IronLionZion wrote:So, basically, you think that the lack of mass displays of public disproval is not that important.
Well, its important - all I said is that it does not need to equate with a lack of popular fervour for change, it can simply equate with a lack of perceived opportunity worth one's while. I think, in order to participate in a revolution, or even a plain old demonstration, you need to not only be strongly disagreeing with whatever's the status quo, but also to see an actual opportunity to change it - or to prevent some acute change for the worse. Demonstrations born out of pure hopelessness are rather rare - lack of perspective just leads to resignation. There needs to be a "hook".
Now, these last few years in Iran, every "hook"
has led to big demonstrations, students' rallies, sitins and so on, including violent clampdowns. Well, you've read the reports I'm sure. Recently, too, it was shown that any occasion could lead to spontaneous, radical protests - see, for example, when Ebadi got the nobel prize - do read
this stunning report (I translated it for A2K).
So, if this will go the way it looks like it could go - the elections take place without the 1,000 candidates, Khatami is too weak to postpone them, the excluded reformist parliamentarians and their parties call for a boycott (as Khatami's brother already did), the conservatives win the elections on a record-low turnout and take their seats as if nothing happened ... I'd say, look for some
major public displays of disapproval ...
But, as far as the analogy with the Soviet Union goes, you are definitely right on one score, as I'd already pointed out. Gorbachev's wavering and ambiguous course the last two years of his reign had people tune out of his brand of system reform altogether. The change was drastic - just two, three years before, the public had been glued to the screen to see the Soviet parliament's newly honest seatings - by '90/'91, they didnt expect much from it anymore at all. Instead, they turned to the ultimate outsider, Yeltsin, who was building his own base in the parliament of the Russian Federation (then just one of 15 constituent republics of the USSR), and was calling for the
dissolution of the entire system.
But - here's the rub in the analogy - Yeltsin in the end did only get his chance
after the conservatives did their abortive coup attempt. Otherwise, the status quo might still have lasted a few more years, with half-hearted clampdowns on fringe republics' uprisings - who knows. So there
was an "external" trigger for him to get his opportunity to rally the people (the Muscovites, anyway) and tear down the CPSU and the SU itself. Will the abortive elections become the trigger in Iran? Who knows ... it
could be, considering the recent track record on protest, depending on how effective its clamped down on ...
It would beg one more question : does Iran have an authoratative radical leader outside national leadership circles, a Yeltsin, say, to Khatami's Gorbachev role? Does anyone know whether Khatami's radical younger brother has that kind of appeal/authority? Or anyone else?