PEOPLE POWER LIMITS

John Quiggin's notes that "people power" is not unproblematic.

He observes:

The authorities in Iran seem to have succeeded in suppressing popular protests for the moment. More generally, it seems clear that “people power” has its limits, summarised by the aphorism that a successful revolution consists of kicking in an open door. That is, if a state is divided, unsure of itself and illegitimate even in its own eyes, a manifestation of mass opposition will be enough to bring it down. But a coherent ruling group, confident of its own rightness and willing to use force against its opponents, can retain power even in the face of a strongly mobilised majority of the public. It remains to be seen which of these analyses applies in Iran.

The analysis assumes violence is that the only kind of force or power that is effective. Joha n Galtung suggested three types of power. Threat power which employs violence. Exchange power, such as in a commercial transaction. Integrative power a relationship that develops from authenticity or truth.

It seems to be in Iran the dead vote in numbers. Apparently there were as much as three million extra votes cast in the election.

The protesters have been extraordinarily brave to mass as they have to the point that the legitimacy of the regime is under question. It is apparent that there is a division among the ruling group, who have an appreciation from thirty years ago of the potential of mass demonstrations to unseat a dictatorship supported by an external power.

Martyrs, Juan Cole notes, have a special place of honour in Shiite Islam. If the protest reappear in numbers on the streets more than likely they will be wearing black (and carrying candles) to mourn the slain, giving the lie to the identification with "the coloured revolutions". While CIA agent,Kermit Roosevelt,with his handy cheque book was a great success in 1953, this time it seems Western(US) influence is minimal or non-existent despite what the government is claiming.

When a regime relies on violence to suppress mass demonstrations, it runs the risk of creating divisions within the police and the army. For example, in 1979 there was case where a mullah rose to speak, and was ordered to be shot, another mullah stepped in he too was shot, and then another, until it reached the point the troops shot the officer giving the orders.

What ever the limits of "peoples power" such as the lack of leadership and direction that seems to have been a problem in recent days in Tehran. Still if sufficient people are prepared not to be intimidated in the face of brutality, the regime will have a problem. Of course, the regime will attempt to characterize the protesters as terrorists, or worse, and shift the blame of violence to them, even if they are in the main nonviolent.

The path followed by Iran will now either fascism or democracy. Another problem for the regime is that while it may be able to suppress expression through technological media, it does not control them. So the regime will continue to off balance in a way that does not happen in either Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Given the repression they face, the stakes are raised, with large scale demonstrations more likely rather than less so.



*