The complexity of social relations and the diversity of social and individual needs have long fueled the reality that society would not be able to fulfill all its needs, pass all its barriers and problems and earn the public trust without the existence of civil society institutes.
The necessity of social institutions has been emphasized by philosophers such as Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel believed “Family and civil society are the two pillars of the idealistic and rational state and the realization of rational state would not be possible without passing through the ethical life of family and civil society.” He also believed “the relation between civil society and state is an absolute public and individual relation that, while different, have things in common that would smoothen the path to collective or the ethical spirit and teaches what steps one needs to take in the path towards ethical development and preparing for joining a rational state and how to perfect oneself and transform from individual self in order to join the communal spirit.” According to Hegel’s theory, civil society is composed of classes and groups in which its members have willingly and voluntarily gathered based on certain individual and personal interests; however, they learn through interacting and communicating with one another not to use these relations for their own personal benefits, to mostly consider the collective and communal interest and to obey common rules. Hence, although we could say that people arrive at civil society based on their individual motives and interests, because of the interaction with others and due to experiencing a kind of unity, universality and understanding interdependency will put individual motives and interests last and result in an inclination towards collective interest and commitment to professional ethics. (Hegel’s The Philosophy of Right: Civil Society, retrieved from: International Foundation of Theories and Doctrines)
100 years of Iran’s contemporary history and specifically the years before and following the 1979 Revolution and failure to achieve democracy in the society have made the possibility of realization of a civil society in the country very difficult. Despite the difficulty, its necessity has not disappeared and will not disappear. Totalitarian regimes always prevent realization of a vibrant and apparent civil society; because, in this kind of regime, public participation and collective cooperation for achieving important social goals do not matter. However, in today’s societies, no government has a good chance of running a society without the public’s participation. In this respect, as long as the government implements cumbersome and restrictive laws for establishing a civil institute, some institutions may never get the chance to be born, but this does not mean that they are not needed.
Suppose the issue of desertification in the country is to be addressed. Only by public cooperation and through public institutions will eliminating this ecosystem’s problems be possible. Since the extensive area of these wildernesses will not make the government spend on human resources or appropriate vegetation of millions of hectares of deserts, only an organized civil society institution could organize the people of a city or a neighborhood in a way so that millions of them would plant millions of saplings in the wilderness to fight desertification and destruction of natural resources. And this planting could happen in just one day!
Consider this example about change in other unjust conditions. The establishment of compassionate thought and providing collective prosperity in the society might be the goal. The government may claim to represent the society, but it cannot realize and spread the common welfare. In our current society, due to the nature of the government that is functioning independent of the people, achieving a rational state as Hegel mentions or a true Republic according to Kant and realizing a civil society has become very difficult. Therefore, the governments are facing numerous social issues. This government is not able to solve the social issues without developing civil institutions. To achieve this, it is necessary for people to be motivated and willing to cooperate in collective prosperity. While the greatest banking corruptions occur in the networks affiliated with government, the highest number of causes exist in the court system of the country; only the police force has the power to suppress and control the people. But the police forces and the government’s conduct has robbed people of public trust. For instance, when the Guardian Council, which is not run in the interest of citizens, runs the election and unlawfully deprives or limits people of their right to political participation, the ability to think of the public welfare and establish civil institutions will be lost. The country is being transformed to a desert and needs collective cooperation to stop this desertification.
During the 1980s when I was a high school student, I worked a few weekends by invitation of the department of the natural resources of our city. I, along with other high school students, collectively attended an event to plant saplings in the areas around the city that were being deserted. Massive crowds of students with their agile bodies and hard work led to the project being done quickly. The planting of the saplings gave me hope and fueled my enthusiasm and passion. I turned around and looked at how we turned a desert into a green land, an experience that is unforgettable for me.
According to the aforementioned reasons, if the conditions for civil activism are given, all people in general would want to cooperate in stopping desertification. Yet drawing people to participate in this important matter and similar matters needs coordinating organizations. However, the excessive centralization, the lack of trust between the public and the government, windfall money from oil revenues, and the government’s ignorance towards the need to cede some of the responsibilities to the public has not only increased activities such as planting saplings, but also, the communal activities without the government’s support are also destroyed by intimidation, accusations, and planting seeds of cynicism among people. The youth civil association of Marvdasht of Fars Province had made small pools of water in the spring in the mountains around Larestan to save thirsty animals. Today, there is not much left of that association.
Civil activism faced serious suppression, especially after the disputed presidential election of 2009, and many civil activists, like many others who had left the country earlier, had no choice but to leave. They are active with the help of social media, satellite, and internet from around the world. Therefore, attracting and encouraging people to cooperate with civil society and its institutions and using people’s resources are undeniable necessities. For instance, an Iranian-Canadian capitalist is willing to invest a lot of money in order to change a law that is contrary to some of Canadian civil rights and proudly talks about it on TV. Yet he will not invest in changing any laws in his mother country. Some civil institutions may occasionally meet with major Iranian capitalists, but they normally do not assist them. Hence, achieving collective prosperity and public welfare is not possible just by having enough human resources, but rather by using all civil resources, realization of a civil society becomes possible, whether inside or outside the country.
