I wonder whether the uprising in Iran is the start of a revolution against the existing governmental structure, or a quest to "restore" the Iranian youth's current perception of democratic ideals (in a Shia Islamic form) of the 1979 revolution, even though the state that evolved from that revolution was never truly democratic, anyway. Maybe it doesn't matter.
On the other hand, it just may mean the difference between failure and success. It may be much easier to take down Ahmadinejad and, perhaps, Khamenei, from within the Iranian constitutional system, if they are considered illegitimate and corrupt, and the reform comes in the form of saving the constitutional system by "restoring" a fairly elected President, and newly appointed Supreme Leader, in what is perceived as a credible manner, a correction rather than a revolution, fixing what was intended to be rather than what came to be. That may not result in the type of change that some Americans are hoping for, or at least think they are. But meaningful change requires legitimacy if that change will hold. If that happens, and the United States can be perceived within Iran as a non-coercive and honest spectator, rather than a desperate interferer, we may have a recipe for progress.
But who knows? And anyone that claims to is, at this point, surely the last one who does.
No comments:
Post a Comment