Proposal for Dialogue with Protesters: A Change in Strategy or Political Tactic
The Chief Justice suggested being ready to listen to the opinions and criticisms of protesters through dialogue. This comes when a few years ago, when Mohammad Khatami talked about dialogue and national reconciliation, everyone criticized him. Besides Khatami, in recent years, Hassan Rouhani, Eshaq Jahangiri, and many other reformist figures also called for dialogue. There were even reports of meetings centered around national dialogue among some political figures from the right and left.
Mohammad Reza Bahonar mentioned that these meetings are currently informal gatherings, and if they become organized, a spokesperson will report on them. However, no report was ever announced, and the outcome of these gatherings remained unclear. Sadegh Zibakalam, who recently announced he was banned from teaching at the university, said at the time, ‘Unfortunately, despite being an optimistic and hopeful person, I have no hope for these meetings. Unfortunately, conservatives view these meetings with reformists as decor or a showcase for the upcoming elections.’
Before this, conservatives, if they believed in national dialogue, mostly viewed it as discussions among officials behind closed doors, with little role for the people. So much so that in 2018, the Friday Imam of Isfahan said the purpose of this dialogue is for the leaders and officials of the system to sit together and resolve their differences for the benefit of the people, and I am one hundred percent in favor of this dialogue.
Show-off Dialogue
Following Mohseni Ejei’s remarks, some conservative political figures and parliament representatives repeated this idea, and the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution also announced the establishment of a House of Free Dialogue and the provision of platforms for free-thinking chairs in schools and universities. The ironic point is that this council approved the establishment of the National House of Free Dialogue in 2006, and its charter was ratified in the parliament at the time. It was supposed to operate under the supervision of the Board for Supporting Theory Criticism and Debate Chairs according to this charter. Yet, nearly 16 years later, the council has just thought of reviving the old resolution.
The recent story of inviting to dialogue goes back to a group of university Basijis who raised the banner of dialogue and invited critical and protesting students to sit and talk with them. The response, however, was that ‘we have been speaking for years, and it is you who have never recognized our demands and opinions.’ For this reason, many on social media have tested and verified this idea proposed by the authorities with examples and cases.
Dialogue with a Predetermined Outcome
Saeed Shariati, a reformist political activist, pointed out that reformists, dissidents, and critics have been saying for years, ‘Let’s talk together,’ and have made great efforts in this regard. In a thread of tweets, he wrote that during the reform period, when Saeed Mortazavi, the then Tehran prosecutor, was in power, several central council members of the Participation Front, who were also parliament representatives, arranged to talk with the late Hashemi Shahroudi, the head of the judiciary, to see what should be done with this person.
Shariati writes that when the conversation reached Mortazavi, the late Shahroudi pointed to the walls and warned of eavesdropping, and with embarrassment, admitted to all of Mortazavi’s mistakes, saying he had no authority to move or restrain Mortazavi. Yesterday, when I heard the judiciary chief’s remarks about inviting to dialogue and expressing protest to him, I remembered this memory.
Dialogue and Critics in Prison
Dialogue between the people and the power structure requires conditions, the most important of which is recognizing critics and protesters and scientifically confronting the critic, not judicial confrontation. While Raisi called the protesters flies, just as Ahmadinejad called them dirt and goats, most Twitter users pointed out the contradiction between the words and actions of those claiming dialogue.
The day after the proposal for dialogue was made, news came that Mostafa Tajzadeh, who has always led the way for dialogue and repeatedly welcomed debates with conservative and revolutionary figures, was sentenced to five years in prison.
Ali Shakouri Rad, the former secretary-general of the Union of the Nation Party, wrote in a tweet addressing Mohseni Ejei, the head of the judiciary, ‘Is your goal in dialogue to discover the truth and rectify matters, or just to silence protests? If it’s the former, why is Tajzadeh in prison?’
Why is Mir Hossein Mousavi under house arrest? Why are the words said but not heard? If it’s the latter, this type of dialogue is useless. Action is needed, not repeated promises.
Hossein Dehbashi, a documentary filmmaker, also tweeted, ‘Dear head of the judiciary, if you intend to dialogue with the most logical, educated, and patriotic intellectuals of the country, including journalists, filmmakers, documentary makers, songwriters, lawyers, sociologists, workers, teachers, retirees, students, and university professors, they are very accessible in Evin Prison.’
Sina Ghanbarpour, a journalist, also wrote that journalists, as the facilitators of dialogue, were arrested right from the start, even though they were merely reflecting reality. You continue to arrest journalists. Why are the ignorant and imprudent officials who caused this situation free, while journalists are imprisoned?
Dialogue Cannot Be Combined with Elimination and Dissolution
Another wrote that if you were truly proponents of dialogue, you wouldn’t have dissolved civil institutions like the House of the Sun and the Imam Ali Society, which were well-meaning for Iran and the deprived people, without fair trial. Pedram Soltani, vice president of the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines, and Agriculture, also said that dialogue between the government and the people is meaningless.
The government speaks through dozens of media outlets. The relationship between the people and the government should be a dialogue, meaning the people speak and the government listens. The way for the people to speak is through free elections or free protests. When we have neither, no dialogue occurs. Another user also pointed to the removal of an interview with Nika Shakarami’s mother from the website of this newspaper and the Asr Iran site, saying this happened on the very day when public announcement of dialogue was made.