Nadiry:
How can we advance nonviolence in Iran now that the political scene has somewhat relaxed?

Vahdat:
Today, the chief task of social and political activists and democracy advocates is to strengthen the pillars of civil society, including independent media, non-governmental organizations, political parties, and women’s and workers’ organizations.

Nadiry:
Many such institutions have been shut down over the past eight years. Can they be re-activated under the new government?

Vahdat:
The Iranian regime is not homogeneous but is composed of different networks. There are signs that key branches have concluded their survival depends on addressing some of these demands.

Jahanbegloo:
This is a very complex problem. I agree with Mr. Vahdat about the need to empower civil society. In the context of today’s discussion, there are two types of people in Iran: those who are for and those who are against nonviolence. The former favor militarism and war and encourage conflicts that defy resolution. Our greatest task is to create citizen networks that will be ready to negotiate with national and international mediators when the time comes; we should be promoting and developing nonviolent concepts such as national dialogue and reconciliation.

Nadiry:
How likely is Iranian society to embrace a culture of nonviolence?

Jahanbegloo:
Iran is a divided society but over the last 100 years—during the Constitutional Movement, the Mossadegh era and again during the Islamic Revolution—it has leaned toward a nonviolent republic. The events of four years ago were the most recent signs of this worldview. Iran has a young, educated, and cultured population, which, however, is challenged by power. We should promote the notion that a society cannot be organized and managed through violence.

Fassihi:
Nonviolent movements and revolutions require the collaboration of tens of millions of people at the grassroots; they do not have to be political groups but could be cultural, labor or teachers unions. Civil society in Iran has suffered many blows in the last eight years and needs to be resurrected and developed once again. As the groups mature they will naturally have demands in the area of politics, human rights and democracy. Many who are against war and executions also support a religious government and the Islamic Republic; they want reforms but they want to keep the system Islamic. In my opinion, such people are in fact pro violence; the Green Movement is among them.

Nadiry:
Can the general public be mobilized to bring about change and form civil institutions today?

Fassihi:
The majority of the Iranian population has grown tired of violence—that is a good sign.

Jahanbegloo:
The dissatisfaction of the millions will not necessarily generate a nonviolent social movement. For that to happen, there’s a need for heightened consciousness. Nonviolence provides moral capital and raises the individual to a higher platform. We saw examples of this in the image of a woman shielding Basijis from protesters and young men giving them drinking water. Iranian society has gained an awareness of nonviolence that is beyond ideology. The majority is against violence.

Vahdat:
As a sociologist, I believe that the structure of Iranian society has changed over the last decade. People share a sense of citizenship and feel entitled to certain rights and the rule of law. Such entitlement breeds a kind of social and political maturity that is the foundation of nonviolence.

Fassihi:
From a medical point of view, Iranian society is not only tired of violence but terrified of it.
Mr. Jahanbegloo referred to mediators, but I am against mediation that ends up retaining an Islamic regime. These groups claim to be secular democrats and against executions and torture. But as an advocate of nonviolence, I cannot accept a Constitution that features Islam as an unchangeable element (Article 177). Reform cannot change the [IRI] Constitution.

Jahanbegloo:
We should distinguish between the philosophy of nonviolence and the mechanisms used to implement it. Mediation and negotiation are features of a mechanism. Martin Luther King, Mandela and other nonviolent activists talked to their enemies; that is because society does not constitute good people alone. Iran belongs to all of us, so we have to move toward a national dialogue. As in South Africa, the first step toward that end is national reconciliation. We should have the capacity to talk and to listen to each other. We should hold people accountable for their crimes, not destroy them; their fate should be determined through legal mechanisms. Such political maturity can pave the way for democracy and nonviolence.
Most political groups and individuals in Iran talk of democracy; they speak less of nonviolence.

Vahdat:
Democratic and civil movements do not achieve success overnight—as exemplified by Eastern Europe and Poland. I do not believe the Green Movement has died; the recent election [of Rouhani] was the consequence of the Green Movement.

Fassihi:
To be a reformist and at the same time profess nonviolence is a contradiction of the basic principles of nonviolence.

Vahdat:
Reform is the antonym of revolutionary.

Fassihi:
No. Reformist is opposite to secular democracy.

Vahdat:
Secular democracy wants to achieve success overnight.

Fassihi:
That is not true. People who favor a religious government and republic are in opposition to the secular democratic movement.

Nadiry:
If you were in power, how would you treat reformists or supporters of an Islamic state?

Fassihi:
Same as a dictatorship. I would begin with dialogue; if that doesn’t work, apply resistance. Demonstrations would be one form, as freedom of expression is one of the key principles of human rights and nonviolence. Reformists organize demonstrations but they dismiss freedom of expression and do not allow others to participate with their own flags and anti-regime slogans. In such instances, I would organize sit-ins and try to make public aware of their violence.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King were prepared to engage in dialogue even in the darkest conditions. But the literature on nonviolent action states that dialogue and negotiation are not effective mechanisms, due to the fact that they do not create pressure.
The four mechanisms of nonviolent resistance are: conversion, accommodation, pressure, and insurrection. The methods of nonviolent action are: protest, non-cooperation, strikes/political, social or economic sanctions. Dialogue and negotiation are not considered a method because they do not exert pressure.

Jahanbegloo:
Gene Sharp who is the source of those citations would not have become who he is if he had not read Gandhi. How can one change the enemy without talking to them? The whole point is not to see the other merely as one’s enemy but as an interlocutor.

Vahdat:
If nonviolence is used merely as a means toward a political end, it defies its purpose. If it is seen as a goal, however, it will achieve its end and serve as an effective means as well. It seems to me that Mr. Fassihi sees nonviolence rather as a means for achieving other goals.

Nadiry:
Following the [2009] elections, Balatarin shared a link to a campaign called “Hunting Basijis” designed to identify individuals who were violently cracking down the street demonstrations. Balatarin questioned whether this anti-violence effort was not in itself violent, however, and eventually removed the link. What are your thoughts about this?

Jahanbegloo:
The word ‘hunt’ has negative and violent connotations. In 1922, Gandhi halted the Non-cooperation Movement after protesters set a police station on fire in Chauri Chura. He said the movement had not fully matured and should cease, and did not ask that the perpetrators be executed. Similarly, when Martin Luther King’s opponents bombed his home following Montgomery—with his wife and children inside— he told the crowd that had gathered to defend him to cast their guns into the river.

Nadiry:
So, with the events of 2009 and especially Kahrizak in mind, what would be the right course of action?

Jahanbegloo:
Currently, there is no international tribunal on Iran but consider the Iran Tribunal in London. This trial will test whether Iranians have the option, or the capacity for truth-finding committees similar to South Africa, Chile or Argentina or whether they want to revert to the Alavi School and shoot everyone.

Vahdat:
Nonviolence is not an absolute; it wouldn’t have worked with the Nazis, for instance, who slaughtered and burned people en masse. But though a degree of violence may be inevitable, it must be minimized and converted from aggressive to defensive.

Fassihi:
We must accept that hunting, killing and harassment are not the ways of citizenry. But the Green Movement has to decide on its strategy vis-à-vis the Basij, which numbers 400,000. We should make an effort to convert them. One method, as stated by Gene Sharp, would be to ostracize them, chase them from the community. Gandhi says society should reach a point where it feels ashamed of injustice and violence.

Nadiry:
How do you explain the Green Movement’s failure to achieve its goal—Where is My Vote?—despite its initial energy and drive?

Fassihi:
The Green Movement was nonviolent at the start. But in my view, once it got drawn into discussions of a return to the golden age of the Imam and to the principles of the revolution, it embraced violence. This in turn created an irreversible divide between supporters of nonviolence and the reformists, and the movement lost its initial drive. Consequently, people like me for whom human life is significantly more valuable than reviving a golden age adopted a wait-and-see attitude, though without actually voicing opposition to the movement.

Vahdat:
The Green Movement has not been defeated. Civil and political movements take years or even decades to bear fruit, and they experience many ups and downs. From the Magna Carta [1215] to women’s suffrage [1928] it took Britain more than 700 years to achieve democracy.

Jahanbegloo:
The “Green Movement” is a problematic designation. I prefer the ‘civil movement’ in Iran, which covers the past one-hundred years, retains its potential and can always be activated. Of course, such a development requires education in citizenship, which people promote among themselves.

Nadiry:
One user has asked, “Is nonviolence possible given the qesas [“equal retaliation” in Islamic law]?” Is the experience of South Africa and general amnesty possible in Iran? If so, how should individuals like Saeed Mortazavi and Ahmadi Moqaddam and Pour-Mohammadi be treated? Should they be pardoned?

Jahanbegloo:
Justice is different from qesas, which is upheld by the judiciary system but is not necessarily popular in Iranian society.

Vahdat:
I agree the government is distinct from the society.

Fassihi:
Nonviolent resistance is founded on truth and justice. General amnesty was offered in Latin America, especially Chile but not in South Africa where they decided to try those who were accused of violent crimes individually. Not everyone was granted amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) [849 were; 5,392 were not]. Some who declined to speak the whole truth or who were not sincerely regretful were not pardoned. The TRC experience could be applied to Mortazavi, Ahmadi Moqaddam and others in Iran as well until the facts become clear.

Nadiry:
Another user has asked, “Doesn’t nonviolence result in social and political inaction? When is a nonviolent person allowed to commit violence? Is it legitimate to commit violence to prevent violence? If someone is about to shoot at protesters and we can shoot him at a distance, is that allowed?”

Jahanbegloo:
One must distinguish between violence and self-defense. We may act in self-defense but we should not turn into murderers. Once you take up arms the mechanisms and methods of nonviolence become inoperative. So, it is up to us to choose our social, ethical and educational course and set it in motion.

Vahdat:
In the case of fascists and Nazis one has no other choice than confrontation and violence, but we have to be careful not to become like them and we should resist killing them once they’re defeated.

Nadiry:
So, in your opinion, this is a relative situation?

Vahdat:
It’s a case by case situation. If shots are fired at a peaceful demonstration, for instance, one should shield oneself behind a wall to avoid being hurt rather than shoot at the perpetrator. We should remain defensive rather than take revenge.

Fassihi:
I agree. Taking up arms as a tactic means adopting the culture of violence. Nonviolence is a relatively new term in Persian and has been around for only ten to fifteen years. In English, too, it was first used in 1923. But ahimsa (“non-injury”) is part of Indian culture; it is several thousand years old and is considered a positive action, not inaction. Nonviolence is a type of action, a form of resistance, a way of life. We are at the beginning of this path; people will become familiar with it over time.