Shirin Ebadi and the Necessity of Militant Democracy

Through her pro-war positions (whether born of political and geopolitical stupidity, or of a delusional—and perhaps stupid—justification called R2P), and by placing herself under the shadow of Pahlavism and a fraudulent project that, in the name of freedom, seeks to “take Iran back for his family” into the clutches of the Pahlavi plundering family and its appointee, and that has taken on the leadership of a transition to a kind of liberal-nationalist fascism (all while exploiting the slogans of some of the people bloodied in Dey, so that it can also place the likely defeat on the shoulders of the people and sulk for a while), Shirin Ebadi has betrayed an important part of her own past record and insulted her public persona. Like some others, perhaps in the final decades of her life, she wished to exact a historical or psychological revenge on her times—and she did. But Shirin Ebadi herself, despite the importance of a forceful critique of this illegitimate and exceedingly dangerous act of hers, is secondary to this discussion and merely its pretext. It is equally unimportant that some people, whether out of lack of courage and fear of taking a direct position or in order to whitewash their own known records, write letters calling for her Nobel Peace Prize to be taken away instead of mounting a clear political and ethical attack on her positions—without even taking the trouble to read the statutes of the Nobel Foundation or Nobel’s will. These are side issues. The main question is this: do we have the right to attack Shirin Ebadi and people and “associates” like her in this way? Is this harshness undemocratic? Is it exclusionary, an imitation of fascism? Should such positions not be met with tolerance, dialogue, and an inclusive national conversation? No!

This is not merely an ordinary political disagreement in a symmetrical, established democratic arena. This is not a conflict between two equally weighted policy lines in a stable society, where everyone can be seated around a table and asked to reach an understanding. Iran’s question is the possibility and the means of moving from despotism “to” democracy; the question is the very possibility of realizing democracy, not preserving an established democracy. In such a situation, one cannot confront forces that in practice manufacture legitimacy for war, aggression, authoritarianism, national tutelage, the reproduction of political monopoly, the return of SAVAK, and “permanent” dependence on the United States and Israel by the standards of the relatively calm, legal, and balanced world of an institutionalized and enduring democracy (which our celebrities are accustomed to, live in, and presumably have learned from and drawn inspiration from).

Those who recoil from this sharp line-drawing stand in a fanciful, asymmetrical place, and their image of Iran under war and despotism is romanticized and imaginary. They imagine they are sitting in Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, or Finland and that a “national dialogue” must be launched between the two sides of the political spectrum. They do not understand (perhaps!) that in the Iranian situation, where the fundamental issue is still the “possibility” of the people’s political agency, the “negation” of despotism, the “rejection” of tutelage, and the “prevention” of / resistance to the fascistization and management of the horizon of transition, neutrality is not a virtue; it is misery. SpongeBob-style tolerance is not democracy; it is cowardice or ignorance. In such a situation, tolerating forces that, in the name of and with the promise of salvation, call for war and demand the continuation of war, destruction, and the killing (surely, in their view, unavoidable) of ordinary citizens and the destruction of infrastructure (with the delusional slogan, “We’ll build it better”) is not a sign of democratic maturity, but a sign of ethical and political bankruptcy.

Sharp demarcation with warmongering, with calls for foreign aggression, with the normalization of hereditary authoritarianism, and with the expansion of fascist nationalist projects, with the deception of liberals hand in hand with the Islamic Republic’s rentier network, and all the rest, is neither “eliminating” nor “undemocratic.” On the contrary, this is the minimum defense of the possibility of democratic politics. This is the defense of democracy itself. This is a very clear example of the necessity of Militant democracy. Democracy does not mean that whoever acts against the principle of freedom, political equality, and the right of people to determine their own destiny, should still be treated with the same gentle language of disagreement between the two parliamentary factions. Are you mocking us or are you setting yourself up for it? Democracy is not suicidal. Democracy is not obliged to give the forces that want to seize the future through crisis, war, hereditary leadership, and nationalist authority the same legitimacy and margin of safety that it gives to a normal opponent loyal to the rules of plurality.

So, yes, we have the right to attack Shirin Ebadi and her many like her with the harshest words; not out of personal grudge, not out of a desire to purge, but out of defending the minimal boundaries of political honor and defending the “possibility” of democracy and the “hope” for it. To neutralize the very destructive effect of their movement on public opinion and the solidarity, convergence, and intellectual coherence of democracy-seekers. When someone slips from the symbolic position of defending human rights to justifying war and aligning with and under the flag of authoritarian projects, it is no longer just a matter of “political error.” He has put all his symbolic and legal possibilities, as well as his Nobel Prize, at the service of growing authoritarianism, reproducing tyranny, and trapping criminals, in the name of transitional justice and peaceful transition. This is crossing a red line. This is entering the realm of legitimizing disaster. In the face of such a transition, neutral, polite, and reductive language (in the name of democratic dialogue and tolerance) is itself a form of collusion. Less political lawyers set destructive and bad examples. With extreme restraint and concentration in honoring his (perhaps possibly) honorable record, they merely “interrogate” him. Instead of using the strongest language to question him, condemn him, and then, if he does not return, expel him and remove him from the sphere of human rights and consign him to the political sphere.

The issue is not whether his Nobel Peace Prize should be officially revoked or not; that is an institutional and legal issue and has nothing to do with the essence of the matter. The issue is that someone can remain a formal winner of a prize, but morally and politically, lose the right to bear that title in the eyes of the public conscience. And this is exactly what should be said bluntly, without any pretense, and without resorting to foreign authorities: when someone who was known in the name of peace and human rights slips into a project of war-mongering, aggression, and political guardianship at a historical juncture, and as if he longs to be "reappointed," he not only betrays his past, but also uses the symbolic prestige that he once acquired, rightly or wrongly, against the very people and to the detriment of the victims whose freedom that prestige was supposed to and should have served (which I may not know, and it may not have been the case before).

Shirin Ebadi has morally and politically disowned herself. The issue is not about tolerating a “difference of opinion”; it is about drawing a line with positions that, if they gain the upper hand, will fundamentally leave no room for the realization of democracy. At such a moment, extremism and radicalism do not mean extremism, at least it is politically healthy.

May your body, mind, and politics be sound!