In Search of Common Ground to Achieve Civic Rights
There is an undeniable anger among certain sections of Iran’s ethnic minorities that is occasionally ignited. An anger that has accumulated over the years and is largely justified. Socially, they have endured years of disrespect, demeaning jokes, and commodification of their culture. In civil matters, they have faced other problems including disproportionate poverty rates, unemployment, arrests, and executions.
Social and cultural grievances on one hand, and the absence of fair participation in government structures and disregard for their needs on the other, have led some activists from ethnic communities to seek separation from Iran in hopes of better conditions. This demand for separation has generally been presented either as joining neighboring countries or as establishing an independent nation.
Nevertheless, apart from the absence of a realistic and pragmatic political path to achieve such an objective, the political program of separatism is not even in the interest of ethnic communities and the region itself.
When discussing ethnic activists, it must be kept in mind that ethnic communities are not a unified whole, and a distinction must be made between those active in defending cultural and identity rights or seeking autonomy within Iran’s borders and those who advocate for separation or partition.
It appears that most of those who push ethnic issues toward conflict and radicalism are precisely from the separatist camp. These individuals claim to speak on behalf of the entirety of the sub-communities in Iran, despite no reliable statistical data indicating that this faction enjoys superior social standing.
Some ethnic activists, instead of focusing on larger issues necessary for the continuation of these communities, concentrate more on ethnic/nationalist grievances such as issues related to “mother tongue education.” Of course, demands to preserve native language and culture are quite important, and it is incumbent upon Iranian citizens to strive to preserve the languages and dialects existing within Iran’s political geography.
However, this matter, apart from its political consequences, is not implemented due to interference in teaching methods, substantial costs, and disruption of educational cohesion of a country’s children, even in countries like America, Canada, England, and Australia, let alone in a developing country like Iran.
However, achieving “mother tongue education” is possible with relatively uncomplicated planning. One such method under current conditions is the adoption of new educational policies. For example, if the Islamic Republic had created working groups in the Ministry of Education to provide language instruction through linguistic and cultural institutions or virtual platforms available to the public, this demand could have been fulfilled. Nevertheless, the issue of local languages remains a problem overlooked by the government and sometimes exploited by radicals for political purposes.
The right to “mother tongue education” is a subset of the broader right to “freedom of expression,” which has been generally denied to all Iranians regardless of ethnicity or religion. However, some self-proclaimed activists and leaders, instead of focusing on the broader violation of freedom of expression for ethnic communities, choose the more particular issue of “mother tongue education,” which could potentially be divisive. As we know, Iran’s ethnic minorities also suffer from many other problems such as employment, infrastructure, resource allocation, political participation, inclusion, and decriminalization of efforts to maintain cultural identity, which has far more vital importance for these communities.
There is a strong tendency among some streams of ethnic activists to direct their anger and despair against other Iranians who are also struggling with dire conditions and have not been spared from the hot iron and flag of government oppression. Some even go so far as to consider these victims as accomplices of those suppressing their troubled situation.
Although there may be no statistics on what percentage of activists in this field hold such a tendency, this current at least has a loud voice on social networks like Twitter, Clubhouse, and other platforms. Opinions that are often combative, othering, and incompatible with a healthy dialogue and building empathy.
It is sometimes seen that these individuals attack or ridicule the celebrities, cultures, occasions, and attachments of other groups in society to express their dissatisfaction and anger. Such behaviors not only close the space for dialogue but by eroding feelings of solidarity and empathy, strengthen the most radical sides of any discussion and lead to extremist othering.
Beyond endangering peaceful coexistence of Iranian citizens, this conflict is also a waste of time because such attention and energy could be devoted to defending vital rights to save the lives of citizens of these communities living under oppression and poverty and forced into fuel smuggling and border smuggling. Even better, they could build broader and more united fronts against the regime’s despotism; but unfortunately, they have made division and separation their leadership policy.
Activists from ethnic communities and their allies should promote a model of leadership within their communities that includes all members of society, especially women. Women in ethnic communities have the highest rates of suicide, child marriage, and honor killing. Any governing system is obligated to earn the trust of all its members and guarantee their dignity and security. Such inclusion is a step that should first begin in the home environment and extend to communities and beyond. Ethnic separatists have not yet been able to guarantee a safer and less oppressive alternative for the women and girls of their communities that would protect them from second-class status and the threat of murder by relatives. Unfortunately, the separatist movement has not only failed to provide effective and objective solutions to these problems and obstacles, but by prioritizing divisive issues, creates fragmentation in the space of opponents.
On the other hand, some ethnic communities also have concerns about the traditional opposition of Iran. These individuals raise complaints about receiving little attention to their demands and government pressure sometimes being met with silence and weak attention from other parts of Iran, stating that even if they join this united front, their demands would be overlooked after freedom.
It is the responsibility of the mainstream opposition to present programs in cultural, economic, and development fields that are inclusive of the demands of all citizens throughout Iran’s political geography, such that every Iranian regardless of ethnic background can feel a sense of belonging to this united front. In particular, people living throughout Iran’s geography should protest against the oppressive treatment of the government, which denies any demands of ethnic communities by labeling them as separatist.
Mainstream opposition activists should also abandon a top-down, self-centered, and emotionless position that creates a “we” and “them” distinction, and with an open mind listen to the demands and lived experiences of ethnic community activists.
Iranian citizens living throughout Iran’s geography should dialogue with one another about cultural demands and their shortcomings and lived experiences. The door to dialogue about centralized or decentralized governance systems can remain open despite disagreements, but an Iranian citizen cannot sit at the negotiating table with a separatist or racist individual due to irreconcilable conflicts of interest.
Inclusivity and empathy, recognition of differences within unity, acknowledgment of shortcomings and neglect of certain areas, and demands for the common good rather than regional and ethnic interests, provide a clear roadmap for a united and dignified Iranian nation.
Source: Radio Farda
