Iran is currently witnessing the most violent demonstrations it has seen since the Islamic Revolution itself. Protesters in Tehran and further afield are pouring out onto the streets despite the government declaring protests illegal. Foreign journalists, in the country for the elections, are describing police brutality and even deaths among protesters as hostility increases.
The cause of their resentment and hatred — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is currently out of the country on a visit to Russia.
“The protests showed how the government’s assertion that Mr Ahmadinejad won re-election by a margin of almost two to one had further cleaved Iranian society into rival camps. On one side are the most powerful arms of the Islamic system of government: Ayatollah Khamenei; the military; the paramilitary and the Guardian Council. On the other is a diverse coalition that has grown emboldened by the day, with some clerics joining two former presidents and Mir Hossein Mousavi, the former prime minister and main opposition candidate, who addressed the crowd from the roof of a car near Freedom Square in downtown Tehran.” (New York Times)
Of course prior to Ahmadinejad Iran had been under the rule of the more moderate Mohammad Khatami who, largely unsuccessfully, tried to introduce a measure of freedom and tolerance. This ended when the ultra-conservative Ahmadinejad became president in 2005.
The actual head of Iran is in fact the “Supreme Leader of Iran” (Ali Khamenei) who is responsible for setting and overseeing policy with the next highest office being the president. Accordingly it is hard to imagine that the views and policies of the hardliner Ahmadinejad do not carry his blessing.
Currently Ahmadinejad has set about a path of Holocaust denial, nuclear arms acquisition and open threats against Israel and those who oppose his goals for the region. His opponent in the election, Mir Hossein Mousavi, styled him an embarrassment to the country.
Unfortunately for the people of Iran and in particular those who oppose the new president there is very little they can do to communicate their unhappiness with the election and the new government. Freedom of speech and expression is tolerated in so far as it accords with the views of the government.
Dissent can be extremely hazardous to your health.
Accordingly when people wanted to protest the result as a fraud and their anger at the re-election of Ahmadinejad they were met with a blanket ban.
The fact that they are so outraged as to ignore the severe repercussions that protests might bring and took to the streets in their tens of thousands speaks volumes for the level of anger that exists in Iran right now.
In denying people a legitimate outlet for their anger they turn to other more dangerous methods which sometimes bring down the government itself.
The question here will be how much momentum is gained in the early part of the demonstrations before the state can bring it under control. If it ignites a spark we will be watching history in the making.
In South Africa prior to the election I welcomed the ANC’s new approach in allowing those within the party to voice their concerns as well as the commitment to continued media freedom.
As South Africans we enjoy freedoms denied to many citizens the world over including many western countries.
This “outlet” will stand the ruling party and the government in good stead as it allows the free exchange of ideas rather than an angry uncontrolled mob who pitch up at your door one day to advise you that your time is up.
Other than Minister Hogan being taken to task for expressing her views, which is regrettable, South Africa is witnessing robust debate, protests and a free press.
Long may it continue.
twits are twittering…
I get the sense that our current media in SA cries wolf a lot about freedoms. Perhaps, Iran is a good sanity check. Ironically in SA, it turns out that most of the people who are accused of intentions of suppressing freedoms such as press freedom, independence of the judiciary and rule of law are the ones who fought dearly for it (Zuma, Gwede, etc).
Malema made a profound observation yesterday that it was the politicians who fought and guaranteed our freedoms enshrined in the constitution. The judiciary in SA’s history collaborated and enforced apartheid. People like Solomon Mahlangu were tried and sent to gallows by the judges. Public broadcasters were state propaganda instruments. Some journalists and newspapers like Citizen were not instruments to gaurantee freedoms. Ultimately, it is the activism of peoples themselves who can gaurantee their freedoms – just like in 1976 and Iran today.
Oh, where to begin?
The New York Times, your only source, is not a reliable narrator on the Iranian elections. Remember how they lied about Iraq? Same thing could be happening.
Ahmadinejad is not a Holocaust denier and has never threatened Israel.
Iran is not acquiring nuclear arms (at least, not according to the U.S. State Department under George W Bush, which had no reason to conceal this).
It is, of course, possible that the election was stolen, but not very likely; the demonstrators are mainly affluent urbanites who represent a minority of the population.
Meanwhile, Iran probably has a freer press than South Africa. Nobody speaks up for the masses of “service delivery” protestors (except when their activities can be hijacked by Zuma supporters, as in Khutsong). Our media is muzzled by big business.
No, your prejudices and ignorance about the Middle East aside, your argument is tosh. There’s no real reason why we shouldn’t see political violence in South Africa, as we saw it in the past, if a large number of people feel that the regime no longer represents their interests — which seems extremely likely.
But – if a future generation of disenchanted young South Africans attempt to reject the ANC at the polls, then we might see something different…
traps
are we living in the same country? white people who talk against the anc are “counter-revolutionaries” and black people who do so are “in line with their white masters”.
much like you say the things that ahmedinejad does are not done without the approval of the ayatollah, it’s very rare that the things said by the ancyl are done without the approval of luthuli house.
i don’t think you realise it, but you’ve just written something *critical of* the anc, and not supporting of it.
just me $0.02.
