The ongoing political turmoil serves as a reminder that ever since the first days of the Islamic Republic , there have been two sovereignties in Iran: one divine and one popular, writes Ramin Jahanbegloo, an exiled Iranian dissident and former Reagan-Fascell democracy fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy.
Divine sovereignty, derived from God’s will, bestows power on the faqih, currently Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while popular sovereignty has emerged from the social and political work of Iran’s resilient civil society.
“The presence of these two incompatible and conflicting conceptions of sovereignty, authority and legitimacy has always been a bone of contention in Iranian politics, often defining the ideological contours of the political power struggle,” he contends. “The present crisis in Iran after the presidential election is rooted in the popular quest for the democratization of the state and society, and the conservative reaction and opposition to it.”
Vigorously defending Iranians’ rights could enhance U.S. credibility inside Iran and boost support for a compromise with the West, writes the Washington Institute’s Michael Singh. Some observers invoke the U.S.-backed coup against Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadeq in 1953 to suggest that Iranians will resent perceived interference in their internal affairs by foreign powers.
“Nevertheless,” he insists, “whatever chances exist for successful engagement with the Iranian regime will not be dimmed by a vigorous defense of the rights of the Iranian people; rather, those prospects would paradoxically be enhanced.”
Recent Comments