The Meaningless of Meaning

Iranian blogger Ramin Parham, Iran-Shar Blog:

In a democracy, the Constitution sets "the rules of peaceful competition for the exercise of power" says Raymond Aron (1). In a theocracy, on the contrary, Sovereignty belongs, not to the people and their representatives, but to the Almighty, represented by the "qualified theologians", says the "islamic Constitution" of Iran. READ MORE

The islamic "structure of government" in Iran is not "complex", as the gaullist French daily Le Figaro pretends, in its June 27 edition, but rather quite "unique". "In Iran there is a political regime where power is considered as emanating from God and exerted by those invested with the religious authority", says Mohammad-Reza Djalili, author of the "Illusion of reforms", in his latest book, the "Geopolitics of Iran" (2). "The police, the intelligence services, the armed forces, the islamic militia, the TV and radio, the rich foundations, and the mosques belong to the restricted power domain directly controlled by the Supreme Leader who is in charge of everything from the judiciary to the organization of elections and who possesses all the means in order to paralyze the Parliament and the President". Regarding the Parliament, Djalili adds that, "contrary to pre-revolutionary Iran's bicameral National assembly, the current unicameral assembly is no longer national but islamic" (2).

Given the above introductory note, how could one explain the nonesense that one could read in Western media, not all of them yet far too many of them, when it comes to covering Iranian affairs?

For Olivier Roy, the unfortunate oracle who predicted, 9 years before Ground Zero, the "End of political islam"! Ahmadinejad's "victory" is a "class vote"! As if "competition for the exercise of power" within a binary theocratic political system, based on such antinomies as the "self" and the "non-self", the "shia" and the "non-shia", the "rejaal" [defined as male-only political and social personalities] and the "non-rejaal", the "theologian" and the "non-theologian" ... could be explained in terms of class struggle, in much the same way marxists would interpret social dynamics within a competitively structured capitalistic society!

Much along the same line of nonesense, Pierre Rousselin, an editorialist with the same gaullist Le Figaro, who, only a week earlier, after the June 17th first round, had argued that "voting in Iran is anything but futile", underscores, in the French daily's June 27 issue, the "paradox that Ahmadinejad is the first secular President of the islamic republic"!! Roger Kimball once summarized the absurdity of post-modern deconstructionism in a laconic formula: the "meaningless of meaning". Under Pierre Rousselin's pen, what does the adjective secular really mean, if it means anything at all?

Rousselin's "paradox" is a double nonesense: a) It is a nonesense because Ahmadinejad is not the "first secular President" of the islamic republic. Before him, Bani Sadr and Rejaii, Ahmadinejad's role model, were the first two "non-turbaned" presidents of the islamic republic; b) if by secular, or laïc in French, Rousselin means non-theocratic, Ahmadinejad is anything but non-theocratic, for, under theocratic rules, "practical allegiance to vellayat", or the rule of the supreme "qualified theologian", is a sine qua non requirement and non-theocratic political forces are simply barred, not just from running in "elections", but from political existence altogether!

Last but not least, one could look into a direction, closer to Western capitals, when trying to understand some of the absurdities that could be read, here and there, on major European and US editorials and Op-eds.

Close to 80% of all French editorialists, paper, TV, radio ... argued, over columns and pages and days and weeks of air-time, for the "Yes" vote on the European Constitution referendum. Yet, on May 29, an overwhelming majority of the French rejected the proposed treaty. Likewise, prior to the US November 4, 2004, presidential elections, all major, mainstream media in the US openly favored or even outrightly called, in the case of the New York Times, for a John Kerry vote. American heartland overwhelmingly ignored the savant editorials and the Old Grey Lady's call. When some disenchanted Western media go so disconnected from their own reality, from the anxieties and aspirations of their own people, how could one possibly expect them to be critical in their analyses of the enchanting Iranian heartland?

These considerations on the absurdity of some Western commentaries apart, let me recall an illuminating if not enlightening story here!

Back in the mid-1980s, in France, a not so little drama broke out, made public by the daily Liberation. As it unfolded, it turned out that a French reporter, disguised as a special envoy from the islamic republic of Iran, had approached a number of French intellectuals and journalists, proposing, in exchange for a lavish treatment, that his interlocutors engage into a media campaign aimed at enhancing the image of the khomeinist republic. The long list of French contacts included some very high-profile "opinion makers". Unscrupulously, many had accepted the offer. To my knowledge, and in order to avoid a shameful cataclysm, the list was never published.

Notes:

(1) Introduction a la philosophie politique: democratie et revolution. Raymond Aron, Fallois editions, Paris, 1997.

(2) Geopolitique de l'Iran. Mohammad-Reza Djalili. Complexe editions, Paris, 2005.

Another fascinating analysis of the media.