I guess I saw a different run-up to the elections than you, Traps. It certainly looked to me like anyone not toeing the party line was rapidly ostracized. And far from a commitment to media freedom, it looked to me that the ANC was doing everything it could to reign in the free press.
Sadly, everything you have said in this post could currently be applied to one of your neighbours to the North. Botswana (yes, Botswana, not Zimbabwe) has recently introduced a draconian new media bill aimed at limiting freedom of speech. At the same time, our new president, Major General Ian Khama, and his vice president Leftenant General Mompati Merafe have overseen the formation of a paramilitary death squad, responsible for the killing and torture of a dozen or so “criminals”. These criminals as they are referred to, are not given the opportunity to appear before a court. In the latest incident, a young man was gunned down whilst sitting in the back of a car outside a public bar in the capital, Gaborone. The police have now refused opposition parties a permit to demonstrate against extra-judicial killings by the state.
All of this is happening just before an election (October) and is likely to followed by more killings, as stated by the minister for security, Major Ndelu Seretse. Even our vice president has stated that a few deaths are unlikely to tarnish our good image in the international community.
I hope the Iranian people continue to show the powers that be, that they cannot be fooled all of the time. Aluta continua!
To a great extent, South Africans must admit and acknowledge, South Africa has matured and still is in the process of maturing and growing this democracy.
As a result, it’s your kinda statements and assetion that makes one ‘Proudly South Africa’, isn’t it?
Media freedom in South Africa, what media freedom???
The vast majority of South Africans, because they are too poor or are functionally illiterate rely on Radio or TV for information on how their government is performing. They have no other access to information.
The ANC controls the SABC…
But what about eTV, partly owned by the ANC. They also broadcast the ANC line.
There is a direct correlation between stable governments and control of the mass media. Consider North Korea, Myanmar and Zimbabwe, all with stable governments, in power for more than 45 years. If we want a stable government, continue to control the mass media. While you’re at it, also challenge the fringe media. Withhold government advertising from fringe media that is out of line (like the Sunday Times – yes, it’s fringe media – almost 40% of the population can’t read! Over 65% can’t read English!).
Countries with free media have very unstable governments. Consider South Korea, Thailand and Zambia. The three countries with controlled media and stable governments are failed states. Their people are starving. Those with a free media and unstable governments are economic successes. Their people being lifted out of poverty.
Zambia for example has few resources other than copper yet their per capita GDP is more than 4 times that of Zimbabwe who have it all (2005 figures). Would you rather be poor in Zambia or Zimbabwe.
It’s our call – when good me do nothing, evil flourishes…
I fully concur. In the big scheme of things, SA, and the ANC, is/are on the right track.
As such, as confrontational the ANC’s relationship with the media has been, they have still resisted to urge to cross the line into that awful no-go territory: press censorship. Hopefully they’ll do more and, for example, vigorously discourage the typical demonizing of a critical press as “counter-revolutionary” by some of its members. Also, the undue influence on SABC and other pro-government media has to end, for the ANC to be seen to be truly for press freedom.
Fortunately, wherever the ANC appeared to have meddled, those media institutions are in legal and administrative shambles. Moreover, they cannot hold their own in objectivity, quality and business efficiency, when pitted against its counterparts in the independent press.
However, outside the issue of press freedom, one can still argue that there is room for improvement in the ANC and its governance, which still may have lots in common with Iran’s ruling group or other centralist councils found in military dictatorships or otherwise, etc. Hence, the faster we move to a true multiparty democracy the better it will be for everybody. ‘But that is the challenge reserved for the other parties, to build themselves up and offer serious challenges against total ANC hegemony. The ANC, in turn, should not appear to be intolerant to political opposition.
When that happens, we’ll then be considered a true democracy.
Shall we wait an see what will happen when the ANC looses favour with the people before blowing the ANC trumpet.
Always remember that whatever the side of the fence you sit, once anarchy gets a foot hold and the powers that be allow a little protest and not eliminating the problem immediately that government will fall.
As for press freedom it will happen like this. Now Zuma is in power the press will kiss his bum. Then it will follow that few will protest a new bill on the media restricting press freedom.
I say this because the press and other media tell us what they want us to know never the investigated facts.
They generate opinion either way based on their political leaning at the time.
A prime example of media manipulation is that it is freely, with as vehimance and biggest a headline possible always reported that every white person who injures a black is or had racist intent.
I often wonder why the whites do not use the same excuse as the blacks who do the same and say “I was trying to rob the bastard so I shot him by MISTAAAKE”
On the whole few stories are never published telling the whole story or if so it is done way after public opinion has been formed or in such a way to negate the reality of the situation.
