The revolution in Iran is stagnating not only because of the massive repression by the mullahs, but also because of the blunt debates and the uncoordinated efforts of activists in the diaspora. A commentary by Ali Khademolhosseini, the German-Iranian human rights activist.
A revolution is only a revolution when the ultimate alternative to the current evil prevails. Yet what kind of alternative would a revolution with an unresolved outcome be? Put simply, it would be a sham, along the lines of "fake it till you make it." There is a giant smorgasbord of problems in the Iranian diaspora that stand in the way of a successful freedom revolution.
Yet these knots are not fundamentally unsolvable but require more effort, more persistence, and also more circumspection on the part of the Iranian diaspora. In this way, finding a compromise can create a real alternative.
Disputed Issue of "What Comes After the Regime?" Slows Down the Revolution
Ever since the massive march in Berlin on October 22, at the latest, the question of where and by what means freedom is to prevail and how the regime in Iran is to be subsequently replaced has emerged as an open and controversial topic. Indeed, this unresolved conundrum has long been a central obstacle, the answer to which would guide us into the next phase of the revolution.
Activists in the diaspora must take action themselves
Yet the activists in the diaspora do not perceive themselves to be in a position to find such a solution, as they often look for some prominent figures, for the exiled messiah to do it for them. They fail to recognize the fact that it is they themselves who should be motivated to find an answer. Indeed, parts of the diaspora - operating from outside Iran - do not see themselves as part of Iranian society, entitled to organize and develop politically for this purpose. Any new political power and legitimacy must emanate from ideas that are shared by the people themselves. Without people providing resources, you cannot generate power; without ideas clarifying interests, you cannot organize people. There is an explicit need for a common denominator, a public narrative that clarifies intentions, even interests and strategies. People are close in substance, yet they argue about details.
Prospects can only be devised through dialogue
The only way an alternative for the contemporary reality in Iran can emerge is if people start to converge with each other and formulate their ideas. For there is no shortage of ideas, but there is a lack of willingness to compromise and an appreciation for differences and peculiarities. The foundation for this has long been in place. For the diaspora has sufficient mobilizing power, and it has performed an admirable job in terms of emboldening people who have not previously been politically inclined to get engaged and organize themselves into groups where their views are taken into account.
Inadequate coordination impedes the movement
Thus far, however, the diversity of ideas and approaches has also brought disadvantages. Ever since the MPs started providing political sponsorships, various groups have emerged to arrange political sponsorships for a large number of political prisoners. While the intention is noble and consequential, one critical ingredient is lacking, namely, coordination among the various groups.
The absence of proper coordination has led to clutter in the offices of some parliamentarians and the need for numerous activists to restart the work all over again, ultimately creating an immense burden. Indeed, this is the real underlying reason why the revolution is not moving forward. Despite the fact that the majority of the population wants to get rid of the regime, the inexistence of a proper organizational framework for activists' work has rendered the implementation of an idea to require up to three times as many attempts to achieve the desired result.
Next stop: Referendum
But what is the goal? I learned early enough that goals, in order to be attainable and comprehensible, must be precise, quantifiable, appealing, realistic and terminated. This is exactly where dialogue would help us to act in a coordinated and goal-oriented way. For example, one of the goals could be to aim for the referendum and not to ease up on the pressure until it is accomplished. A referendum is, after all, a powerful tool for disempowering the system. Moreover, unlike all other political demands aimed at weakening the regime-although, there is no clarity on the strategy and who should take power-an elaborate demand for a referendum can answer precisely these decisive fundamental concerns and pave the way for the revolution to proceed to the next phase.
For the next phase should be about disempowering the regime, i.e., not permitting the regime to galvanize its resources. Simultaneously, it must be assured that the democratic forces will increasingly acquire more political power. One successful dialogue is the beginning of a popular coalition to eliminate the regime and pave its leadership's way to The Hague.