The people of Iran have historically shown a tendency to submit to authority. Yet this same country once experienced a democratic social order. Iran was the first nation in the Arab world to establish a parliamentary system, and for a brief period it was governed by an elected democratic leadership. That experiment, however, was dismantled through the intervention of the United States and Britain.
Blaming external forces alone misses the deeper problem. Even after that overthrow, Iran could have rebuilt its democracy if the collective had existed. But a society conditioned to obedience finds it difficult to accept democratic responsibility. As a result, people reconcile themselves to being crushed under centralized power.
When the monarchy fell, freedom did not replace it. Fundamentalism moved in instead. Religious authority assumed the role of the crown, and clerics became the new rulers. Today, Iran is again witnessing popular unrest. Yet this movement, too, is not driven by democratic aspirations. Instead, there is a push to restore the heir of the exiled monarch. For this reason, there is little cause for the democratic world to feel hopeful about Iran’s future.
Still, several democratic nations are eager to voice their support. The reason is not complicated: Iran’s oil. Reinstalling a royal successor would make the leadership easier to control and allow foreign powers to secure influence over Iran’s resources, at least on paper. For a society accustomed to servitude, subjugation often feels safer than freedom. In such a mindset, it scarcely matters who rules or who may rule tomorrow.
About The Author
Discover more from Metro Talks
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.