Shabtabnews In this dark night, I have lost my way – Arise from a corner, oh you the star of guidance.
Iranwire – In a powerful statement from behind bars, Bahareh Hedayat, a prominent political prisoner, has addressed recent disagreements within the Iranian opposition through an exclusive letter to IranWire.
The letter strongly criticizes certain political factions, accusing them of fueling “pointless conflicts” with their “reckless” behavior.
Hedayat, who was arrested at the beginning of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement and is serving a four-year jail term, warns the opposition that their actions risk undermining faith in Iran’s future among young and hopeful individuals.
According to Hedayat, these factions are prioritizing their own desires and interests over the fight against the Islamic Republic. She identifies “personal motives” and susceptibility to “sectarianism” as contributing factors to divisions among opposition figures and groups.
She also highlights that “confusion in ideas, neglect of specific responsibilities, and a dismissive attitude towards subversion” are fueling further conflict.
The dissolution of the “Georgetown” coalition – a grouping which included former crown prince Reza Pahlavi, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, the activists Mahsi Alinejad, Hamed Esmaeilion, the Kurdish leader Abdullah Mohtadi and several sporting and arts figures – serves as a pivotal warning in Hedayat’s letter. She says that some political forces “mistakenly” believe that merely uttering the word “solidarity” or signing human rights commitments is sufficient for meaningful political engagement.
Furthermore, Hedayat underscores the urgent need for a coalition and solidarity among both domestic and foreign subversive political forces.
She firmly states, “Relying only on internal forces or purely endogenous changes, whether labeled as subversive or otherwise, is akin to mere reform. It makes no difference what we call it this time; the barriers remain the same.”
Bahareh Hedayat stated that the opposition is plagued by a particular ailment: instead of engaging in meaningful politics, they aspire to be human rights activists, effectively speaking in politics while saying nothing at all. However, various opposition groups must address crucial questions on fundamental change of the Islamic Republic system through systematic thinking. These questions include:
- What is the root cause of our fundamental problem?
- From a historical perspective, how did we arrive at this point, and what past mistakes should we avoid?
- What are the strengths and resources available to our supporting forces, and how effective are we at persuading and recruiting others?
- How does wealth and power flow within the government, and what mechanisms connect or separate them?
- What is the government’s strategy for resolving or postponing internal conflicts, societal crises, and managing external tensions, including popular protests and international pressures?
- How does the government infiltrate opposition forces, and what can be done to block these infiltration attempts?
- Which conceptual framework guides our thinking?
- Which institution or fundamental virtue serves as the foundation for our consensus-building capacity?
- What is our political lineage, and how do we relate to the elites within our lineage as well as other lineages?
- Given the diversity and multitude of ideas, how can we ensure stability in Iran after the overthrow?
By addressing these questions, the opposition can lay the groundwork for a more effective and sustainable path forward in their pursuit of change.
The following is the text of Bahareh Hedayat’s letter, shared with IranWire for publication:
The opposition’s internal divisions are suffocating it, a fact well-known to all, and it breeds frustration. The notion of subversion and its imperative hold significance in people’s lives, as the wounds inflicted by the existence of the Islamic Republic persist in Iran’s collective consciousness. Yet, hardly a day passes without the opposition engaging in self-destruction, eroding a part of itself, and crushing with bitterness the very hopes it has nurtured.
Most of these conflicts stem from personal motivations, and if left unchecked, they may devolve into cult-like factions. It appears that the political forces involved in these conflicts fail to grasp the urgency of the situation, have neglected to address fundamental questions, delegate their vital responsibilities to chance, and drift aimlessly amidst a bewildering array of colorful ideas. They perceive subversion as a mere technical contest that accidentally unfolded within the political realm.
However, in the pursuit of conflict resolution, prescribing an abstract concept such as “tolerance,” as employed in the discourse of reforms, is inadequate for the arena of subversion or fundamental change.
This is a field dominated by war and revolution, inherently bipolar, and never intended to be otherwise. Nonetheless, we must emphasize the importance of preserving existing forces and attracting broader segments of the population.
Consequently, we can and should redirect conflicts driven by personal motives towards a more substantive discourse centered around fundamental questions – a discourse grounded in situational analysis, political agenda, and future prospects.
