"Akbar Ganji's exhilarating and courageous book, both readable and philosophically deep, maps out a blueprint for reform in Iran that focuses on human rights and shows how Islam can support both democracy and sex equality. If there is reason for hope in the current situation, it is because of people like Ganji and books like this."
"In this brief, lucid book Akbar Ganji advocates a gradual, persistent, non-violent effort of reform in Iran leading to a just, egalitarian democracy. What he so clearly describes as a program for Iran is in reality a program for all of us, for no society today lives up to the standards of global human rights that alone will bring peace to the world. This is a book we need to keep by our bedside and read once a month until we get closer to being the kind of society he describes."
You grew up in a neighborhood in Tehran known for being home to many Islamists. What was that like?
The majority of its inhabitants were lower-income workers, but Islamic fundamentalists were not the only group in the neighborhood. Marxists often chose to locate their cells in working-class areas. These neighborhoods also produced young Muslim activists who later joined various Iranian political movements. To assume that such disadvantaged neighborhoods only produced Islamic fundamentalists is an ideological interpretation. The activist youth from my neighborhood mostly subscribe today to Islamic modernist thinking.
As a supporter of the 1979 revolution, what did you expect from it? Did it turn out differently than you thought it would?The discourse of the 1979 Revolution was about justice, independence, and anti-imperialism. As a consequence of the Cold War and the Third World ideological thinking of this period, the United States was viewed as the source of all the social and political problems facing our society. In those days, social justice meant either the just rule of Ali, the first Shia Imam in the 7th century, or Soviet-style socialism.
The 1979 revolution did not bring about liberty, democracy, or human rights; it did not even fulfill its promise of social justice. The class gap is about the same today, if not worse. The political repression is greater than it was before the revolution. This is because the Pahlavi regime only repressed political opposition, but the Islamic Republic continues to repress the entire spectrum of cultural, social, and political activity.
In my view, the most important achievement of the revolution is that it turned the masses into agents of historical change and highly politicized them. The 1979 revolution demanded political independence and the end of external interference in Iran's domestic affairs. In this sense Iran has become independent, but globalization processes have made possible many new forms of foreign interference that affect Iran. For example, periodically the Iranian government is forced to open its most sensitive nuclear installations, which are hidden from its own people, to inspections by Western governments. National independence in the old sense of the term does not and cannot exist anymore.
What prompted you to become an investigative journalist?
Values of freedom, democracy, and human rights demand that we struggle against dictators and expose their crimes. The Islamic Republic has assassinated many dissident intellectuals both inside Iran and abroad. Exposing its acts of terror was our moral responsibility.
What is the status today of the reform movement in Iran? Are you optimistic about its prospects?The confrontation between Iran and the Unites States over nuclear power, terrorism, politics in the Middle East, and Iran's increasing influence in the region, has greatly overshadowed internal opposition activity. The specter of war, together with the regime's repressiveness, has pushed aside the struggle for democracy and human rights. Moreover, the regime in Iran uses the pretext of an "impending war" to crack down more severely on its opponents. Resistance under such circumstances is very difficult.
In this way the government of the United States has harmed reformist forces in Iran. When President Bush says that Iranian reformists do not have a better friend than he, his words are both factually inaccurate and practically useless to the reform movement. But they provide a convenient excuse to Iran's fundamentalist rulers to paint their opponents as "American agents," and, under the pretext of fighting American intervention, proceed to crush them.
Given such circumstances, many of the reformist groups have placed their hopes on formal periodic elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran. What these reformists do not realize is that democracy and human rights will never emerge from the ballot box of the Islamic Republic. Other political activists have shifted their focus to civil society. This is the only way forward for us. Discontent is widespread, but people are not organized, and an effective leadership supported by a broad consensus does not exist at the moment.
On May 19, 2005, you started a hunger strike in Evan Prison, where you were serving a sentence for having attended a conference in Berlin described by the government as "anti-Islamic." Why did you decide to go on a hunger strike? Do you think it was an effective tactic?A hunger strike is a good tactic in political struggle. Its success, however, depends on the circumstances. Under very harsh circumstances, a prisoner is sometimes forced to use his only weapon, his own life, in order to say "no" to an oppressive autocratic regime. He might sacrifice his life, but others will learn that the struggle continues.
The struggle for democracy, freedom, and human rights cannot be reduced to theoretical and intellectual debates. In order to achieve these ideals you have to be actively engaged in realizing them.
In your book, you write that intellectuals have a special responsibility to be politically engaged and struggle for human rights. What is your definition of "intellectual"€�? Why do you believe intellectuals have this particular obligation?Ivory tower intellectuals occupy their time with abstract issues and are not engaged with the pain and suffering of people. What is important is reducing pain and human suffering. Public intellectuals are theoretically concerned with the question of truth, and practically they are concerned with reducing pain and human suffering. Is it possible to ignore the widespread poverty, destitution, and social injustice, and merely focus on questions of "truth" in the abstract?
What would you say to those who insist that true Islam is incompatible with Western-style democracy?
Scriptures, just like any other text, are subject to human interpretation. There is no "un-interpreted" religion. From this perspective, there are three types of religious interpretations: fundamentalism, traditionalism, and modernism. Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic traditionalism, just like Jewish and Christian fundamentalism and traditionalism, conflict with democracy and human rights. But modernists have developed interpretations of Islam that are compatible with democracy, human rights, pluralism, secularization, and freedom.
We need reconstructions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that promote peace; religion should not be turned into a weapon of war and violence. If we suggest that Islam is inherently undemocratic, this is not going to benefit the promotion of peace and democracy around the world. Islam, to the same extent as Christianity and Judaism, opposes modernity and its logical implications and to the same degree can be reconciled with modernity.
One chapter in your book addresses the gender apartheid in Iran. Is sexism an issue that many male activists are concerned with? Are many women involved in the reform movement?
The principle of equality is at the core of democracy. Iranian male intellectuals are very concerned with the question of freedom for women. Women have been very active in the reform movement but they have realized that they need their own independent women's movement. Democracy is the product of a balance of power between civil society and the state. A strong civil society is one that is socially organized. The various interest and identity groups should be organized and mobilized so that society as a whole will be strong. Iranian women are taking steps in this direction and they are currently trying to organize themselves.
In your book you discuss the importance of gradually fomenting changes in attitudes and culture rather than imposing revolutionary change from above. How do you think this gradual cultural change can be accomplished?
Revolutions are very expensive with little accompanying benefit. Democracy is the product of a democratic culture. In this sense, without a critique of tradition and religion we cannot develop a democratic culture.
In a society such as ours, where the state rules in the name of religion, a critique of religion is tantamount to a critique of the state. During the last three decades we have witnessed important cultural and intellectual transformations, and the ideas of democracy and human rights have greatly expanded. The global spread of the idea of democracy has forced the autocratic government in Iran to call itself a religious democracy. Our culture, traditions, religion, and moral positions should be seriously critiqued and reconstructed anew.
I understand you've been in the United States and Canada for several months. What are your impressions of North America?
Whatever humans have built so far is a combination of good and bad things, correct and incorrect, efficient and inefficient institutions. The United States is a very creative society, which has produced and trained great thinkers and it has also attracted great minds to its universities.
At the same time, the class differences in the United States are unbelievable. How can the biggest economy in the world produce so many homeless people, fail to provide health care to its citizens, and tolerate so much violence? The mass media provides very superficial analysis of existing problems and keeps people occupied with issues that do not have a connection with real problems, as if it all were some theatrical performance.
In your book you say that Islam faces a choice between following the path of the West, or becoming increasingly weak and failing to address its people's needs. Does this mean that there's no path to successful governance other than the Western model?
This is the issue: returning to the premodern era is impossible. Religion, and in this case Islam, if it wants to remain in this world, must be made relevant to the life of a modern person. Modern man will not accept the monopoly of one worldview.
Democracy is the most rational and just form of government created by humans so far. The development of human rights is an important modern human accomplishment. Accepting this fact does not mean we are becoming Westernized. Universal values have no national home. If ideals and ideas are rationally and morally defensible then they should be welcomed. The origins of these ideas are not as important as their contents.
