The Ayatollah's Tipping Point
SOUTHAMPTON, ENGLAND - Once the crowds were in the streets in Tehran, one could, if one knew the script, begin the countdown: if today there are mass protests, tomorrow there will be threats of retaliation in the name of "national security." By day three, we see journalists imprisoned and media shut down; day four, bloody reprisals against protesters by secret police; day five, arrests of key opposition figures. Sure enough, right on schedule, each of those steps was set in motion in Iran, within the space of a week.
These same 10 steps occurred in Thailand in 2006 -- in 10 days, and in seven days in Myanmar a year later. The script is so well known by now among the world's would-be dictators that it can take less than a week to lock down a country.
None of this should surprise anyone anymore. We should understand that this time-tested script for establishing or enforcing a dictatorship exists -- but so does a counter-strategy for opening up a closed society. When a would-be dictator -- anywhere, any time, on the right or the left -- wants to close an open society or initiate a crackdown against a democracy movement, he follows 10 classic steps: invoke a threat, create secret prisons, develop a paramilitary force, establish a surveillance apparatus, arbitrarily detain citizens, infiltrate citizen groups, target key individuals, go after journalists, call criticism "treason," and subvert the rule of law.
Once these steps are put in place, it is extremely difficult for a pro-democracy movement to survive -- but not impossible if counter-pressure is applied correctly. History shows again and again -- throughout the modern era and around the world -- that people do indeed have some powerful tools to reestablish an open society if they were willing to use them.
The counter-script for establishing or restoring pro-democratic conditions consists of more mass protest; the appearance and display of resistance symbols; the emergence of enough spokespeople throughout society that all of them cannot be arrested at once; overt civil and covert disobedience, at every level of society, that brings the economy to a halt; withdrawal of support by lawyers and judges for the regime's decisions; international sanctions tied to human rights and clean elections; the refusal -- tricky but not unattainable -- of many soldiers and police to fire at unarmed citizens; and, finally, when the rule of law is reestablished, serious prosecutions of the defeated regime's ringleaders.
When we see footage of nonviolent protesters being brutally beaten by police and militia members, it is painful to deliver the message that, if history is a guide, continued street protest will make the difference between Iran being like Myanmar or, possibly, like Czechoslovakia. Time and again, when mass street protest has been sustained for more than a week or two, a regime -- even one that has begun beating and arresting protesters -- eventually finds it practically and psychologically difficult to sustain its hold.
Street protest, if it can sustain itself for more than that crucial first week, has an effect that is both tactical and emotional; mass protest during the French Revolution made it clear to the courtiers that this rebellion would be too profound to quell in the usual manner; street protests in the American colonies, in the face of arrest or worse, made the colonies ungovernable even before George III waged a costly, unpopular war. In Estonia in the 1980s, the small, illegal protests that surrounded the public singing of the banned national anthem grew, and Estonians were emboldened as their numbers swelled by the thousands daily.
In the United States, street protests helped bring the Vietnam war to an end, and the mass protests of the civil rights movement showed that, as Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, "business as usual" could no longer continue. According to King, disruptive mass protest exposes the tension that has been hidden or ignored, so that it can be addressed. (Ironically, such protest is now largely illegal in the US because of a systematic effort to deter it through a thirty year process of over-permiticization).
Iran's citizens -- and all people longing to resist a tyrannical government or to protest in an established democracy -- should bear the lessons of history in mind. Protest that works must disrupt business as usual and, ideally, stop traffic. Iranian citizens have shown great courage, and they would do well to continue pouring into the street and sitting down, lying down, or standing still. Unless a regime is willing to start machine-gunning its citizens, peaceful, steady, long-term disruption of "business as usual" always works.
What the West can do is apply pressure on Iran -- and on other governments in the future -- to assure and account for the safety of protesters. Natan Sharansky said that this tactic -- the West tracking and demanding accountability for the treatment of individual internal dissenters -- helped break up the Soviet Union. In this crisis, the US president should form a united front with human rights groups, which can advise him exactly how to follow, sustain, and support those Iranians who have been or may yet be arrested, or worse.
Barack Obama says that America "stands with" those who support free assembly. That will be welcome news to people living under dictatorial regimes installed and propped up by the US, and to the opposition leaders and journalists languishing in US-supported prisons in those countries for having engaged in just such protest. But it is a start. What a real revolution it would be if the Western democracies did indeed begin to frame their foreign policies with human rights and democratic processes as their benchmark.
Naomi Wolf is the author of Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries.
Project-syndicate.org
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"invoke a threat, create secret prisons, develop a paramilitary force, establish a surveillance apparatus, arbitrarily detain citizens, infiltrate citizen groups, target key individuals, go after journalists, call criticism "treason," and subvert the rule of law."
Naomi, Just about every country in the "western" world has adopted this strategy post 9/11! Even in places like New Zealand! Democracy is only realitive in terms of what those citizens believe are their entitled freedoms. Everywhere around the world those freedoms continue to be eroded and a police state is slowly but surely replacing it. 20 years from now it will be made law to have that '1984' camera in every home, "for our own saftey of course!"
I agree with Naomi, 99% up until she says, "unless the regime is willing to machin-gun ... " Here is my question, Do you really think they won't machine gun the protesters? would you like to bet ? You see those helicopters in the sky? they are ready to machine gun the protesters. This regime has no where to go, the regime officials have their hands on billions of dollars of oil proceeds. easy money. they will stop at nothing to protect this wealth and this power. At some point, Iranians have to resort to some sort of self-defense.
Based on Naomi Wolf's analysis, the tipping point in Iran occurred this Thursday, when the street demonstrations resumed in full force after an 11-day lull. The Iranian protests are the central revolutionary event of our time, and they will have a profound impact in America as well.
