EurasiaNet Recaps - Iranian Presidential Advisor Sees Progress Tied to Moderation

RECAPS

IRANIAN PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR SEES PROGRESS TIED TO MODERATION

Camelia Entekhabi-Fard 11/11/02

A former philosophy and history professor, Mohammad Javad Faridzadeh returned to Iran from Germany in 1997 to serve in the cabinet of his friend, President Mohammed Khatami. In the capacity of Khatami’s speechwriter, Faridzadeh has helped steer the president’s efforts to broaden Iranian democracy and global ties. EurasiaNet spoke to him in Madrid, where he was accompanying Khatami on the first visit by an Iranian president to that country since the Shah fell in 1979. The text of the interview follows:

EurasiaNet: When the president was elected in 1997, there was a lot of hope that [the level of democracy in Iranian politics] would change. Yet many of those hopes have not been fulfilled. Is the President intimidated by all the pressure against him?
Faridzadeh: Mr. Khatami is a person who believes in religion. He has a long record of educating others in Islam, in modern philosophy and social thought. He has a peaceful character, he likes people. So it is very natural if he practices and represents an Islam which is against violence and harshness and for amity and moderation. For him other people he has to work with are never the enemy. He is saying anyone who in the name of religion talks the language of violence, of war and confrontation, before destroying his enemies is actually undermining religion itself. Because religion operates in the spiritual sphere, it has enormous power to heal and help people. It can guide humanity. It should not be a mere instrument, certainly never as a tool to pursue political ends. This is Khatami.

EurasiaNet: But as a political leader, one who is frequently called upon to exercise decisiveness and resoluteness, what kind of expectations about him are realistic?
Faridzadeh: It’s very natural that many of the people who voted for him would want to see more activity and more decisiveness. They want to see someone who can lead the country to rise to challenges, and to project power. It is not that Mr. Khatami lacks those qualities. As the President has said repeatedly, both to his detractors and to his supporters, the process of change in Iran is by necessity very slow. Anyone who ignores the reality of the political, cultural and social state of the Iranian society does so at great risk to the country.

Khatami believes that strengthening of the civil society and the establishment of a law-based society is the key for the success of the reform movement. Khatami believes when the people know what’s their right, when they are educated as how to exercise that right, then no one can take that right away from them. None of this could be achieved overnight�particularly when you remember that for centuries, Iran has been ruled by despots and dictators. This above all calls for great patience and calm. I don’t want to justify some tardiness, but I want to say that in our country no one talked about the rule of law. Now everyone is talking about law and constitution. Now every politician in Iran must justify himself by recourse to the law and by presenting himself as a transparent person. This is a new phenomenon.

EurasiaNet: A critical issue in President Khatami’s visit to Spain was human rights. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said that in December, Iran and the European Union would begin discussing the issue. Many people in Iran, in the government and outside, frequently dismiss criticism by invoking what they call the "Islamic human rights" as something allegedly different from human rights in general. What do you think will be the outcome of this debate?
Faridzadeh: To me, this whole issue of Islamic human rights is a little nebulous. The same would be true of "Christian" or "Judaic" or liberal human rights or whatever. Human rights is human rights, without any religious or political or racial qualifiers. If you add a suffix to it, it goes against the grain of it really. I believe that whoever is the proponent of the concept of "Islamic human rights" has to come and explain his opinion. Could we, for example, say that non-Muslims don’t have human rights?

In our society if anyone is a real Shia, that person has to follow what the religious forebears and theologians have prescribed. Well it so happens that a major tenet of Shiism is rational reasoning. Torturing a human being is bad. Jailing an innocent person is bad. Religion is in keeping with this mind-based rationality. This is the base of our discussion on human rights.

EurasiaNet: Do you think [people who disagree with you] are listening to you and to people who share your views?
Faridzadeh: Right now many people who advocate their own version of human rights are just thinking of retaining their power. With these people, the only way to establish the issue in the society is in a place like the Parliament. Once it is ratified as law, then it becomes the social norm. If you follow the news, the parliament recently passed good legislation which, although has not become law yet because of opposition from some quarters, it has managed to publicize the democracy issue at the national level. No amount of speechifying, or demonstrating, or big political actions could have achieved it. This is another instance that the policy of gradual and deliberate reforms is the only option for democratization.

Editor�s Note: Camelia Entekhabi-Fard is a journalist specializing in Afghan and Iranian affairs.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.