The case of Sattar Beheshti is a very intriguing one. It achieved a widespread following due to the newspaper Iran bringing the story to prominence. Iran is run by pro-Ahmadinejad supporters and it is speculated that they revealed this case after Sadeq Larijani refused Ahmadinejad to visit his jailed press adviser, Ali Akbar Javanfekr.
The lesson to be taken here is that the politics within Iran and the dynamics which play out within the borders are much more significant than having outside "human rights" group push the Iranian government to reform. In this case, a totally domestic series of events led to one of the most open investigations and debates over rights abuse in the country. This was also the case with the notorious "chain murders" during Mohammad Khatami's presidency when domestic journalists uncovered the case which led to reforms of the Intelligence Ministry and greater transparency (although as we now see there is a long way to go!).
As Middle East Online reports:
Beheshti, 35, was found dead in his cell in a Tehran prison on November 3 after being arrested on October 30, according to chief prosecutor Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie.His death also provoked outrage inside the regime, in a rare case of Iran accepting international criticism over a human rights complaint.Judiciary officials have promised a full investigation into the case, leading to seven arrests so far, according to Iranian media.Alaeddine Boroujerdi, who heads parliament's national security and foreign affairs committee, took issue on Saturday with claims by pathologists that Beheshti had died from shock and fear, saying he had "very clearly" been beaten while in detention.
MEO does a fair job of reporting, however with the vast majority of other outside press, when politics plays out in Iran, it's always framed as "de-legitimizing" and a sign that the regime is cracking. This is probably the case because Western media treats Iran as if it was Saddam's Iraq where one class of people, dominated by minority Sunni Baathists, autocratically ruled the country as their personal kingdom with zero regard for any politics outside of single-party Baathist dominance through pure fear. These commentators who make such ill-intentioned remarks about Iran do not understand the nature of Iranian politics and society.
The Islamic Republic was established as a result of a popular revolution and referendum which followed. The Iranian political scene was full of factions with differing beliefs from the very start and despite institutional make up at the top, the momentum has always been with the Iranian people to change the status-quo. Yet, for some reason for Western press, when politics plays out in Iran, it is always a sign that the regime is breaking up. This is far from the truth, in fact it shows that differences are actually being negotiated in a society. In this instance, it led to very promising results, with open parliamentary questioning.
There is a long way to go in reforming the parts of Iranian government and society which are against Islamic morality and practices, such as prisoner abuse and overbearing censorship. However, these reforms will only be genuine if they are a result of a dialogue and practice happening within the country, not dictated by haughty groups from the outside who believe they know what is best for every situation and every nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment