- Global Voices - https://globalvoices.org -

Maghreb: Views on Iran

· Written by Hisham Almiraat

Categories: Middle East & North Africa, Algeria, Iran, Morocco, Tunisia, Digital Activism, Elections, Freedom of Speech, Governance, Human Rights, Media & Journalism, Politics, Protest, Religion, Youth

As the world watches events unfolding in Iran, Maghreb blogs have been following and commenting on the rapidly developing crisis there. Some questioned the motives behind the way western media covered the events; others criticized Mir Houssain Moussavi's reaction, but it seems that the majority are supporting protesters.

Untitled picture of an Iranian protester by SIR on Flickr [1]

Untitled picture of an Iranian protester by SIR on Flickr

Moroccan blogger Badr al Hamry [2] [Ar] writing on Aghora, praises the role played by microbloggers and citizen media in covering the situation inside Iran, circumventing government restrictions and efforts to block access to main online platforms. He writes:

يوما بعد يوم تأكد صحافة المواطن أنها المستقبل بامتياز!
مناسبة هذا الكلام هــو ما قامت به السلطة الإيرانية و بكل قوة، منع الــعديد من المنابر الإعلامية والصحافية تغطية المظاهرات والاحتجاجات و نقل أخبارها للعالم، و تعطيل لخدمات الرسائل الهاتفية. في الوقت الذي حققت فيه مجموعة من المدونات على الأنترنيت انتصارا كبيرا / كمدونات الفيس بوك،و التويتر، و فليكر، و اليوتوب الموقع العالمي لشرائط الفيديو، محققة بذلك انتصار على كل سلطة تحاول منع تسرب أية معلومات خارج إيران، و خنق حرية التعبير.
و نظرا للاقبال الهائل الذي حققته تلك المدونات،و تغطيتها المتميزة للأحداث فقد وصفت هذه الحركة الإلكترونية من طرف المتتبعين بــــــ “الثورة” وهذا ليس غريبا على دولة يوجد فيها 23 مليون مشترك في خدمة الإنترنيت من أصل 70 مليون نسمة.
Day after day, citizen journalism proves to be the future par excellence!
Iranian authorities heavy-handedly tried to prevent the Press and many media outlets from covering demonstrations and protests, and broadcasting news to the outside world, disrupting telephone SMS messages [for example]. Meanwhile a group of Internet users and bloggers achieved a victory against the authorities’ attempts to stop information filtering outside of the country and stifle freedom of expression, using diverse platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Youtube.
Given the enormous popularity of those blogs and their excellent coverage of events, some observers have gone as far as to describe the phenomenon as an electronic “revolution” in a country where 23 million subscribe to Internet services out of a 70 million strong population.

The central role new information technology seems to be playing in the Iranian crisis is apparently recognized even by the media run by governments who have a poor record as far as freedom of the Press is concerned. This double standard is what Tunisian blogger Khannouff [3] is denouncing in this [4]post [Fr]:

Dans son édition d’aujourd’hui la Pravda Tunisienne se permet comme toujours de parler (ou plutôt de copier coller intégralement les dépêches étrangères de presse), donc de s’étaler à propos des restrictions imposées aux ”autres”, ailleurs sans piper mot du quotidien sous haute surveillance qui est le notre.

In its today's edition, [LaPress.tn,] [5]the Tunisian Pravda, would still like to talk (or rather copy and paste all foreign news dispatches) about the restrictions imposed on ”others”, without uttering a word about our daily lives under surveillance.

Another Tunisian blogger The Overman [6] [Ar], expresses his support for protesters and explained why he thinks allegations of electoral fraud are credible:

اكثر حاجة ظاهرة للعيان هي طريقة الانتخاب في حد ذاتها، و الي تتمثل في كتابة اسم المترشح على ورقة الانتخاب. و في حالة الي يكون فيها الناخب امّي، يقوم واحد من الحرس الثوري الموجودين في مركز الانتخاب بالعملية في بقعتو. و وقتلي نعرفو الي نسبة الامية في ايران حوالي 20% و الي الحرس الثوري يخدم تحت امرة المرشد الاعلى للثورة الاسلامية (الي عبر، ولو بصفة غير مباشرة، عن مساندتو لنجاد)، نفهمو الي امكانية التزوير ماهيش مستبعدة بالكل.
اضف الى ذلك انو في ايران ما فماش قوائم انتخابية : مجرد مضمون ولادة يعطيك الحق في الانتخاب. و بالتالي امكانية الانتخاب اكثر من مرة في اكثر من مكتب ممكنة.
من ناحية اخرى، تنتظر لجنة الانتخابات في العادة ثلاثة ايام قبل ما تمرر النتائج للمرشد الاعلى باش يصادق عليها. لكن الي صار في الانتخابات هذي انو السيد خامنئي وافق على النتائج فور صدورها، و هو ما يثير اكثر من سؤال حول مصداقية هذه النتائج
The most obvious was the way the elections were conducted, where every voter had to write down the name of his chosen candidate on a voting paper. In case the voter is illiterate, he/she is helped by a Revolutionary Guard. But if one takes into consideration that illiteracy affects around 20 per cent of the Iranian population and that Revolutionary Guards serve directly under instructions from the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution (who has already voiced his support for Ahmadinejad -although indirectly), then the possibility of fraud seems plausible.
What's more, in Iran there are no voters’ registration lists, a simple birth certificate gives you the right to vote, therefore multiple voting in more than one place by the same person at the same election is possible.
On the other hand, the Election Commission usually waits for three days before passing the results over to the Supreme Leader in order for him to approve them. But what happened this time around was that Mr. Khaminai (the Supreme Leader) approved the results immediately after they were issued, which raises questions about their credibility.

