheless.