I have been watching with interest the events in Iran. As I have mentioned before, I was a political science major in college. Political Science is the study of government. It also involves the study of certain quasi-government or non-government organization (like the UN). My fascination with Political Science has nothing to do with politics. Because studying government - how it's formed, structured and functions - has little to do with politics in theory.
I think my favorite classes in college were the ones that focused on different governments. I took a comparative governments class, which deals with different types of government structures. You could even compare England and the U.S. because while we're both democracies, there are vast differences between the two forms of government. I also took classes that dealt with regional politics or certain countries. I took Latin American politics, Asian politics and Russian politics. The two things I missed were African and Middle Eastern politics. Not that the Middle East wasn't a big deal when I was in college, but it was a region that was, for the most part, on the back burner of world issues. We had the fall of the Soviet Union and it's aftermath and the Yugoslav civil war broiling when I was in college.
Maybe the fact that I didn't get a Middle East politics class in college has led me to be be fascinated with all things Middle East. I don't know. What I do know is like Burma and Tibet last year, the winds of democracy are trying to blow in Iran. I'm am not surprised by how this has all played out, however. And though I wish that a democratic revolution would happen, I do not think that it will.
A little on the modern history of Iran.
The map of the modern Middle East was largely formed after World Wars I and II. The lines delineating boundaries between nations were arbitrarily drawn. Leaders were installed in power who were friendly to the victors. The British had a long and tangled history with the Middle East, and especially Iran. Mostly because Iran has lots of oil. Aramco, the oil company that had rights to Iranian Oil was a British company. Aramco was supposed to share profits with Iran and the grunt workers were Iranians who lived in horrid conditions. The British, naturally, did not share the profits and found loopholes in their agreement with Iran to keep the lion's share of the money made from the oil.
As the British Empire waned, the United States, after WWII became the democratic superpower. The Middle East became, yet again, a chess board during the Cold War. In 1953, there were elections in Iran. A man was voted to be Prime Minister who was a little too far to the left and nationalistic for the West. So the United States and Britain helped plan and execute a coup that brought the Shah to power. The Shah was ruthless and squashed any opposition. His secret police and prisons were notorious. The Shah ruled with an iron fist until 1979.
In 1979, Iran had a revolution. An Islamic revolution. The Shah was deposed and lived in exile. The United States was seen as the Great Satan for giving the Shah refuge and for putting him in power in the first place and for being open and democratic and non-Islamic. I was barely old enough to remember the hostages and the students taking over the U.S. Embassy. It was the beginning of the end of our relationship with Iran.
Fast forward. The Iranians elects Mamoud Amahdinejhad President. There are those who believe that he was one of the students who took over the Embassy. He's kind of a nut. He denies the holocaust, hates the U.S. and Israel. I think that, like most places in the world, the actions of the government are not imputed to the people. That people everywhere just want to live and let live. So as the elections approached in Iran, it looked as though more democratic and moderate power might win.
This might be a good place to mention that Iran is really run by Islamic clerics. The President, etc do what the clerics tell them to. The Ayatollahs are the ones running the country. The Ayatollahs decided that it was not good to have a more moderate President or more democratic government. So they, in essence, rigged the election and told the world that Amahdinejhad won in a landslide. I do not think, however, they anticipated the reaction of Iranians to the election results.
I am, again, thankful that I live where I do. We have elections and peaceful transfers of power and people don't die. We are fortunately to live in a place where we don't have to risk our lives to vote. We believe that our votes are counted and the loser relinquishes power peacefully. We don't have to protest election results with mass demonstrations.
I have watched Iranians of all ages and classes take to the streets in protest of the government's obvious rigging of the elections. And like the Shah before them, whom they detested so much, the Ayatollahs are using secret police and prisons to squash the protesters. They are shutting down lines of communication and expelling foreign journalists to keep what is going on and the brutal tactics used to repress the people out of the international spotlight.
I admire those who are willing to risk their freedom (however limited it may be) and their lives for their beliefs. I hope that the people of Iran who have been putting themselves at risk see some change. But I know that it will be hard to come by. Those who rule with an iron fist have a hard time relinquishing power. I find the situation truly ironic, as the Ayatollahs and students initially rebelled against the same stranglehold on power they now have. Maybe power does corrupt.
