Social Collapse: Referendum! | With the presence of Dr. Ahmad Bokharaei, sociologist

Iran is facing simultaneous economic, political, social, and environmental crises. In these circumstances, the question of the roots of the crises and the possibility of holding a referendum has once again been raised. In this interview, Bokhari criticizes the official narrative of “social solidarity” during the 12-day war, examines the process of reducing social capital, and analyzes the place of Mousavi’s statement in recent political developments.

Starting Talk: Question about referendum and crises

Abdi Media: Is the referendum a new political game? Or is it the last window to break through the historical impasse? Iran today is facing a multitude of simultaneous crises; from economics and politics to culture, ethics and the environment. If you were to search for the roots of these crises in one place, where would that place be? Are we facing several separate problems or is it a major crisis that has swallowed everything up?

Definition of social collapse

Bukharai: It is true that the "social collapse" of a sociological semester is unclear, because in the less country such a phenomenon has occurred as a concept in the field of sociology.  But our society, as everything is different from other societies, will be different, which is called social collapse.
So I chose this lexical combination.  In a situation where a society in four cultural, social, political, and economic subsystems becomes a cloud of crises;  In this case, we will face a social collapse.

Reduction of social capital after the 12 -day war

Bukharai: Social capital declined after the two -day war with Israel had with Iran.  In spite of the non -specialized conversations that were raised that social cohesion and solidarity had increased, social capital, one of the main components of social trust, was weakened.

During this six -day war, which was practically a one -way airway to Tehran, people trusted the sovereignty;  Because individual and collective security failed to secure.  In spite of the many slogans that the set of sovereignty, many of the slogans were practically hollow, and every Israeli goal was and decided to do so.  This decline in confidence in the political system, which failed to secure and defend the country, was equal to the decline in social capital.

Social Solidarity

Bukharaei: Unfortunately, the heads of state, from the leader to the president and to the speaker of parliament, Mr. Qalibaf, all pointed out that we achieved something great during these 12-day war, and that is a kind of solidarity and cohesion.

But because there is no specialized view of the concepts and the events surrounding the confiscation are being interpreted as desirable, they applied the concept of solidarity and cohesion to what happened. However, social solidarity and cohesion are not something that is a reactive and reactive behavior that wants to emerge and disappear overnight. Solidarity is a deep social concept that has three components. What happened among the people in these 12 days was essentially a reactive behavior.

Naturally, when fellow human beings are attacked, even if you do not have a friendly and compassionate relationship with your fellow human beings, when you are attacked, you show altruistic behavior. But social solidarity has three components, none of which exist in our society. Therefore, what is referred to as social cohesion or solidarity did not happen in this 12-day war.

Three main indicators of social solidarity

Bukharaei: One of the indicators of social solidarity is participation. A cohesive and cohesive society is one in which there is participation. We observed the participation figures in the presidential elections in July 1403; the first stage had less than 40 percent participation and the second stage had less than 50 percent participation. This election was actually an indirect referendum. Or a few months earlier, in March 1402, in the parliamentary elections, the participation was so low that it was surprising; even in large cities like Tehran, representatives entered the parliament with 6 or 7 percent of the vote. When the participation figures are low in a society and non-participation is widespread, the bell of a legitimacy crisis rings. Therefore, we cannot say that social solidarity has been created in such a society.

The second characteristic of social solidarity is common beliefs. In a society, there must be more or less common beliefs. If there are many differences, that society cannot be united. In Iran, there is from the extreme traditional right to modern modernism, and this diversity has formed a huge range of demands. Therefore, there is no minimum common belief.

The second characteristic of social solidarity is common beliefs. In a society, there must be more or less common beliefs. If there are many differences, that society cannot be united. In Iran, there is from the extreme traditional right to modern modernism, and this diversity has formed a huge range of demands. Therefore, there is no minimum common belief.

The main demand of the people; rationality in decision-making

Bukharaei: The question is what do the people really want? Today, social collapse has intensified and is getting bigger like a snowball day by day. People do not want anything in particular; Their only desire is for rationality to prevail among the elements of the political system.
But today we hear Mr. Velayati, the leader’s advisor, claiming that the corridor and road named after Trump, connecting Azerbaijan to the Caucasus, will be a “slaughterhouse for Americans.” Such statements, made from top to bottom, show that rationality is under serious threat and faces a big question mark.

Environmental and energy crises; forgotten predictions

Bukharaei: We are facing a water crisis; numerous problems that analysts had warned about years ago. What happened today, the water crisis, the energy crisis, the conflict and even the threat of war over resources, were predictable. But ignoring the warnings has made these crises tangible and serious today.

Question about the concept of “people” and the 12-Day War

Abdi Medya: Some people who seek or are seeking power always seize issues for their own benefit. The word “people” is also a strange word; what statistical population are we talking about? Do the people want it? Will the people be inclined to this direction or not?

In the 12-Day War, a discourse was formed that this war was not a war of the Iranian people but a war of Israel against the Islamic Republic. On the other hand, some showed that Israel attacked other parts and innocent people were killed. Even some actions that amounted to war crimes occurred; such as the attack on Evin Prison or centers that should have been protected but were targeted.

This discourse cannot be created without a previous context. Even if the enemy wants to design a psychological operation, if there is no internal capacity and potential, such a thing will not take place. How do you think this concept was created that a war of a foreign force is considered a war against the ruling political system, while an attack was also carried out on Iranian soil?

Listen unfiltered on Castbox

Difference between Iran and the Islamic Republic

Bukharaei: Experts believe that Iran does not even have the capacity of its current population in terms of capacity and standard facilities. Perhaps half of the current population would be appropriate. However, Mr. Khamenei has pointed out that we can have a population of 150 million. This difference in perspective shows that when there is no expert perspective and an ideological perspective prevails, the problems deepen.

People do not want much; they just want to be treated rationally and be considered a "nation," not a "ummah." The ummah means specific individuals who are defined in the form of a disciple-follower relationship and under an ideology. However, people want to be seen as a nation.

Electoral participation; a sign of public dissatisfaction

Bukharaei: Last year, people clearly showed that they do not agree with the policies of the Islamic Republic. In the first round of the presidential election, participation was less than 40 percent, and in the second round, less than 50 percent. The 10 percent that was added to the turnout in the second stage was more out of fear of Jalili's victory than out of interest in the doctors.
With all the political, religious, and ideological levers, the government tried to increase the turnout; even Mr. Khamenei said, "Even if you don't vote, just be present." But despite all this pressure, more than 50 percent of the people did not participate. This was a real referendum and survey that showed that a large part of society does not want the Islamic Republic.

People's behavior during the 12-day war; defense of the system or humane reaction?

Bokhari: The same reality can be seen in the behavior of the people during the 12-day war. What happened was a reactive and emotional altruistic behavior, not defense of the Islamic Republic or even defense of the concept of Iran. People just wanted to help their fellow man.

We conducted a survey among a group of 32 elites. 75 percent of them expressed happiness and were not upset about what had happened. The remaining 25 percent, instead of defending the system, said that if we have any criticism of the current process, we should solve it ourselves. This shows that even among the remaining minority, there was no explicit defense of the system.
If the Islamic Republic had at least some rationality, it should have come to this reality today; and in fact, they themselves know what the function of the Islamic Republic system is. The energy and water woes that have gripped the country are indicators that appear one after the other and appear objectively and tangibly, even if they have been hidden until now.

Question about the distinction between “Iran” and “Islamic Republic”

Abdi Medya: So, as you say, the distinction between Iran and the Islamic Republic was predictable. Analyzing trends in this regard is very important. The issue of the 12-day war and the people’s reactions has been widely discussed, and there are different perspectives on it.
Many scientists were targeted, many academics and elites were harmed. Even many questions were raised about the military positions; what level of preparedness was this? The issue of surprise, intelligence and security penetration are points worth pondering that should be discussed for hours.
It seems necessary to discuss this with specialized experts as well as how it is possible for a military with so many claims to suddenly become so infiltrating. But now the main topic of the program is the referendum. Before Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi put forward this theory, a number of political activists, university professors, and elites had proposed a referendum. A referendum that will lead to fundamental changes. They even proposed the formation of a Constituent Assembly.
Mr. Mousavi also brought up the referendum issue once again. This is not a new idea, but it is different from the idea of ​​the revolutionary subversives. Perhaps the view of Mr. Mousavi and these political elites is a move towards fundamental and non-violent changes. In your opinion, will this happen? Have you studied the idea of ​​Mr. Mousavi and 176 others; to what extent does society accept this idea?

Four political currents in Iran

Bukharaei: There are currently four currents in Iran: the fundamentalist and reformist currents that are intra-governmental, and the revolutionary and subversive currents that are considered extra-governmental. The difference between revolutionary and subversive is that revolutionary makes sense within the system, but subversive is outside it.
Revolutionary is not intra-governmental, but “inside the system.” Intra-governmental means by elements that are present in the official structure of governance; But within the system means that the system as a whole is accepted, but its structures require serious changes. Therefore, the difference between seeking change and overthrowing lies in the boundary between “within the system” and “outside the system.”

Explanation of “within the system” and “within the government”

Abdi Madia: Please explain the difference between “within the system” and “within the government.”

Bukhari: The implementers and goals of the fundamentalists and reformists have mostly all been within the government; those who have been active in the official structure of governance over the past few decades, from Mr. Hashemi to Khatami, Ahmadinejad, Rouhani, Raisi, and today, Pezizkian. We call these trends “within the government.” But these trends have shown their inefficiency for years and their time of death has practically come.

In contrast, one can seek change within the social order without being a fundamentalist or a reformist. This type of change is more radical and structural. Subversion is a behavior that may be accompanied by violence and a revolutionary flavor; but transformation can be a soft and non-violent subversion.
Whether it is subversion or transformation, they may end up in the same destination, but from two different paths. It seems that Mr. Mousavi is seeking transformation; a transformation that makes sense within the system as a whole but with fundamental and structural changes, the existing system will eventually face a new reality. Mr. Mousavi has always raised the issue of a referendum; both in his letter of 15 Bahman 1401 and in his recent statement after the 12-day war.

The themes of Mousavi’s statement

Bukharaei: Mr. Mousavi’s statement had seven themes:

Condemnation of the crimes of the United States and Israel against Iran. This shows that he did not express satisfaction with Israel’s attack on Iran, while some subversives may have welcomed this situation.

Referring to the IRGC's dead as "martyred children of the regime." Mousavi used this phrase in his statement.

Using ideological and Quranic terms. He says these opportunities are "breezes blown by God." This indicates the religious aspect of the statement. Mousavi is a religious person and it is natural that such a view should be present in his writings.

Emphasis on the Constituent Assembly and the new structure, along with the discussion of the referendum. He says the current structure does not represent all Iranians; part of society accepts the legitimacy of this system, but the majority does not.

Referring to the need to release political prisoners.

Changing the approach of the national media. He emphasizes that the IRIB must change. While, for example, Mr. Pezzekian had said on Journalist's Day that IRIB was the people's news source during the 12-day war; a statement that was surprising and far from reality.

A structural look at past mistakes. Mousavi says that today's bitter situation (including the 12-day war) is the result of a series of major mistakes in the past.

The difference between Mousavi's transformationalism and reformism

Abdi Madia: There is also a kind of ideological connotation in this statement.

Bokharaei: Yes. But at the same time, it is very different from reformism. Reformism has been at the end of its road for years and is no longer able to respond to the needs of society. Mousavi, however, speaks from a transformational perspective; a perspective that goes beyond reformism or fundamentalism.

Question about the ineffectiveness of parties and Mousavi's solution

Abdi Medya: Both reformism and fundamentalism, as parties within the government, have been criticized many times. People have also repeatedly stated that these currents no longer have a place with the Arabs and cannot offer an effective solution, because their hands have been exposed. Do you think Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi's plan can be a solution? Is he simply looking for a political gesture or can this plan help society? Which plan will the people welcome and what is more desirable for Iranian society?

