Death of a Dissident: Hosein-Ali Montazeri
Grand Ayatollah Hosein-Ali Montazeri has passed into the history of the Iranian Revolution as he was, potentially at least, about to create another. Thirty years ago, he was a vital figure in unseating the Shah, and well placed within the circle of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In June, he became a prominent critic of the re-elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, finding the result virtually inconceivable. Green-clad supporters of reformist candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi enthusiastically embraced him. The government looked on with eagle-eyed suspicion.
His death is seen by some pundits of Iranian affairs as a blow to the democratic aspirations of the green movement that
sprouted in the wake of the last presidential elections. His revolutionary credentials made him an indispensable figure
for reformists, a part of his curriculum vitae that proved paradoxical. He had a hand in the foundational elements of
the Islamic Republic, assisting to draft the Iranian constitution as the inaugural chair of the overwhelmingly powerful
Guardians Council. This is evident by the prominent role left to Islamic jurists in the political process.
Despite being conservative, he seemed impeccable, straddling the divide between revolution and change. In the words of
Abbas Milani, Hamid and Christina Moghadam Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford, Montazeri was ‘a remarkable man,
full of honesty – and therefore, a potent critic and a source of inspiration for the regime’s opponents’ (TNR, 20 Oct).
He also proved a consistent opponent of the Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He took issue with the
radicalization of the Presidential office by Ahmadinejad and Khamenei’s firm support for the candidate. The latter was
something which violated the neutrality inherent, as Roger Cohen notes, in the guardianship of the Islamic jurist (NYRB,
Aug 13). The concept of impartial divinity was jettisoned in favour of earthly political gain.
In 1997, Montazeri’s obstinate stance earned him a period of house arrest for five years. But the opposition that gave
him a gloss of credibility as a ‘democrat’ to the outside world was his repudiation of nuclear weapons as state policy
in October. Sharia or reason, he argued in an issued fatwa, did not permit the use of such weapons in light of the sheer
sacrifices that would result to ‘innocent people, even if these innocent lives are those of future generations’
(translation from Milani).
For all the optimism shown towards Montazeri’s dissidence, his death leaves a few questions unanswered. Opponents to
regimes, even authoritarian ones, are rarely purified by their behaviour of protest and indignation. The system did not
suddenly become ‘authoritarian’ under the reckless and theatrical Ahmadinejad.
By 1988, the slaughter of dissidents within the Republic had begun in earnest. Those on the Left were particularly
vulnerable to Khomeini’s sanguinary regime, dying by the thousands. Montazeri objected to such excesses, but, like a
Politburo member within the murderous apparatus, he would not get out. The faith had to be served, and the goals of the
Republic had to be attained. He was, at heart, a revolutionary, and the train of revolution is not one its passengers
get off lightly. One can only hope to fade into the background of history, even if it takes place with some noise.
Montazeri may well have been a ‘bastion for all people opposing the excesses of the system’, in the words of senior
research consultant Mehrdad Khonsari at the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies in London (CNN, 20 Dec), but democratic
governance is not of its own accord guaranteed by protest against authoritarianism. Too often the rebel becomes the
oppressor, and the shoe is placed rather swiftly on the other foot.
With all that said, the reformist movement may have suffered a blow that will blunt it, if only briefly. The authorities
will be concerned about the demonstrations Montazeri’s death will bring. Like bacilli, they fear an infection of
pandemic proportions spreading from the religious centre in Qom to Teheran. But in the end, the green movement may have
to seek inspiration from other sources. As Lenin observed on revolutions, their impetus often comes from without rather
than within.
*************
Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.
Email: bkampmark@gmail.com