Criminalizing Dissent

In recent years, those who promote democracy and human rights around the world have become somewhat defensive. The euphoria of 1989, when the captive nations of Eastern Europe emerged from behind the Iron Curtain, has worn off. For every Hungary, Poland or Czech Republic there is a Serbia, Georgia or Ukraine casting democratic transformation in a more sobering light. Paradoxically, advocates of human rights and democracy may have to thank the current rulers of Iran for encouraging some overdue reassessment of the virtues of promoting these universal values.

Serious human rights and democracy promoters never thought that removing an authoritarian government was a cure-all or that there was a short cut to improving human rights conditions, but politicians have often espoused this sound bite version of democracy and regime change as the answer to troublesome governments everywhere. When this did not work out so well, most notoriously in Iraq, the idea of democracy promotion fell into disrepute. Observing that democracy may well be the worst form of government, apart from all the rest, was liable to get one branded as a "neo-con" or an apologist for neo-imperialism.

The current show trial of more than 100 leaders of a supposed attempt to foment a revolution in Iran reminds us that repressive authoritarian governments were always amongst the most fervent critics of international efforts to promote human rights and democracy. The current situation in Iran underscores that cries of neo-imperialism from repressive governments lack credibility since they are so transparently self-interested.

While it was sickening to see men, including some of Iran's leading political intellectuals, reduced to reciting confessions that can only have been obtained through coercion, it was enlightening to hear the content of these confessions and of the charges that they were designed to substantiate. According to the authorities, the defendants are part of a massive conspiracy with western governments, the international media and human rights organizations to stage a "velvet revolution" in Iran.

There is no such crime in Iranian law as "staging a velvet revolution," and it is a mark of how far language has been corrupted by the authoritarian enemies of democracy and human rights that Iran's leaders should assume that its audience at home and abroad would agree with it in seeing a velvet revolution as a bad thing. The term "velvet revolution" was originally applied to the non-violent overthrow of the communist government of the former Czechoslovakia in 1989. This transformation was undoubtedly popular with the majority of the citizens of the country at that time. Human rights conditions in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia are currently far better than they were under communism and most citizens of both countries prefer the democratic systems they currently live under. It's reasonable to suggest that a great many Iranians would very much like a velvet revolution of their own.

It is true that foreign governments and foreign non-governmental organizations have no business picking sides in electoral contests in other countries. However, that does not mean that the rest of the world should say and do nothing when it sees massive violations of basic rights and freedoms employed as a means of securing political power. The world is under no obligation to respect or reward such illegitimate power grabs. On the contrary, the international community is obliged by multiple international treaties to promote and protect human rights.

It is understandable that illegitimate rulers, like those in Iran, would prefer it if the international community paid no attention to the violent dispersal of peaceful protesters; to the beatings and killings; to the restrictions on local and international media; to the mass detentions without charge; to the forced confessions and the show trials and all the other repression that has marked the weeks since the disputed June 12 elections. It is understandable, but there is no reason in the world why anyone should grant the rulers of Iran their wish.

Those who dare to criticize their repressive rulers often face grave risks, and many have paid with their lives and liberty. People in Iran are paying this price today. Those in Iran who are protesting the denial of their universal human rights have a claim on our support since the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and freedoms is a collective responsibility on states and individuals alike. Not only does the international community have the right to offer such support in whatever ways it may find effective, Iranian dissidents have the right to receive and benefit from such support. If ultimately such support enables the opposition to prevail over the current repressive rulers, then many would agree that such an outcome would be just.

Those on trial in Iran, the hundreds more in detention and the thousands more who continue to speak out in the face of official threats and intimidation have been declared criminals by the authorities because they dare to dissent from government policy. They question the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's claimed election victory, and the violent repression the authorities have unleashed against them makes one think that the authorities do indeed have something to hide. They have the right to voice their dissent and the international community should support them.

Comments

[Texas Aggie]

The literature of the Soviet Union was notable for characterizing the oppression of the USSR by talking about something that was nominally unrelated, such as how other countries violated human rights. In this way the authors got by the censors, but the reading public understood what they were saying. I got a similar feeling reading this column and thinking about how the US has responded to peaceful protest within the US.

[vascopyjama]

Did you ask the families of the students shot dead on the campus of Kent State University how they felt about peaceful protests?

[simulationist]

Going wayback to 1970, before I was born, were they really peaceful? In any event, there was a major leadership failure. Loaded weapons, tense situation, asking for trouble.

[Texas Aggie]

That particular protest was indeed peaceful. The only armed people were the National Guard.

[Rule Of Law]

"In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act historically, with the Posse Comitatus Act helped enforce prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, known as the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" , signed by the commander-in-chief on October 17, 2006, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise: the term is "martial law."

Would you like to add the United States to your list of Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and Iran, because we are already to the point where dissent has become criminalized!

[simulationist]

This is not new. President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to remove them from the authority of the Governor. Look for little rock nine, the year was 1957 I believe.