|
|
The prescience of protest: What the dissidents know
about Iran
by Natan Sharansky
Los Angeles Times, June 26, 2009
Once again, the world is amazed. As with
the seemingly sudden appearance of the Solidarity movement in Poland in
the 1980s, or the gaudy, grand-scale collapse of the Soviet empire at
the end of that decade, the massive revolt of Iranian citizens has elicited
the unmitigated surprise of the free world's army of experts, pundits
and commentators. Who would have known? Who could have predicted this
eruption of protest in a system so highly repressed, where a generally
quiescent populace lives under such a deeply entrenched revolutionary
regime?
And yet, just as in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
there were those in Iran who did know all along, who foresaw and even
foretold today's events. These were Iran's democratic dissidents, some
at home, some in exile, some having served long sentences in Iranian prisons
or on their way to those prisons right now.
At various Western conferences and forums in recent years,
some of these dissidents even succeeded in gaining the ear of leaders
of the free world. They were greeted with sincere expressions of sympathy
and support— but also with silent skepticism. Surely their assessments
of the Iranian situation were unreliable at best. Heroic they undoubtedly
were, but objective? After all, they lacked access to classified information,
to satellite photography and the other tools of modern intelligence-gathering.
They could not see the whole picture.
Now it turns out that, like their predecessors in the Soviet Union, they
were right.
How is it that dissidents rotting in the
gulag were able to predict, many years earlier, not only when but how
the Soviet Union would collapse— something that escaped all the
world's scholars and intelligence agencies alike? Andrei Amalrik's book,
"Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?," published underground
in 1969, is only one of many examples of such predictions. How did the
experts miss it? The reason is simple.
Every totalitarian society consists of three groups: true
believers, double-thinkers and dissidents. In every totalitarian regime,
no matter its cultural or geographical circumstances, the majority undergo
a conversion over time from true belief in the revolutionary message into
double-thinking. They no longer believe in the regime but are too scared
to say so. Then there are the dissidents— pioneers who dare to cross
the line between double-thinking and everything that lies on the other
side. In doing so, they first internalize, then articulate and finally
act on the innermost feelings of the nation.
People in free societies watching massive military parades
or vociferous displays of love for the leaders of totalitarian regimes
often conclude, "Well, that's their mentality; there's nothing we
can do about it." Thus they and their leaders miss what is readily
grasped by local dissidents attuned to what is happening on the ground:
the spectacle of a nation of double-thinkers slowly or rapidly approaching
a condition of open dissent.
To see the telltale signs, sometimes it helps to have experienced
totalitarianism firsthand. More than once in recent years, former Soviet
citizens returning from a visit to Iran have told me how much Iranian
society reminded them of the final stages of Soviet communism. Their testimony
was what persuaded me to write almost five years ago that Iran was extraordinary
for the speed with which, in the span of a single generation, a citizenry
had made the transition from true belief in the revolutionary promise
into disaffection and double-thinking. Could dissent be far behind?
This suggests another notable fact about
present-day Iran. In Moscow in the 1970s, demonstrations organized by
dissidents in an effort to attract the world's attention would often consist
of no more than five to 10 individuals. Otherwise, the KGB would find
out about the demonstrations in advance. They would last no more than
five minutes. That was the longest we could last before the KGB would
come, arrest us and ship the less fortunate to Siberia. Our main objective
was to make certain that at least one foreign journalist was present so
that, the next day, at least one Western news source would come out with
a story that could in turn elicit a chain reaction of more and greater
press attention and, we hoped, a vocal Western response.
This week, there were hundreds of thousands on the streets
of Tehran, with the entire world following them in real time. My assistant,
sitting in Jerusalem, received daily updates on Facebook from two dozen
Iranian friends before they set out to demonstrate and again on their
return. One can only hope that, in the White House and at 10 Downing Street,
the leaders of the free world are as well connected as my assistant.
But will those leaders act? With all their sympathy for
peoples striving for freedom, Western governments are fearful of imperiling
actual or hoped-for relations with the world's ayatollahs, generals, general
secretaries and other types of dictators— partners, so it is thought,
in maintaining political stability. But this is a fallacy. Democracy's
allies in the struggle for peace and security are the demonstrators in
the streets of Tehran who, with consummate bravery, have crossed the line
between the world of double-think and the world of free men and women.
Listen to them, and you will hear nothing more, and nothing
less, than what you your- self know to be the true hope of every human
being on Earth. Listen to them and you may be amazed, but you will never
again be surprised.
Natan Sharansky spent nine years in the Soviet gulag.
He is chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem
Center in Jerusalem.
Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159
Gerardo Joffe, President
Return to top of page>>
|
|