Twist in Foucault's Iranian Tale By RONOJOY SEN The Times of India | JULY 04, 2005 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1158987.cms
Islamic revolution could have gone another way What would Michel Foucault have to say about the recent Iranian elections? Foucault and Iran does not quite ring a bell, does it? In fact, Foucault, one of the most influential philosophers of our times, did write on Iran. In the autumn of 1978, when Mohammed Reza Pahlavi Shah's regime was on its last legs, Foucault visited Iran to report on events. He wrote seven despatches for a leading Italian newspaper and subsequent articles in French. Much of this remained unnoticed until the publication this June of an English translation of Foucault's writings on Iran. Foucault's observations on the Islamic revolution in Iran would probably come as a surprise to his legion of followers. The thinker, who made his mark by uncovering the multifarious forms of power in society, was an unabashed admirer of the revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini. Foucault wrote, "As an Islamic movement it can set the entire region afire, overturn the most unstable regimes, and disturb the most solid. Islam which is not simply a religion, but an entire way of life, an adherence to a history and civilisation has a good chance to become a gigantic powder keg, at the level of hundreds of millions of men". On this point, he wasn't off the mark. What is contentious in today's context is Foucault's assessment of Islam as a religion that gives to people "infinite resources to resist state power". After walking the streets of Tehran and Qom, Foucault reported that by "Islamic government" nobody in Iran meant a "political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control". For Foucault, an Islamic government signified two things: a notion of going back to Islam at the time of the Prophet and simul-taneously a movement towards a luminous future. With respect to politics in such a regime, Foucault wrote that "decisions should be made by the majority, the leaders should be responsible to the people, and each person, as it is laid out in the Qur'an, should be able to stand up and hold accountable he who governs". Does this evaluation hold in modern-day Iran or indeed any other Islamic nation in West Asia? In Iran, more than a quarter century since Khomeini stormed to power, Islam is used to bolster the state rather than to subvert it. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini as Iran's supreme religious leader 18 years ago, presides over a regime where clerics have the final say in all government decisions. It is also a society where social norms and behaviour are imposed. The Basij, a militia that often patrols the streets, enforces strict codes of dress and conduct. Then there are the Revolutionary Guards who track dissidents and are loyal to Khamenei. In fact, Iran's president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was at one time with both the Basij and the Revolutionary Guards. The other Islamic nations in the region do not fare any better when it comes to freedom of movement, speech and association. The latest Arab Human Development Report, compiled by the region's scholars and civil society actors, is a strong indictment of ruling regimes. It says, "Authoritarian regimes severely restrict freedoms and the right to political participation and civil activity to ensure that no opposition arises to challenge their unrepresentative form of government." The question is how far is the Islamic form of government which Foucault so enthusiastically endorsed responsible for the ills of the region. The authors of the development report do not directly answer that. But they do say that expressions of freedom are present in the Islamic world. For instance, they point to the Qur'an which says "there is no compulsion in religion", or to the tradition of ijtihad (interpretive reasoning) which favours the authority of the umma (nation) over the faqih (jurisprudent). Others have made the point that Islam is not necessarily inimical to democracy. This is perhaps borne out by Iran where in spite of the vetting of the presidential candidates by the Guardian Council and allegations of vote fraud and coercion, the elections were marked by a vigorous campaign and a high voter turnout. According to one estimate, some two-thirds of the 1.4 billion Muslims in the world live under democratically elected governments Turkey, Indonesia, Bangla-desh and Morocco in which Islamists are major players. For too long, however, Islam has been used as a repressive rather than a liberating force in Iran and other West Asian nations. Foucault perhaps had in mind the principles of ijtihad, ijma (consensus) and shura (consultation) when he spoke of Islamic governments using religious structures as a source for political creation. Like Mahatma Gandhi, Foucault also talked of the introduction of a spiritual dimension into political life. If Islamic governments are to fulfil Foucault's prophecies, they must reach out to the ordinary citizens and not oppress them in the name of ossified religion. -- This is ZESTGlobal. Post articles on international affairs to [email protected] If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTGlobal by sending a blank mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/join/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
