“The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth”

As Ben Ali and Mubarak eventually conceded to “their people” with reverberations being felt in other Arab countries, Iran swelled with courage and excitement to join in the democratic wave after its own momentum had abated since a year and a half ago. Pro-Democracy Iranians took to the streets to co-opt the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution to make their grievances heard. The diaspora flooded the various waves of technology to show support and make viral the pictures and videos that document the oppression and injustice the Iranian people are subjected to. However, while I do not like to be a “debbie downer”, the Iranian people do not face an oppressor like the one’s found in Tunisia, Egypt, or many other Arab countries in upheaval. They face something worse.

This might seem to be a “duh” thing to say, but what I want to point out is that the Iranian people are fighting a very, very different beast. Iranians face an oppressor on two fronts. One front includes the formal institutions of the Islamic Republic that include the President, the Majlis (Parliament), the Velayat-e-Faqih (Supreme Leader), Guardian Council, you know what, just see this picture here. The other front is the zealots, which include the Basij whom blend in with the general Iranian society and “tip off” authorities on opposition members and use indiscriminate violence to keep the Iranian people “in check”.

Unlike Iran, the governments of Ben Ali and Mubarak (and most of the other Arab countries) ruled their countries through a strong, organized, and vicious security apparatus. The strength of its power relied upon a swift cracking down upon dissidents and relied very little on having “popular support”. Sure it has the well-to-do, and they put up a fight as the pro-Mubarak forces did alongside the military, but they were egregiously outnumbered and have a lot more to lose should they get injured—most pro-Mubarak demonstrators/supporters hail from the upper classes of Egyptian society. Therefore, in every sense of the phrase, they did not have popular support.

Iran on the other hand has one too many experiences with “revolution”. In fact, you could say that the current Iranian regime wrote the handbook on modern revolutions. The key players that brought the Islamic government into power knew all too well that if they wanted to dethrone the more financially and militarily powerful Shah, they would need every man, even the most mendicant. Not to say that joining forces with the poor was a novel idea, as the French have immortalized, but Islam being built on the foundation of helping the poor, encouraging an austere lifestyle, and equality before God regardless of class produced a much greater symbiotic relationship that the poor could rally behind.

This relationship not only brought the Islamic government into power, but it has maintained their power through the Basij–a volunteer paramilitary organization used to intimidate, abuse, and rape dissidents, with their downtime hobbies including study of the Qur’an and various recreational activities like soccer, cards, and slapping each other in the face.

The Basij are primarily comprised of the poorer demographics of Iranian society, where many of them receive financial support and health services through membership (akin to how the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt operates). I want to clarify by saying that all those who are poor are NOT Basij, for many who are poor are on the side of the opposition. Instead, those who are members and receive benefits from the system find they have a lot to lose if the Islamic regime were to go. Their very identity lies with the organization, the Islamic Republic, which results in them laying their lives down for the Supreme Leader.

This is not to say that the Iranian people don’t stand a chance. They will emancipate themselves for the regime cannot sustain its current discourse not only politically and socially, but also economically. Yet, I believe that “emancipation” will come at the heavy price of going through years of protracted conflict. While the demonstrations after the 2009 presidential election were nonviolent and peaceful (on the opposition’s side of course), this time around the opposition is fighting back. As the government further cracks down on the opposition, it systematically radicalizes the opposition to take more extreme and potentially violent means in acquiring their rights. You add that to the resolve of the Iranian regime and the Basij who readily accept martyrdom, the conflict can escalate into something that would make Francisco Franco nostalgic.

Hero

A couple weekends ago, I attended a workshop and discussion on citizen activism by David LaMotte. David, a musician and humanitarian activist, began the workshop with the story of Rosa Parks. He quickly went over the fateful day that made Rosa Parks an icon for the civil rights movement, but this is not the story that was important to him. It was the timeline before and after the snapshot in history that he found most intriguing. Before: Rosa Parks was a twelve year member and secretary of the NAACP. Prior to her joining the NAACP, she was married to Raymond Parks–a long-time member of the NAACP. Prior to Rosa and Raymond dating, someone introduced Raymond to the NAACP. The individual who introduced Raymond to the NAACP is, unfortunately, lost in history, but as LaMotte unfolded the timeline, everyone in the workshop silently agreed this unknown figure – active in the NAACP and brought his or her activism to Raymond – changed the world.

Equally important are the events that followed Rosa Parks’ flashpoint in history. The day after Rosa Parks’ arrest, 51 ministers came together in a Montgomery, Alabama church basement to discuss how they should proceed in regards to  Parks’ arrest. After intense deliberation, the group of ministers decided that they would pursue Parks stance against injustice, which sparked America’s Civil Rights Movement. The individual whom the ministers agreed should take the lead and be the face of this movement because he was a newcomer to the city, was Martin Luther King, Jr. The deliberation and consensual agreement of these 51 mostly unknown ministers, in essence, catapulted the career and heroism of one the world’s greatest historical icons.

The conclusion I drew from LaMotte’s vignette was the enormous power individual’s have when they engage in activism, sparking participation, unabashed story telling, and/or following a purpose they believe in. However, many pull back from “being active”. Since acknowledgement is rarely immediate or beyond the patience of most people (if acknowledgement is even given within one’s lifetime, which is not always the case), it does not fulfill their “heroic mythologies”. Therefore, such pursuits are deemed naive and dismissed as “too ideological”, which LaMotte points out is an irony, for any goal in any business, operation, venture is an ideal that one attempts to strive to.