Is that press freedom?
to the above posters who feel that that south africa has a truly free press:
just because the press is freer than it was under the nats does not mean that there is a free press here. the national public broadcaster is still largely a mouthpiece of the government; many of the reporters who have left it [for cnbc, the bbc, cnn] have personally told me that the government’s interference is a major reason as to why they left.
hell, during the election campaign, a certain political reporter was *openly* vilified by the anc because of her alleged cope support. that is not the sign of a free press, people.
i’ll chalk it up to only really having the apartheid and regional press corps to hold as an example, but on the grand scale it doesn’t hold muster. having a press that is freer than zim or freer than namibia or freer than swatini does not mean you have a free press.
Mundundu,
I think you are confusing South Africa for Zimbabwe. It is about time that you do not project your Zimbabwean Mugabe experience onto South Africa. Mandela, Mbeki and Zuma are far different from Mugabe.
Every South African began experiencing true freedoms since 1994, thanks to the ANC and other liberation movements. Many white South Africans do not know the brutality that visited the oppressed in townships and the cross boder wars thanks to the press that toed the Apartheid line. Limited newspapers like the New Nation, Vrye Weekblad and the Weekly Mail crosed the line. I only saw the picture of Mandela when he was released in 1990. It was that bad. You would have been jailed if you had his picture or his speeches in your possession. That is what the majority of South Africans know as suppression of the press. Not the current fabricated theories of lack of press freedom.
To be called “a counter-revolutionary” is a play in the kinder garden compared to journalists being jailed and killed during apartheid. Do not be a cry baby when you enter a political debate. Especially when your opponents describe correctly/incorrectly what they perceive of your behaviour.
As observed by Malema, in my earlier posts very, few of those people who are Johnny-come-lately advocates of media and the independence of the judiciary were as vocal under apartheid as they are now. So, how can the label of “counter-revolutionary” not be appropriate to describe them.
I think the fact that this dude wrote this post and all the people above (including me) got to comment is proof of the post’s accuracy.
I remember being in China for work and I couldn’t access youtube, flickr or wikipedia.
Under the apartheid government, the internet hadn’t taken off. But I wonder how they would approached it? would facebook etc be as massive today under their rule? Or would it have all been restricted?
Madoda – as a gentle introduction to a more rounded view of the SA judiciary, may I suggest you read Peter Harris’ book – In a different time, The inside story of the Delmas Four.
Let’s compare some failed states and the ANC. Any failed regime would do but I’ll use just two examples…
North Korean Government was extremely effective for the first 6 years. North Korea was a vastly better country in 1959 than South Korea. They had installed a working bureaucracy to replace the dysfunctional system left by the Japanese colonialists.
In the second 10 years, these institutions failed and instead of fixing them, the regime ruthlessly stamped out free speech. After all, this was the best government. Then total failure set in and to maintain the regime, they totally controlled all the actions of the population. The regime must survive, at whatever the cost in human life!
Zimbabwe, during the four years after independence was Africa’s success story.
Then as dissence surfaced, the regime killed any Ndebele who opposed the government (reported at 200 000). As the institutions failed, they took ruthless control of the media. As the country crumbled, the regime placed its survival above human life. They killed dissidents.
For our first four years, the ANC were successful. Then during the Mbeki period, we allowed 300 000 (World Bank Figures) to die unnecessarily from AIDS, we started controlling the mass media by preventing anyone but pro-ANC organisations to use the airwaves.
South Africa’s second period is almost over. We can still prevent a human catastrophe in South Africa but not for much longer.
Do you and I have the courage to stand up for free speech.
dj smith:
the chinese government pays a lot of people rather high salaries to actively interfere with web content. it’s rather hard to circumvent if you use the internet. [but you can still do so if you use dialup or a satellite phone, which are, respectively, time-consuming and expensive options.] also, there is also the option of calling someone outside the country, and telling them to fax you websites. much harder, and not only is it doable, it is being done.
i don’t know how the nats would have handled the internet. they might have gone the tunisian/chinese example — but keep in mind the black masses would have had so little access to the internet in the first place that it’s nearly a moot point.
the people running the show here nowadays have yet to install a competent communications minister to stop internet traffic in any way besides price — now that we’re back to ZAR8/USD1, we’ve got the most expensive internet in the world again; they would almost definitely continue to use telkom’s monopoly to manipulate access.
Traps not so sure about your reasoning – there is a restriciton on the movement of journalists in Iran at present but no restricitons on what they report (they have been quite damning in some BBC reports directly from Tehran)
A majority of the population are also online and able to Twitter their Facebooks off too and are doing so.
What you are describing is the danger to citizens who demonstrate en-masse against what they view as a wrongfully elected government – something untested in democratic SA.
Some of the writers comments to the article under discussion have their heads stuck fimly in the sand. Iran is not only a threat to Israel and has, on many occasions, threated to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. How do you fight a nation that cannot lose, such is the case with Iran? If Iran nukes Israel and in the process they nuke themselves, they are all going to Paradise and 72 virgins each (what do the ladies get?). If they nuke Israel and don’t get nuked in retaliation they will be the heros of the Muslim world. Wake up guys – Iran wants nukes to get rid of Israel because Allah said so. So who will they listen to, Obama or Allah?
If Iranians could see a few thousand South Africans marching in support of the reformers, it would help.
Send photos of your protests to Iran.