The key to the regime’s survival in Iran

Kurd24

If there is one idea or concept that one could point to as a defining force in the political conflicts and cleavages of the past 200 years, it would undoubtedly be ideology. Since the early 20th century, the world has witnessed the fall and rise of various shades of leftists and ultra-right ideological powers and groups espousing often-conflicting objectives that have resulted in bloody wars and unspeakable horrors. This has been as true in the Middle East as it was in 19th and 20th century Europe.

Despite the misconceptions about the Middle East being a region that is comprised of a monolithic Islamic Ummah (community), there have been and continue to exist ideologues of all colors and stripes. In fact, movements adhering to monarchist, Marxist, feminist, Islamist, liberal, and most importantly nationalist tenants abound in this part of the world. Consequently, the region has not been foreign to ideologically motivated social and political conflicts and upheavals that have resulted in the rise and demise of many powerful forces in the political landscape.

In discussions about how a regime survives and maintains political order while others wither away, scholars often emphasize the importance of ideology and coercion in securing legitimacy. An authoritarian regime has at its disposal two significant means to legitimize and ensure the continuation of its rule. The first is ideology, which is utilized to grant the regime consent and approval of not only its right to govern but also to legitimize its foreign and domestic policy. The other major means of a regime’s legitimization is the use of coercion to obtain compliance. In other words, ideology and coercion are often used by the state in conjunction to legitimize its policies and rule.

Many regimes have used both the aforementioned methods of regime legitimization and survival but have not persisted for long. Consider one of the world’s most powerful superpowers; the Soviet Union which exported its revolutionary communist ideology around the globe and purged its opponents by the use of repression and coercion to manufacture legitimacy and compliance. Even with the use of all at its disposal, the Soviet Union was unable to avoid its eventual collapse in the 1990s. Similarly, ideological and repressive regimes like Saddam Hussein’s in Iraq, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak’s in Egypt and the Muammar Gaddafi regime in Libya have all met the same fate.

Considering it’s ideological and coercive nature, many anticipated that the Islamic regime in Iran might be the next domino to fall. However, they were sadly mistaken. Despite the Iran-Iraq war, an uprising in Iranian Kurdistan, years of sanctions, regional turmoil, domestic protests, and pressure by Israel and the United States, the regime in Tehran remains stable for the most part. How then has the regime in Iran been able to survive for so long compared to the many regimes in its neighborhood? The answer lies in what has granted the regime its legitimacy since its establishment.

The major error in understanding the regime in Tehran lies in the West’s assertion that it is a predominantly ideological and theocratic revolutionary regime, which it rightly is. The misunderstanding is often due to the lack of attention given to the nationalistic sentiments that are at the foundation of the regime’s survival and assertive foreign policy.

At the roots of the regime’s exportation of the Islamic Shia revolution and meddling in regional states is a revival of Iran’s imperial status and heritage. In fact, the admired leader of Iran’s Quds Force Qasem Soleimani is highly respected in Iran and considered a national war hero for spearheading the country’s covert operations in the region. Persian nationalists currently lionize Soleimani for his many military achievements and accolades. This is a clear indication of the nationalism that underlines the longevity of the Islamic regime in Iran.

Thus, despite its ideologically religious rhetoric and overtones, the regime’s legitimacy and survival are rooted not just in its capacity to coerce compliance. It is also due to an ideology that either by design or default portrays the regime as the guardian of the nation and reviver of its former glory as a major power in the Middle East and indeed on the world stage.

Political observers, western diplomats, and officials should thus make certain to keep this in mind if they wish to have a more informed, effective, and holistic policy on Iran. They must heed that a nation needs to be understood not just in its parts but more importantly in its sums. For as Aristotle so famously said, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

Halmat Palani is an English teacher and political science graduate from Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Kurdistan 24.

Editing by Karzan Sulaivany