The Iranian Revolution Didn't Die with Michael Jackson

The Iranian election was a critical point in the post-revolution history of the country. After Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad's organized coup d'etat and hijacking of the election, the world watched in positive amazement as brave Iranians took to the streets by the millions to stand up for democracy in the face of threats from one of the most horrific regimes on earth.

However, as it often happens, as soon as the protests lost some of their intensity for a few days, the Western media began to lose attention. This trend was intensified when the king of pop, Michael Jackson, died last Friday. As tragic as the death of this young and phenomenal pop star has been, it has led the media to fall into its usual ADD pattern of losing all sense of balance and over-cover the latest and most glamorous story at the expense of all others.

But perhaps another reason for this distraction is not the death of Michael Jackson, but Americans' understanding of what is really going on in Iran. In hundreds of conversations on the airwaves about Iran since the election, the speakers have identified the events in every possible term--"uprising," "revolt," "protests,"--but what it actually is: a revolution.

Most who refuse to call this a revolution invariably cite three reasons, none of which stands in the face of reality. One is that a revolution often has violent connotations, and the fact that Iranians have not picked up arms indicates that this is not a revolution. But that is a false assumption about the concept. A revolution is, according to the Marriam Webster dictionary, an "activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation." There have been many nonviolent revolutions around the world, including the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004), OTPOR movement in Yugoslavia (2000), Workers' movement against Pinochet (1983), Solidarity Movement in Poland (1980), Gandhi's Revolution (1947), Saffron Revolution in Burma (2007), and last but not least, Iran's own Revolution of 1979. A revolution is not violent by definition.

Second reason that many cite in defense of not using the term "revolution" in Iran's context is that the protests seem to have subsided, and some have even begun to talk about events in Iran in a postmortem way. But just because the Western media stopped covering the events in Iran with the rigor that it was and it should, it doesn't mean the movement has ended.

I have been talking with activists in Iran on a daily basis, and their accounts of everyday street protests, organized actions and long-term planning indicate a much higher--not lower--level of energy, enthusiasm and determination. For example, when the Guardian Council certified the pre-arranged results of the election on June 29, tens of thousands of people filled their rooftops in Tehran and chanted "Allah-o Akbar" in a voice that, as an adviser to the Mousavi campaign described to me Wednesday morning, "was deafening and shook the buildings to their foundations." Protests have persisted every day, and so has regime's brutal response. The violence has thrown the cities of Shiraz and Isfahan into humanitarian crises. And I got a word from both Mousavi and Karoubi campaigns that they expect millions of Iranians from all sectors and industries to engage in massive strikes nationwide in the coming days.

Each of these events is truly historical for Iran, and they are happening on a day-to-day basis. People who believe the events aren't happening fast enough to qualify Iran as a revolution need to understand that radical revolutions in repressive countries never happen in forty-eight hours. They take months, and sometimes years. A lot of people in the West--including President Carter himself--were surprised about the last Iranian Revolution, but that revolution did not happen in a short period of time and through spontaneous demonstrations of millions either. It took years for Iranians to organize, distribute tapes with recordings of Imam Khomeini's instructions from exile, protests and strikes of Iranian Oil Company that eventually led to the Iranian military's declaration of neutrality and success of the revolution. It seemed sudden to the West because the media ignored it for months before reporting on a single protest. Similar to that revolution, the events in Iran do not make up what many seem to consider an accidental uprising, but only the latest stage of a revolution that has been brewing for at least twenty-five years.

But perhaps the reason that analysts have cited the most to argue against the idea of using the term "revolution" here is the belief that Mousavi--the challenger to President Ahmadinejad who has refused to accept the results of the election--wants to work within the system and has not called for end of Islamic Republic or clerical rule. But understand Iran's context within which the events are brewing.

Mousavi and other reformist candidates know that blatantly calling for an end to the Islamic rule will give the Revolutionary Guard, Basij and Ayatollah khamenei the hard evidence and legitimacy to suppress the protesters ever much more violently as infidels against the Velayate Faghih--rule of the clerics--and Islam itself. So Mousavi has been strategic in constantly praising Ayatollah Khomeini--the founding father of the Islamic Revolution--and framing the developments in the movement in Islamic terms. But what's critical to see is that in contrast to his words, his demands are fundamentally incompatible and inconsistent with the constitution of the Islamic Republic. For example, in the current system, the Supreme Leader has the absolute last word in all matters of the state and immune to criticism. In that context, continuing to deny the result of the election that Khamenei has specifically endorsed is a revolutionary act. Asking his followers to gather on their roofs to chat "Allah-o Akbar" is also a revolutionary act; this practice is not a random act of dissension, but was the signature act of civil disobedience during the last revolution. Mousavi understands that calling on people to engage in the same practice helps to frame the current events as another revolution.

The revolution in Iran may not come to fruition in the next week or month. But make no mistake about it; it has passed a tipping point and entered into a new phase marked with a sharp increase in both the rate and intensity of dissension from the bottom and deep infighting among the factions and the ever so used-to-be cohesive confidants of Ayatollah Khomeini--the founder of the Islamic Revolution of 1979--at the top. In this period, the worst thing that the Western media can do is to allow itself to get distracted by relatively trivial issues--like the details of Michael Jackson's will--instead of restoring a sense of balance, amplifying the voices of Iranians and throwing light on the dark alleys of Tehran with a more consistent and educated coverage.

Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei

Comments

[Cherubim]

Let me give you a clue by quoting Gil Scott-Heron and Stokely Carmichael:

"THE Revolution WILL NOT be televised.

[MGhamma]

Sounds like the Iranians aren't all that concerned about the western media. Can't blame them.

[lapdogs]

The Iranian Revolution may not have died with the revolution - BUT THE AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA SURE AS HELL DID!!!!!

[i am nav]

Interesting article.

I think people forget that revolutions occur over a substancial period of time. The 1979 Islamic revolution in itself took over a year from beginning to end. The attention span of the modern Western news viewer is minimal, perhaps out of habit. The news outlets have accustomed us into listening to bits and bites. Unfortunately, unless there are bloody uprises in the streets of Tehran, I don't think we will be seeing a full day's coverage on CNN.

As for Michael Jackson, although I agree in principle that the coverage of his death is at times, too detailed, I do understand why that is the case. He was a major cultural figure, with fans in virtually all four corners of the world. His death has touched many in this world on a personal level. If there's anyone who had the ability to divert attention away from the Iranian uprisings/revolt, it was Michael Jackson...

[Cynthia Boaz - Huffpost Blogger]

Good title and great post, Sam.

In solidarity,
Cynthia

[InofTouch]

http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/06/26/breaking-mjs-death-web-tv-divide-labor/

[worldtravelerall7]

I find the supplanting of news about events in Iran for the constant coverage of Michael Jackson to be completely repugnant and a testament to the idiocy of the American populace. I have stopped watching Hardball, Countdown, and even Rachel all together because I simply can't tolerate listening to another story on this nonsense. Perhaps I am the only one who wrote emails asking them to return to more important matters, because they seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Thank goodness for Nico's liveblog.

[viper234]

Iran received almost wall-to-wall coverage in the US since the day the election took place. The US media did not cover the US economy, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan in which US millitary personnel are at risk. The US media did not cover Torture Accountability Day and American protests here. There was little or not coverage about the impact of unemployment on Americans, rising foreclosures, or the American people's own concerns with issues regarding civil liberties in the United States. When American icons suffer untimely deaths, it is big news and it is covered. It's an American story after all. But it is not a story that will go on forever. Michael Jackson will be buried and the big phase of that story will end, but to suggest that the US media should saturate more air time with events in Iran when the US has already given the story more coverage than it has to critical US domestic affairs is outrageous. If the Iranian people want to change Iran, change it, but this is not an American Revolution.

[GEM-592]

The author seems to work from the assumption that the western media has played an integral role in the recent events in Iran, whatever term you wish to use. I see no evidence of this, and none was provided by the author. If it's more media coverage you seek, why not use your podium to focus on the facts, rather than arguing semantics? It is facts and hard journalism that give a story its momentum - and if it's truly the revolution you claim remember that in neither started nor will end at the behest of western reporters.

[StoicRep]

They are about five steps from coming to America, and arranging for a coup, and then decidig on staying in America with all their friends who cannot any longer live in Iran. Then they will tell us what is wrong with our society.

[altohone]

Bolton is calling for an armed attack.

If you want revolution in Iran, fine.
Go. Send money. Write messages of support. Organize. Whatever.

If you're siding with Bolton though, be clear about it.
Your message of peaceful revolution is so far from those calling for bombing and forced regime change...

...but they are using your efforts to promote their war goals.


War as a consequence of a close/stolen election sounds like an invitation for external meddling Americans would never have tolerated in 2000 or 2004 when our elections were questionable.

War is not an option to help Iranians.

I'd add that the rest of the problems we face shouldn't take a back seat to the stirrings in Iran.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras, torture prosecutions, Wall St., etc. all deserve equal time.
A fake focus on Iran is tantamount to media manipulation determining what we should care about, and I had quite enough of that in the Bush years.

[wijg]

Thank you, Sam. Well said.

May the Iranians know democracy and peace.

[cgr]

Your words restore my hope for the people of Iran. I, like many, have followed closely with aching hearts as they realized their government would cheat them, deny them their rights, beat , suppress and murder to silence them, and in effect betray the very heart of their religion's teaching that the government was supposed to represent. And I, like many, have been disheartened and the news petered out, it seems the swell of resistance was quelled, and the people of Iran are now horribly aware they live in a dictatorship. There's a cheer in my mind to now hear that what's happening is part of a process to watch; that the resistance hasn't been shattered; that the revolution will proceed. Thanks to you for this. And shame on the media for once again giving superficial attention, or vast attention to celebrity this or that.

[Elliott32]

Coverage of the Iranian revolution in the US should not matter to the Iranians on the street who want to change their country. When the American revolution happened, I am sure our revolt wasn't covered in the British media, but we still fought for and won our independence regardless. If the Iranians need more coverage for its revolution, then talk to marketing. Besides, the less American involvement, gives more credibility to the Iranian dissent.

[NWNHNM]

HuffPo needs to move this and Nico's column to the top of the page again. We need to know what is happening in Iran and Iranian protesters need to know that the world cares and is paying attention.

All honor to the brave people of Iran.

[worldtravelerall7]

I COMPLETELY AGREE!.