These questions can be explored within the following framework:
First: What is the fundamental issue we face? How does it relate to the core values we aspire to achieve? What is the scope and priority of the system we aim to build? From an historical perspective, how did we arrive at this juncture? And what historical mistakes should we be careful to avoid repeating?
Second: What are the resources available to our supporting forces? What is our capacity to persuade and recruit others? Similarly, we should inquire about the strengths and resources of our adversaries, as well as those of government forces. And we should distinguish between our natural and strategic assets, and assess our relationship with them.
Third: How does the flow of wealth and power operate within the government, and what mechanisms connect or separate them? Where are their vulnerabilities, points of tension, and critical junctures? Identifying these strategically significant aspects is crucial, as simply gaining popular support is insufficient for a first-rate political force. Our main objective is to contemplate seizing power.
Fourth: What is the government’s plan for resolving or postponing its internal conflicts, addressing societal crises, and managing external tensions, including popular protests and international pressures? Conversely, what provisions are included in our plan to counteract and adapt to these dynamics? Particularly, how do we intend to engage with the government’s military forces?
Fifth: How does the government infiltrate internal forces, and what measures can be taken to block these avenues?
Sixth: How will regional countries react to subversion, and what approach should we adopt to mitigate their responses? Furthermore, how can we secure international support?
Seventh: What conceptual framework guides our thinking? Which specific model shapes our vision for the future? What are our needs? How do we build consensus, and which institution or fundamental virtue serves as the foundation for our consensus-building capacity? What is our political lineage, and what is our relationship with elites from various lineages? In other words, considering the diversity and plurality of existing ideas, how can we ensure stability in Iran after the overthrow of the Islamic Republic?
But instead of addressing these critical questions, subversive political currents face other challenges. One of these challenges is the prevalence of a bewildering array of ideas. Often, individuals casually introduce fragments of seemingly legitimate ideas into the political discourse without adhering to the requirement of organizing them within a specific political system. They fail to consider the possibilities, logic, and historical and current needs of Iran. This approach, known as “saying everything, saying nothing,” serves only to seek political fame or attract the attention of international human rights organizations.
Another example is the intellectual confusion resulting from the pursuit of unattainable utopias. It seems that some believe that by overthrowing the Islamic Republic, they will miraculously resolve all pending questions of human history and construct an ideal paradise never before experienced by humankind.
Ideas such as “council administration” and “radical democracy” fall into this category. They arise from utopian thinking and are detached from reality, ultimately leading to the sterility of contemporary politics.
We cannot import a governance model from an imaginary world. We should instead cautiously model our society and government based on existing, researched, stable, and successful models found in the world today. We should not attempt to surpass the boundaries of history and civilization that encompass all of humanity.
As inhabitants of the existing world, our aim is to adapt our society and government to the standards of modern governance and the ordinary lives of this world, rather than pursuing an uncharted realm devoid of human experience. Iran is not a laboratory for history, and due to various reasons, we have not reached the pinnacle of human history. Therefore, we are not on the verge of conquering unexplored peaks or making untested and uncertain possibilities a reality.
However, it is the responsibility of a political force to address the key issues raised within this context and to clarify its stance on them. This involves demonstrating how these critical problems are addressed within its ideological framework and political lineage, ensuring the stability and effective functioning of the desired political system. By doing so, the political force can envision a future horizon.
The political program represents the most significant and accountable aspect of the triad of questions. Its central focus is on bridging the gap between the streets and achieving victory, or more precisely, how to bring about the overthrow. Since November 2019 and the tragic incident involving the Ukrainian plane, the notion of survival and the right to life has become a pressing concern within society itself.
Consequently, the Islamic Republic has emerged as an adversary of the nation, turning the field into a battleground. In other words, the logic and imperatives of war have come to dominate the situation, and that logic remains prevalent today. It is within the framework of this logic that subversive political forces must devise a political plan, diligently prepare for it, and assume the associated risks and responsibilities.
Disregarding this logic and the requirements it entails means that we have not truly engaged in subversive thinking; instead, we continue to view the field through the lens of reformism, inevitably encountering the same dead ends experienced by reformist endeavors.
It does not matter how many times we claim to be subversive. What matters is our comprehension of the underlying logic governing the situation. Without this understanding, we will only be subversive in name.
The significance of solidarity or of a coalition among forces and currents only emerges once the answers to these questions are made clear. Until then, solidarity merely amounts to personal friendships formed amidst a chaos of ideas.