What has not yet happened in Iran is the act of earning the public’s trust. The government is still trying to have full control of everything and to direct every significant or insignificant economical or cultural affair. In this case, the government will be independent of the civil society and limit its activities to small charities. In the post-reformist atmosphere in Iran, especially post-2009 election, most of the government budget was assigned to civil society channels to institutions such as Basij resistance, and in these institutions, all affairs are tough orders and therefore there is no thought of collective prosperity. In addition, at times, in order to infiltrate the civil activist movement and to destroy or deviate its participants from their path, particularly in the late 1980s and early ‘90s, the government established seemingly civil institutions that in reality are governmental and in parallel with the civil institutions.
Thus, in the contemporary history of Iran, due to government interference, lack of public trust and lack of the sense of society belonging to each and every person (lack of democracy), the chance to arouse the public sentiment towards collective prosperity and the common good has not been made possible. Many of the civil institutions have been destroyed by the government’s extreme suppressions, and activists were forced to leave the country. In such an atmosphere, there is no room left for civil activism. The government is responsible for the destruction and diversion of the civil society.
Given that the realization of a true civil society is impossible in the current atmosphere of Iran, the vacuum created by its lack or weakness, will not be filled. The civil institutes have responsibilities outside of the government’s responsibilities, and the government will not be able to fulfil them. The government shows its distrust with the civil society by instead of supporting the civil institutes, it controls and monitors their establishment. It has done this through the division of administration of Monitoring Public Premises of the Disciplinary Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran (NAJA) and Governorates making all the civil activism into semi-governmental activities and trying to obstruct the growth of civil activism. For example, a tactic the government uses stemming from the lack of understanding the importance of civil activism in a society is associating the civil society to strangers and foreigners.
The civil activism outside Iran is divided into different sectors, and in practice, all the civil and political sectors are following a mutual goal, that is helping the domestic civil society so that it could change the civil and political atmosphere of Iran, lead to the return of civil forces, create a sense of belonging to the society and increase the sentiment of collective welfare in the country.
Human Rights Activists (HRA) is an example of a civil organization established inside a country that is facing major repressions. This organization was established in 2006 in Iran, officially registering and following legal procedure in an effort to increase lawful civil activism. March 2010 marks the closure or, in other words, the death of many non-governmental organizations, due to efforts of Ahmadinejhad’s government, particularly with the apparent legal control of the organizations. HRA has also faced extreme oppression during this time, to the point that gradually, it has been forced to secretly continue its civil activism. With the increase in the suppressions, part of the activism of HRA has moved outside Iran with the goal of empowering the civil society inside the country.
There are other examples of civil activism from outside of the country that are producing educational, scientific and civil materials for inside it, thereby increasing public awareness in the strict censorship atmosphere of the country.
It is certain that suppression will not destroy the civil society of Iran and eventually the sentiment of collective prosperity would find its way into the society. Without civil institutes that could conduct healthy activism in the country and be free of state repressions, the increase in public participation in political affairs in its true meaning will not be possible. The increase in repression of the civil institutes after the uprising of 2009 was because forces of this uprising were generally formed in active civil society and institutes of the time.
What is important today is that the civil institutes outside of Iran do not lose any chance to identify and examine their weaknesses and to always put an effort into reviewing themselves so that the civil atmosphere will have a chance to sustain itself and not become semi-political or semi-civil. Despite the importance and need for all kinds of activism, there should be a line between politics and non-civil and civil activism, and non-civil motivations should be discarded without the sentiment of collective prosperity.
Today, international civil organizations spreading the notion of collective prosperity and public welfare have developed the idea of “a global citizen.” Citizens of all countries are not indifferent towards incidents and human right violations such as violence, torture, and denial of political rights in other countries and could question those responsible for these violations. Global society is not only made up of governments and political parties, but of all the global citizens who are an active part of it. Anything that causes suffering for people anywhere in the world is of importance to everyone and it attracts attention regardless of one’s homeland, country, religion, people and city; everyone is responsible and accountable for the fate of the other. Concepts such as citizen of a country, a tribe or an ethnic group have given place to the idea of equal people and the birth of global collective prosperity has been born.
In conclusion, civil activism in Iranian society will not die. However, there is a possibility of a decrease in public trust and a decrease in sensitivity towards civil activism. Considering that the structure of civil activism has changed in today’s world and has transformed from religious prosperity to that of civil prosperity, it is necessary for all those who think of a better social life for themselves and others to spread the idea of collective prosperity and welfare. Hence, we can, like organizations such as HRA, try to improve the civil activism and, with the help of people, think of a better life for them and not to give in to suppressions and critiques. The bottom line is that, for the actualization of a civil society, a democratic society based on respect for everyone’s rights and with the notion of collective prosperity is necessary, and a democratic society is in need of a civil society.