On the other side of the argument, Moroccan blogger Farid [7] [Fr], writing on La croisée des chemins, rejects what he considers canards disseminated for political reasons against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Farid corroborates his position quoting international analysts and some mainstream media editorials:

L’analyse des résultats de l’élection présidentielle iranienne, au vu des votes précédents et des sondages commandés sur place par les États-Unis, ne laisse pas de doute : Mahmoud Ahmadinejad est largement réélu. Ceci n’est guère surprenant, observe le professeur James Petras : le peuple a voté pour un national-populiste, tandis que seules les élites occidentalisées ont voté pour le candidat libéral, chouchou des médias occidentaux. Le même phénomène a déjà été observé dans d’autres pays.

The careful reading of the Iranian presidential election, in view of previous votes and surveys commissioned by the United States and conducted inside Iran, leaves no doubt that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was widely re-elected. This is hardly surprising, observes Professor James Petras: The people voted for a national-populist, while only westernized elites have voted for the Liberal candidate, who's the favorite of Western media. The same phenomenon has already been observed in other countries.

Unimpressed by the events unfolding in Iran, Massinissa [8][Fr] from Algeria, criticizes what he sees as a self deluded western discourse trying to portray Moussavi supporters as pro-democratic. He writes:

Le monde occidental a les yeux rivés sur l'Iran croyant naïvement qu'une révolution est en train de se produire et qui pourrait emporter le régime despotique en place depuis la chute du Chah. Mais à y bien regarder Ahmadinejad et Moussavi sont les deux faces d'une même pièce. Ils sont tous les deux inféodés au clergé qui décide de tout.

The Western world has its eyes fixed on Iran naively believing that a revolution is taking shape and that it could overthrow the despotic regime in place since the fall of the Shah. But looking carefully, one realizes that both Moussavi and Ahmadinejad are two sides of the same currency. They are both loyal to the clergy, who eventually decides on everything.

Tunisian blogger Citoyen du Monde (world citizen), blogging on Intras-Muros [9] [Fr], explains how, regardless of whether the elections were rigged or not, he was captivated by the role microblogging played in the crisis. He warns though, about the dangers of what he calls “Infobesity”:

L’afflux permanent d’informations parfois non vérifiées[…] laisse à désirer, il serait dés lors difficile de vérifier leur véracité ainsi que la crédibilité de la source. De plus, il y a un risque de glisser dans l’infobésité, du fait qu’on est submergé par des flux informationnels dénichés à gauche et à droite et tweeter à la hâte. Sans oublier que ca peut être une redoutable armes propagandiste.

The constant flow of sometimes unverified information is regrettable. This renders difficult the task of checking the actuality and credibility of the sources. Furthermore, there is a risk of slipping into infobesity, overwhelmed as we are by information picked up left and right and tweeted in a hurry. Additionally, this can be a formidable propaganda weapon.

Sarah [10][Fr], a French blogger (Un Oeil sur la Planète) who follows Maghreb affairs, criticizes the Moussavi camp and explains that unless evidence of massive fraud is brought against the victors, losers should accept the will of the people of Iran. She writes:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a été réélu avec 63%. Au lieu de le féliciter comme tout opposant se revendiquant démocrate, Monsieur Hossein Moussavi, candidat favori des pays occidentaux, arrivé deuxième avec 33% réclame l'annulation du scrutin.
Désolée pour lui, mais ce sont les citoyens iraniens qui ont voté, et non les politiques et les médias étrangers, et les citoyens iraniens ont fait leur choix, c'est Ahmadinejad. C'est un coup dur pour lui, qui se croyait vainqueur car il avait le soutien des pays étrangers, et bien justement si les citoyens iraniens ne veulent pas de sa politique, qu'ils aiment bien avoir de la dignité contre un monde contrôlé par les plus forts, il n'a qu'à respecter leur choix.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was re-elected with 63% of the votes. Instead of congratulating him, like any politician who claims to be democratic, Mr. Hossein Moussavi, a candidate favored by Western countries, and who came second with 33% of the votes, called for the cancellation of the election.
Sorry for him, but Iranian citizens have voted, not foreign politicians, nor foreign media; and Iranian citizens have made their choice clear. It is a blow for Moussavi who believed he would be the winner because of the support he received from foreign countries. Iranian citizens rejected his policies; they chose dignity over a world where they would be ruled by the strongest. Moussavi has to respect their choice.

Finally, Tunisian blogger Overman [6], wonders [Ar] whether there is any chance the Arab street would be contaminated by the winds of revolution that seem to be blowing from Tehran. he writes:

شخصيا يظهرلي انو يجب ربط الاحداث هذي بإلِّي قاعد يصير في العالم من عشرين سنة لتالي، بمعنى رغبة الشعوب الي تعيش في انظمة قمعية في الانعتاق : هالشعوب الي عانت طويلا من جراء التقوقع و الانغلاق على جميع المستويات (الاقتصادي و السياسي و خاصة الفكري والثقافي).
و السؤال الذي يطرح نفسه في الوقت الحالي بالنسبة لي هو : هل ستصل رياح التغيير هذه الى البلدان العربية، على الاقل في مستوى التوجه الشعبي ؟

I personally think that those events should be linked to what has been happening in the world during the last two decades or so; i.e. the sheer desire for the emancipation of peoples living under oppressive regimes. Those people have been suffering for so long from a state of crispation at all levels (politically, economically, intellectually and culturally).
The question that remains at the moment for me is: will the winds of change reach the Arab countries, at least at the people's level?