It is a declaration of solidarity without a solid internal or well-thought-out political foundations. Likewise, “coalition” is reduced to a group formed by like-minded individuals, lacking the ability to define and engage with meaningful “political otherness” as a systematic concept. In essence, without defining this “political otherness” as an organized idea, the terms solidarity and coalition hold no true significance; they become superficial adornments, unable to generate a genuine political surplus in reality.
The case of the Georgetown grouping serves as an enlightening example, although it is not limited to them alone. The coalition formed there and its subsequent collapse demonstrates that we are primarily grappling with a state of intellectual chaos. Despite such circumstances, some members seem to believe that by uttering the word “solidarity” repeatedly, solidarity will magically materialize from thin air. Or they assume that by signing human rights agreements, they have effectively engaged in politics.
There is also a notion that the fight revolves around the title of the “leader of the opposition.” Therefore, if members renounce their claims to leadership, conflicts will dissipate and solidarity will miraculously emerge. But leadership entails much more than a mere title. It means that an individual (or a highly cohesive group) has put forth systematic answers to the three questions of formulation, program, and horizon.
The leader has two connected roles: first, to act as a bridge between answers that have been formulated, and offered, and ever-changing realities on the ground; and second, to lend credibility and legitimacy to those answers in the eyes of the people, while also navigating the existing differences among political forces to build consensus.
Additionally, the leader should possess the ability to mobilize the public and be a recognized figure with a well-established political background in the eyes of international circles and the global community. When this package is properly articulated, it becomes resilient and cannot be easily dissolved. Thus, insisting on relinquishing the claim to leadership becomes pointless. Such a demand is as futile as aspiring to be the leader of the opposition without addressing the fundamental trio of questions.
This is the ailment plaguing our opposition. Instead of engaging in politics, it aspires to human rights activism. This approach entails speaking about everything in politics while ultimately saying nothing substantial.
Politics and human rights are indeed essential components of a society, but they are distinct and impose constraints on one another. Treating them as interchangeable is indicative of disordered thinking and intellectual incoherence. An incoherent mind, despite its good intentions, cannot foster political coherence beyond itself.
And by contrast, it is through systematic contemplation of fundamental questions that we can hope to foster solidarity or coalition. The physical location of forces attempting to address these questions is irrelevant: whether they reside inside or outside the country is inconsequential. Both internal and external forces are necessary to subvert the prevailing system, and neither should be eliminated or underestimated.
Dismissing foreign forces or reducing their role to mere supporters, not actors, stems from unrealistic assessments of the situation and undermines the vital responsibility of external actors. Likewise, relying only on internal forces or internal change amounts to reform, regardless of whether it is labeled as subversion or something else. It suffers from the same barriers and obstacles it has suffered before.
When systematic answers to the three questions are incomplete, the decision to align with existing factions becomes precarious.
The analytical elements required for a comprehensive and decisive evaluation are, therefore, still lacking. This is why, despite shared political lineages, diverse interpretations emerge. One individual may become a monarchist, while another may lean toward republicanism. However, these interpretations also rely on emotional inclinations and always harbor a degree of rational doubt.
This doubt stems from the failure of political leaders or prominent forces to devise a coordinated and responsive system. As soon as a faction successfully engages in genuinely subversive thinking and formulates a high-risk transition plan, much of the doubt and ambiguity can be transformed into certainty and stability in their favor.
***
I wrote this letter to elaborate on points of tension, as I perceive them, which may propel a young person or disillusioned student towards subversion. It aims to shed light on what we should expect from our leaders. Additionally, it serves as a critique of the recklessness exhibited by certain political forces, engendering futile conflicts instead of fulfilling their unique responsibilities. And it is meant to remind us that this path is arduous, rife with peril, and beset by crises.
As a leader, you must rise to the magnitude of the task you seek to accomplish. Do not lose sight of the fact that history will not absolve us if we surrender this field to our personal ambitions, thereby betraying the future of Iran.
Our country needs the participation of every individual who bears witness to the current state of affairs – to salvage the future from ruin. In particular, women, students, and workers—whose hardships are overlooked during these trying times, when they strive to make ends meet—are indispensable. Each and every one of them is vital to Iran’s progress, and we are indebted to each person. Let us honor this commitment.
Bahareh Hedayat
June 2023
Women’s Ward of Evin Prison
