Iranian women cheer, waving their hijabs over their heads, on a street in Sanandaj, the capital of Iran’s Kurdistan province.
Photo: AFP / screenshot
A wave of protests has been going on in Iran for over a week, triggered by the state femicide against the Kurdish woman Mahsa Jina Amini. Did you expect this reaction or are there other factors that make people take to the streets?
In order to understand the protests, one has to know the development of gender apartheid. Even though revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini claimed shortly before the revolution that there was nothing compulsory in Islam regarding the hijab, a few months later he was demanding that women in public authorities should only appear at work with an “Islamic hijab”. In response, on March 8, 1979, tens of thousands of women took to the streets. Because of the patriarchal society and the anti-imperialist discourse – the revolution was in danger – their resistance was not taken seriously. In retrospect, left forces saw this as a mistake, since women’s freedom is inextricably linked to the freedom of society. Nevertheless, there are “intellectuals” today who repeat this argument.
Nobody expected the wave of protests we are currently experiencing. It was triggered by two factors: on the one hand, Mahsa’s family remained steadfast and publicly insisted that their daughter was murdered. On the other hand, the militant tradition in Kurdistan, where there has been resistance to the Iranian government for 40 years. There were certainly other factors that had an impact: poverty, systematic corruption, the ongoing class struggle of recent years.
In the last few years there were several waves of protests in Iran. What’s different this time?
This time, the Islamic Republic faces its main enemy: women. In past protests, the state primarily faced workers and ethnic minorities. Thus he was able to create a conservative base that supports the state, since neither the class nor the ethnic question could mobilize the whole of society. But gender apartheid stands above the other issues: regardless of ethnic or class background, all women are affected – in different forms. Half of society was silenced for decades, leaving resistance to government very male-dominated. Even if women have always participated in social movements and there are numerous feminist groups, feminist issues have rarely been the focus of society as a whole.
The reason for this change is also a question of generations: More and more women and especially queer people have a strong self-confidence with regard to their rights. This awareness is now also spreading to male protesters: We can see this, for example, in the fact that there have been no reports of male abuse of female and queer demonstrators – which was completely different in previous waves of protests, not only in Iran.
What role do organized forces play in the protests? Are there actors who have a strong influence, or are the demonstrations more self-organized?
The Kurdish opposition parties called for a general strike in Kurdistan on the first day after Mahsa’s death. Although a large majority followed this call, the protests quickly shifted back to the streets. As a result, the parties lost influence, and in the days that followed, the protests were largely self-organized. Important actors are still trade unions, feminist organizations, pensioners’ associations, student and teacher organizations – insofar as they write joint statements with social demands and thus publicly support the protests.
Do you see a long-term perspective in these protests, a revolutionary potential? What impact does what is happening in Kurdistan and Iran have on other regions of the Middle East?
Yes, I see revolutionary potential. If people continue to resist despite the massive repression, this movement can achieve two goals. First: the social revolution inside Iran, which brings together the various issues, starting with women and ending with class and ethnic minorities. In summary: Iranian society is dying and a new society is being born.
Second, more abstractly and on a political level, this movement is a clear response to political Islamism. Iran was the first Islamic state after the 1979 revolution and is thus a model for Islamist forces throughout the Middle East and other Islamic countries. The Iranian regime is the realized utopia of Islamism. If it falls, the Islamist movement will lose not only much of its material support but also, and more importantly, its sense of moral superiority. This has a direct impact on Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, where Iran is actively involved politically, militarily and economically and appears as an imperialist power. No military intervention by NATO or the USA can achieve this, but only a revolution supported by society that fundamentally rejects Islamist ideology.
What form of international solidarity would you like from left-wing forces?
What the European left should definitely not do is lose sight of its own struggles and focus only on what is happening in Iran. This happened in large part during the Zapatista and Rojava revolutions and is a mistake in my opinion. To give an example: despite solidarity demonstrations, tanks continued to be delivered to Turkey.
At the moment I see the danger that Western imperialism will position itself as a counter-revolutionary actor against the new Iranian revolution and create a new Libya or Syria. It is up to the European left to prevent this, but it can only do so through active class struggle within Europe and America. The more capital in the West is weakened, the better people in the Global South can breathe.
It is of course important for the internationalist left to know and understand how the geopolitical situation and revolutionary movements are developing internationally. This is necessary in order to understand our struggles as common struggles. But if you want to fight for us, then fight for yourselves and the change of your societies.