You're dreaming of growing wings. I suggest you wake up and invent a mechanism that will really allow people to fly. It's more difficult but more realistic.
And since it's now well past the tipping point and nothing has tipped, either in Iran or here, I guess that Ms Wolf's ardent and impassioned analysis is...what? Delayed? How about erroneous. Too bad, cuz I wish she was right but her reading here is more wishfull thinking and a distorted read of history.
don't you think in fact it takes years not weeks of protest?
The sad fact is, no matter what evidence or argument you place at the feet of the so-called sheeple regarding the agenda for the already established principle of the NWO, they will only ever be convinced when it all comes to fruition.
No doubt, you will see token protests, marches, even riots, sporadically occurring in places around the world, but they will be put down - regardless of the cost to life. I even think we will see a fair number of suicides committed as part of the protests, I think the concept of the 'one-worldisms' will be too much for some to bear against their own principles of individuality and self-autonomy...self-immolations and front parlour firefights will be up there with the methods of protests.
Each continent will have the same currency under a different name (as it was unveiled at the G8 Summit in italy), thus for Europe it is the Euro, and for the Americas it is the Amero, what it will be called for the other three continents I am not sure. This is something we cannot stop, so there's no really profitability to be had in thinking that we can. By all means continue to educate the other parts of the agenda which perforce to corporate totalitarianism, but token protests or complete utter numbness is all you will receive. It's all a done deal!
Since my initial post was misunderstood, I'll rephrase my question: Do you think a social unrest like the one in Iran is possible in the U.S.?
What is interesting is that you asked your question in response to the example of the Vietnam War protests, so we have one in the past.
With the economic, social, and climatic catastrophes ahead, do you think all Americans will stay home and watch it quietly on TV?
It seems to me Americans have become to a great extent passive when social change is in question, more so when international issues are are at stake. One simple example: just compare the responses to this blog and the ones to anything Sarah Palin.
Second, Naomi Wolf described the dictatorship formula. We have also kind of a formula of American response to crisis. Step one, we have "if it is not something very close to me, I don't care" attitude. Step two, something happened to me but I will blame the government, the President, or other authorities for it. Step three, let me see how I can adjust to the situation and survive. So, the real steps of actually doing something is left to a group of activists who sadly are perceived as unemployed losers who have nothing else to do. The question, therefore, is how can we all become activists?
Next, can and should the nowadays protests be organized in the same way as those in the past, i.e. with marches, slogans, fists in the air, songs, etc. or we have to look for different forms?
Given what lies ahead?
Yes.
If the banks continue to fail us, yet caim huge pofits, the wealth gap continues to increase and charges of war crimes are not formally brought against the bush/cheney administration...probably
I hope so. I was part of massive demonstrations before and during Iraq war. Millions of Americans did, but it wasn't social unrest.
Thank you so much Naomi. It's important for the American left to come out strong and unambiguously for the Iranians. The gay-hanging, holocaust-denying, journalist-jailing Ahmadinejad is not an alternative to US imperialism. Long live the democracy movements in IRI and in US.
Unless and until the Iranian military, Revolutionary Gaurds and Basiji buckle, *there will be no 'regime change' there." Period.
The Iranian Revolution of 1978-79 was secured when the Shah's army turned on his power. The mullahs learned from that tidbit of history, and retain a firm hand on those with guns in Iran.
What's so hard to get about that?!?
that still might happen in iran. Iranians are not keen on killing other iranians no matter if they are in the army, in basij or irgc
Ahama defeat the right wing, Period
Ahmadinejad is the right wing. From Bataille Socialiste http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/preliminary-statement-on-the-upheaval-in-iran/
Ahmadinejad, the fraudulent President, taunted the opposition at his large victory rally on June 14. He called them “dirt,” ridiculed their charges of fraud, threatened them with arrest, and in a blatant example of his reactionary form of anti-imperialism, stated that in Iran, “everything is grounded in moral values,” but in the West, “thieves, homosexuals and other impure people are included in the electorate in order to gain a few votes” (Le Monde, 6/14/09). The next day, the clownish Ahmadinejad got his answer, as over one million protestors filled Tehran’s Azadi Square, far surpassing the pro-regime rally.
You must wonder how anyone could get this wrong.
Important article. Publish via social media.
Ahama won.Period
Naomi
Well done article.
i'm suprised however that you didn't mention 1977-1979 Iranian revolution. It's well worth studying.Iranians went through very classic process of revolution with all ups and downs. therefore they know all too well of the process and hows and whys. the complexity of today's situation is that many of particpants/organizers of first revolution are now in "charge" of this one- they are reluctant to go full force (at least at this time-you need to remember it was people who pushed these leaders further) because they fear that might lead to overthrowing the very system they established after first revolution.Some of them are more furious about being treated the way they treated dissidents in 1980s (whom considered counter-revolutionary).
However the good news is people are fed up and situation will not remain the same.
Iran is the proverbial rat backed into a corner. The question is this: Do we give them breathing space or do we tighten the noose?. ...........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/07/10/the-rat-in-the-corner-iran-health-care-etc/
"Iranian citizens have shown great courage, and they would do well to continue pouring into the street and sitting down, lying down, or standing still. Unless a regime is willing to start machine-gunning its citizens, peaceful, steady, long-term disruption of "business as usual" always works."
"10 classic steps: invoke a threat, create secret prisons, develop a paramilitary force, establish a surveillance apparatus, arbitrarily detain citizens, infiltrate citizen groups, target key individuals, go after journalists, call criticism "treason," and subvert the rule of law."
Are you describing the United States?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
