 |
|
|---|
I dont know what to say, but i likeed it.
The notorious Mordad 28th Coup (in Persian Calendar) not only disrupted the Iranians' attempt to be the real owners of their oil wealth but more importantly put an end to the democratic process that was thriving in Iran. The Shah who according to the 1906 constitution was supposed to be a more or less ceremonial figure got the American support to be an absolute dictator for the best part of the next 25 years.
As Albright acknowledged in March 2000, the coup had a devastating effect on Iranians. They got to see the worst anti-democratic face of the American power. Before the coup Americans were perceived by most Iranians to be a balance to the colonialist power of the British, but afterwards they were the colonialist powers.
Looking back to the ups and downs of the last 50 years, the single most important lesson to be learned by us Iranians, in my opinion, is the value of democracy. A democratic government committed to the national interests (in Mossadegh’s tradition) could have saved Iran from the horror of the 1979 revolution and the 8 years of meaningless war with Iraq (or at least its last 6 years after the Iraqis got kicked out). It could have used the country’s vast resources to make a better life for the people not for the ruling minority to keep their power (as it has always been in the 50 years after Mossadegh).
The coup should not be an excuse for being anti-western or anti-American. Americans have the experience of more than 200 years of undisrupted democracy—the oldest and the most stable one in the world. In contrast to their negative track record in Iran, they have had the capabilities of being committed supporters of democratic reform throughout the world. Their support has been critical for the victory of the democratic movements in Eastern Europe. Anti-Americanism only plays into the hands of the fundamentalists who are using it as an excuse to keep their undemocratic power.
As Albright has hinted, Americans can be persuaded to acknowledge their destructive past and be engaged as a pro-democracy force in Iran.
If the coup hadn't happened, something else would have stopped the democratization in Iran. Moreover the coup happened because the people and the government let it to happen. I don't believe that if America and Britain hadn't intervened and overthrown the Mosaddegh government, we would have had a democratic country with a good economy now. Just think of a possible coup which could have happened two years after Khatami got into the power. Wouldn't we all said that we lost the best opportunity of Khatami. But, just look at how is now everything in Iran, without any coup?
Yaser has a point there but I believe when talking about democracy, it is easy to loose sight and engage in pure speculation or daydreaming. I believe Yaser's remark as such, may be as speculative as many others' who resort to many wishful and nostalgic IF's when talking about Mossaddeq and the coup.
I do agree that had any coup been orchestrated against Khatami in his early years of presidency he probably would have been talked about the way most people talk about Mossaddeq now ( By the way, I happen to think that making analogies between Mossaddeq and Khatami is a great injustice to Mossaddeq) but I believe the mere fact that Khatami was not removed from power by a coup and that his so-called "reforms" have been rendered fruitless does not warrant us to conclude that "coup or no coup things would have been the same". I believe the failure of Khatami and "Khatami"-ism on its own can potentially be of far greater value than its success. There are great lessons to be learned by Iranians, especially those who put their faith in him.
I think now is the best time for people at both ends of the spectrum, from those who think gradual reform from within is the only way to go to those who believe true change will only be realized through drastic (if not extreme) measures taken from without, to think, analyze and exchange ideas.
Just that Mossadegh was not actually democratically elected, he was appointed, after popular pressure on Shah.
I have yet to see a strong argument on why Mossadeq was a democratic leader. Main concern of Mossadeq wa s independence of the country. He can be well described as a nationalist leader similar, but describing him a democratic leader is not justified for me.
It is true that CIA did organize the coup and succeeded but lets not forget how easy it was for them and what a cheap price they had to pay to do it. So I think we are naïve to think no country in the world should take advantage of us when we can be so easily manipulated
Excuse me? I think Mossadeq WAS a democratically elected member of parliament and one of the most popular ones even before the oil nationalization.
according to the Iranian constitution back then the prime minister would be 'suggested' to the Shah by the democratically elected parliament and then the Shah would authorize his premiership. Pretty much like how things work in England. It's true the constitution was never fully implemented, but the case of Mossadeq's appointment was one of the few instances it was implemented in accordance with its spirit. I agree that he could have done better, and could have probably avoided the coup. He is definitely one of the biggest champions of democracy (if not the biggest) that Iran has ever had. His biggest blunder was probably dissolving the parliament, which was contrary to the democratic cause, eventhough he might have had good evidence that the elections were rigged.
Yashar, what is not clear for me is whether Mossadeq was a champion of democratic values. The fact that he was a democraticly member of parliment doesn't answer this concern. From what I've read, the goal of Mossadeq was indepence from foreigners and nationalization of oil, and this does not necessarily translate to democracy.
Jamal al-Nasser, another nationalistic leader of those times, was a leader of a country with very similar condition as Iran(Great past, Muslim country, considerable urban population). He was not removed by a coup, but we saw that he couldn't lead his country to democracy simply because democracy was not his main concern.
The fact that many of us believe that democracy would help Iran in its geopolitical standing in the region and the world is a very new phenomenon, and it is a significant developement.
Interesting comments. I probably need to clarify a couple of points.
Yaser, I didn’t speculate about what would happen if that particular coup had not happened. You are right; probably we are not living in a “chaotic” system whose evolution heavily depends on small disturbances. Regardless of whether or not Mossadegh’s government could survive, my point is that a government in his tradition could have saved the country from many sufferings of the 50 years after him and this should be regarded as a lesson for future.
Grand Vizier, as Yashar pointed out, Mossadegh’s election was by a parliamentary vote and it was according to the constitution which was fairly democratic. Shah’s power to “approve” his premiership was supposed to be just ceremonial (like in the European monarchies).
Yahya, I don’t know much about Nasser, but as far as I know, Mossadegh’s struggle was not just about oil nationalization but also about proper implementation of the 1906 constitution, which gave the real power to the elected prime minister not the Shah.
Ghazal, you are right that CIA is not the only one to blame. It’s a shame that they could do it so easily and mostly in the hands of their Iranian operatives (Stephen Kinzer’s recent Book gives a precise description of the events of those days). This stresses the Yaser’s point that as far as the democracy is concerned, probably things would not be significantly different had the coup not been successful.
My main point was that Anti-Americanism as fashionable as it is throughout the world is not very helpful for the Iranian democracy movement. I will further clarify my position in my future posts.
Yaser, please don't mix things together. You cannot compare the coup in 1953 to the situation we have in Iran at present time. Khatami was elected by popular support for change. The change is clearly against the will and benefits of some other powers (rich ones) inside the country, so naturally they resisted the change. Whether or not Khatami's plans for reform were the best possible is another story.
Jamal AbdoNasser gained the control of Egypt through a coup, though he was popular because of his nationalistic ideas. Interestingly enough his role model for nationalizing Suez Channel was Mossadeq.