A more desirable solution; Mousavi's search for change

Bukharaei: On average, what Mr. Mousavi offers is more desirable. We went through a revolution once and experienced its consequences. Perhaps for this reason, today's society is afraid and skeptical of revolutionary currents and the settling of accounts after each revolution.
Of course, a percentage of people are in favor of overthrowing, but ultimately I feel that what will happen in society is the result of the contradictions that exist within the government. Elements of our political system have themselves concluded that the Islamic Republic lacks the necessary function and has reached a dead end. But because they are confined within themselves and have no connection with the outside, they are unable to get out of this dead end; like someone floundering in a swamp and the more they try, the deeper they sink.

Internal contradictions of the system and the role of leadership

Bukharaei: This does not mean that all elements, close or far from power, think alike. It is natural for any political system to strive for its survival. But there are many contradictions within the system that will become more apparent day by day, especially in the absence of the leadership.

The vitality of the current leadership is an important indicator that practically affects the scope of protests and developments. In their absence, the contradictions will become more prominent. Ultimately, the synthesis that will emerge from these contradictions is close to what the reformers are demanding.

The importance of popular demands

Bukharaei: Some may say that my analysis is optimistic and that I have unconsciously leaned towards a desired outcome. But the reality is that, in my opinion, the path of developments in Iranian society will move towards the same transformation. Of course, some costs must be paid; the process of demands must be intensified, and this path will not be without costs.

The Islamic Republic, as an ideological system, will not inherently recognize the civil and legal rights of the people on its own behalf. This is the nature of ideology; because it does not derive its source of legitimacy from the people. Therefore, the only way forward for society is to demand.
The Munich seminar, which was held at the initiative of Mr. Reza Pahlavi, can be considered an example of this demand. Their political weight may not be as high as they imagine, but the fact that they are demanding is valuable. Even the work of media outlets like you at Abdimedia, which are demanding to their own extent, is valuable. Demanding is a necessary condition for achieving what society desires.
If this scene of demanding is eliminated, the path to change will be long and costly. But if this process is strengthened, we can play the role of a facilitator, like a midwife who delivers a child.

Question about the non-violence of society and the referendum path

Abdi Medya: What is the process like? I agree with what you said. Based on my knowledge of Iranian society, I feel that Iranian society does not seek violence and tension. People do not want to kill and slaughter. For various reasons, many children of this society have been killed; young people who could have been the flagships of their families, but became overcrowded. Our society has lost many loved ones and is facing a crisis in this regard as well.

In a social tension or protest, many young people are lost. I do not want to differentiate, but rather I say with a general and external view: the people’s desire is not to seek trouble. They do not want the government to create a problem for them so that they are forced to fix it. As they say, “No one cares about a healthy lamp.”

How will this path be followed? How can society take the path of making demands and reach the referendum discussion?

The Three-Stage Process of Demanding

Bukharaei: The process of demanding consists of three parts:

Identifying the need

Expressing the need

Following up to meet the needs

Given the characteristics of our society, which is moving in the context of social collapse, I must say that one of the characteristics of social collapse is “divergence,” not convergence. That is, individuals prefer their individual interests over collective interests. Our society more or less has this characteristic; we are not a cohesive society where if we identify needs, we all express them loudly and move forward unitedly. This fragmentation and divergence is a historical characteristic of Iranian society.

Preparing Society for Demanding

Bukharaei: The more problems present themselves to us and we struggle with them in our daily lives, the more ready society becomes to demand.

For example, for years there was talk about the water crisis, land subsidence, depletion of groundwater reserves and lack of rainfall, but few people understood these issues as real problems. Now, however, the crises have become tangible and tangible, and the public understanding of them as real problems has been formed. This process makes demands in society more pronounced.

Full file of Abdi Media's conversation with Dr. Ahmad Bokharaei, sociologist