Listening to LaMotte convey his series of vignettes and discuss the very idea of “activism”, I began reflecting upon my intentions of joining a program like conflict analysis and resolution. Reflecting honestly, I realized that I truly do have an honest motivation in helping others, but I also do want to be lauded for my work. I am not the only one, otherwise Mary Shelley would not have written the dreaming Henry Clerval the way she did. Yet, for the last year and half of being in the program, I was upset in myself for feeling the way I did. I cannot help but dream of ideals and ideas of what I want to do and where I want to be. However, if there is anything that I learned from the field of conflict analysis and resolution, is that the thoughts, intentions, and actions of men and women are very complex. My intentions are not purely selfish, nor are they purely altruistic. They are somewhere in between and this is what makes me human. LaMotte’s talk helped me come to terms with this, but I also must be willing to be honest and critical about myself. However, criticism has its limits as well if it is going to shackle my potential to act or be creative.

The world needs heroes. They serve a purpose in inspiring people. However, we must remain cognizant that they are human, just like you, me, Raymond Parks, and the 51 ministers that change(d) history. Therefore, being active and pursuing things like peace, resolution, or reconciliation are all laudable, realistic goals, for it takes regular people – who are one in same as heroes – to pursue them. No one else can.

The Spark

I begin with Thanksgiving 2010.

I was invited by a good friend of mine from my conflict resolution program to have Thanksgiving dinner with her and her family and friends. There was great food, great discussions, warm atmosphere, and laughter. At dinner, each person shared their interesting, eclectic life experiences and worldviews as so many dinners with newly acquainted friends do. When the conversation got to me, I attempted to articulate what I was studying and future plans I had in mind after I graduate. I failed miserably.

———————–

Minutes of the dinner (and I paraphrase):

Bardia: “Based upon my experience and knowledge of conflict resolution so far, the majority of people in my field pursue a career in an NGO or government agency. These organizations, though beneficial, often lack the resources and synergy to create ‘real’ change in the world. Furthermore, people in my field often find working with private organizations as anathema to their ideals, as they are often the culprits of producing much of the systemic problems in the world. However, while many private firms have pursued wrong or illegal policies, many firms do not. Furthermore, greater public scrutiny and access to information has pushed many emerging firms to fall in line with “positive goals” for image is often key to a company’s success.

With the turn of the twenty-first century and the awareness of global climate and environmental problems, we see an emergence of companies pursuing “green” ventures and investors desiring to invest in “green” or socially constructive projects. Now more than ever good ideas are getting funded in order to pursue these problems.

Therefore, I desire to start a business that provides “green” and socially conscious solutions and services to the public. The main product would be green produces and solutions such as urban farming plans and green construction. It would be interconnected with local communities that work in these projects to help spark field education and experience, along with opportunities for entrepreneurship–creating a sustainable venture…”

Mom at table: “So what would your role be?”

Bardia: “Bring the necessary elements together to pursue such goals. Acquire engineers, business administrators, project managers, social workers…”

Mom at table: “So what is it that you offer at the table?”

Bardia: “Being able to see the intersection of problems that need to be addressed for positive social change.”

Mom at table: “Couldn’t you have done this with any other background or degree?”

Bardia: “Uhm…errr….uhhh…yea…no……….”

———————–

Despite my excitement of having come to a relative conclusion of what I want to pursue in my life and how much it made sense to me in my head, I realized that my “elevator talk” has serious holes. Therefore, this blog – while not necessarily starting out with a bang – is to document my dilemmas, depressions, optimisms, and overall thoughts as I pursue a field that – to the perceptions of many (not necessarily the mom in my story, for she had very valid questions) – has no real distinctive value. I hope to change that perception/perspective by perfecting my “elevator speech” and improve my role in collaborating with others that might find insights and/or benefits from this blog.

Perhaps an adequate response:

“What does it take to create a good government or society? It takes a number of factors. Having functional and stable markets, law and order, education, political systems, defense, avenues in which people can improve their daily lives, etc. Who do we turn to for consulting in improving these systems for good governance and society? Academics and experts in economics, law, politics, military strategy, sociology, psychology, and the list goes on. However, why do we fail time and time again in addressing system domestic and global problems keeping over a billion people in penury and violence with another few billion on a shaky foundation? Because academics and experts in each field see the world in a unique way and speak a unique language that is dissonant with academics and experts in other fields. If these consultants and the public that attempts to understand them fail to understand each other – which their collaboration is a fundamental requirement for good governance and society to work – it creates conflict.

This crossroads in collaboration is where conflict analysts and resolvers can find themselves: by being the keystone that unites all the different fields, viewpoints, and language together. How? Because conflict analysis and resolution requires their students to learn as many different, complex fields as possible and find unique ways to bridge the conflict in language, viewpoints, and understanding. The curriculum includes economics, law, politics, international relations, sociology, psychology, and a multitude of other fields that require its students to decipher and make sense of this crossroads, or in other words, conflict.”

Perhaps this is what I could have said, and hopefully this makes more sense. I hope that somebody can poke holes in this conclusion to make my goals and ambitions clearer and better. All-in-all, this is an interesting journey in conflict analysis.