by JP-16, 21 Feb 2008

Iranian Youth Speaks

Inspired and based on an article in the ECONOMIST magazine

My inspiration to write this article came from an article I was reading about the U.S Hostage Crisis in 1979. It talked about how the youth played such a large role in that, literally terrorizing the world. I wanted to know whether Iranian youth are still so politically active today. The more I thought about it, the more it intrigued me – we are plagued with stories of Ahmadinejad and Iran’s (now nonexistent) nuclear weapons, but how about the children, the future of their country?

As my curiosity deepened, I finally decided to embark on the journey of writing the article you’ll read below. If you’re a teenager, I hope it will inspire you – the fact that youth in such a war-torn country can still stand up and maintain such emotional resilience - means that YOU definitely can do so too, no matter what challenge you're faced with in your life.

Summary

The Iranian population is increasingly influenced by “Westoxification”; they are developing not just a more sacrilegious and Western lifestyle (e.g. widespread prostitution, widespread drinking of alcohol) but also developing more democratic ideas. As this happens, Ahmadinejad’s government has focused its efforts on maintaining the support of the traditional-minded lower and middle classes. However, although recent polls have indicated that these more Westernized and educated youths would prefer a democratic system in which all leaders are elected by popular sovereignty, they are generally not seen as an eminent and direct threat to the revolution as they sustain strong support for their national leaders.


Analysis

In exploring this article, I’ve decided to focus on how Iranian political culture is affected by geographic and political demographics and compare the atmosphere of political participation in Iran with that of the United States (“the Global Arrogance.”)

Although the author does not directly state this, upon closer analysis of his tone it becomes evident that he places the hope of Iran in the hands of urban youths. This message is first introduced when he notes that Iranian youths, though they do not like Western political leaders, have been influenced by “Westoxification”, allowing elements of Western societies to penetrate into their daily lives. The author furthers that message by noting that university students played an important part in bringing down the Shah, and that now 75% of Iran’s population are under 30 years old. Moreover, occurring simultaneously is an increase in educational levels and more importantly rapid urbanization. Thus, more people are not only becoming more educated, but are also moving to the cities where they are more prone to being influenced by Western democratic ideas.

This will definitely affect political culture as more Iranian citizens will be aware of civil rights and liberties – the most relevant being freedom of expression and religion – that are accepted in American society but are blatantly discouraged in Iran through the strict shari’a law.

Moreover, they have seen how an increase of ‘social capital’ (political participation) can be used to cause a change in governmental policies, which might fuel their frustrations and eventually lead them to staging demonstrations for change. However, this issue becomes important in current politics as the amount of penetration Western ideas can have to an Iranian individual is limited. The citizens of Iran are still highly religious and nationalistic, and prioritize national unity and leadership over their want for democracy (which has actually become more widespread.) Thus, the process is a countdown timer – once Iranian political sentiments reach this stage, theocracy and democracy will have collided head-on with each other, and will determine whether having two systems of governance -- one of which is politics-centered and the other which upholds religious rule – can continue to exist with an increase of democratic ideas.

The comparison to the United States provides an interesting perspective. In the Iranian presidential elections of 2005, voter turnout was over 60% despite “deep cynicism following the blocking of President Khatami’s political reforms.” After some outside research, I found that in the 2004 United States presidential election, voter turnout was also 60%, despite no serious conflict happening at that time, thus showing that Iran has a relatively high level of political participation. Moreover, while youths have traditionally played a crucial role in cementing or changing Iran’s government foundations e.g. the Islamic Student Association and the Office of Student Solidarity during Khatami’s reform movement.

This is significant, as it shows an increase in politically aware youth, which ultimately becomes the country’s future. That is in contrast to the United States it has been working adults (from various classes) bringing about these reforms e.g. defying Britain then declaring independence, writing the Constitution, setting up different political parties, initiating various social reforms etc.

Therefore, as Iranians become more acutely aware of the intentional anti-American “hate-mongering” Ahmadinejad excessively uses, they become increasingly immune to having their opinions dictated by it (“some even find it amusing”).

As they become more knowledgeable about political affairs, they are able to distinguish how simultaneously having a theocracy hinders a democracy and “conclude that the whole theocratic system might prove unworkable.” But right now, it seems as though Ahmadinejad is not seriously considering Iran’s high level of political participation and an active political culture and instead is only focusing on short-term poll results so he can maintain his power.

However, with such a populous, powerful and politically active youth that are more and more exposed to Western democratic ideals, it does not seem as if he can continue doing so.

Tweet

Check out all our blogs in “CURRENT AFFAIRS & FASHION” CLICK HERE