If you are agree with whose think that we could have an objective narration or analyze about politics I recommend you to leave this post. I don't want to waste my time to argue about this issue. Instead, I am going to give you an explanation for different narration that you can notice while reading or see reports about Iran’s politics. One side is the Axis of Evil, other side is the most stable country in the Middle East, one side is a country which is accused of supporting terrorist groups, the other side is a country which performs the most effective military operation against the ISIS. One side is a country which commits to Human Rights violations, in the other side is the reports showing that 70 percent of university students in Iran are girls with astonishing social roles. One side is the Republic Islamic of iran based on islamic ideology, other side is the most secular society in middle east, one side is the most important enemy of America other side is the most pro american people in the Middle East. Which side is right? I’m not going to answer this question, maybe later on. But another question shows up: Is it possible to avoid this polarized narrations? My answer is No. why? The best way to understand the politics of every country is listen to people who come from and live there and know thier language and culture and so on. In the case of Iran and countries like even if you do this, you still don't have a convergent narration from people and this character is unavoidable. How is it possible?
We have a deep historical gap between Iranian nation and the state of the iran one both called Iran. In the nation-state period this association is the framework. But this framework is not obvious all around the world. People don't understand their government as the most important institution of a state as their representative. By contrast the government may seem to be an enemy. The approach of the government toward to people might be like a source of support and danger. It acts like that the government and other governments (strangers) are in competition to use or manipulate this huge resource. This gap creates two sides far from each other. You are with government or against it. So, as this gap is so wide, no one can stay in middle or at least it is too difficult. It means you have to choose your side despite this fact that the real situation especially in respect of the international issue is not based on this polarized positions.
For example the it is obvious that the international sanctions against Iran damage Iran’s economic. As result of these sanctions, jobs reduce in the country and this make people poor which leads to an economic depression. Many citizens died in air crashes or due to the lake of medical materials. Even the Iranians who live outside of Iran are punished. For example Bank of America in US and PNP bank in France recently closed the iranian student's accounts. It means that the sanctions work like an act of violence against Iranian basic humans rights. Despite all these facts, you can find groups of Iranian Human Rights activists who are for the sanctions. How could it be possible?
Another consequence of the sanctions is the these sanction do have a harmful effect on the lives of ordinary people in spite of fact they put pressure on the Iranian government. The government which is responsible for a number of systematic act of violence against humans rights. So, in the front of a huge gap between the nation and the state, those activist choose to be against the government. The deep gap that I’ve explained above, don’t let those humans rights activists do any things that can help state of Iran notwithstanding it may serve the interest of 70 million human beings.
I’ve promised to respect tp the limit of have 500 words and actually I’ve already passed this limit so I should stop here. Yet I will write more about Iran’s politics and society, later.
No comments:
Post a Comment