Politics and Justice
What if this so
called “Green Revolution” in Iran was successful? Furthermore, assume
Ahmadinejad/Khamenei, and MOST of hardliners would not have conceded and asked
their supporters to press on protesting the outcome. The same propaganda, the
same innuendo, the same rioters, etc. I mean everything, except the guest of
honor would have been Ahmadinejad/Khamenei instead of Mousavi/Rafsanjani. There
is just one tricky issue left to assume! The empire MUST be assumed to support
Ahmadinejad to give him the necessary air time for propaganda to dispute the
rigged election against Mousavi.
Forget about the
so called opposition outside of Iran. They would have probably done the same
thing they did to Khatami. The key point to be made is simple.
Mousavi/Rafsanjani would have faced the same dilemma Ahmadinejad/Khamenei face
now: A section of the population has voted against them, and would not concede
defeat. No matter how the government handles the issue, it will be blamed for
it. Unless, something drastically changes the political spectrum for the
better, ONLY self serving politicians would be interested to take this unfair
blame for POWER and honest politicians will continue to be demonized. If the
latter ever survived demonization and achieved something worthwhile, his/her
legacy will just become another gun in the hands of power wielders.
Having said that,
political trials are not designed to serve justice, but to serve a political
purpose. Unfortunately, IMHO, what serves politics would not necessarily serve
justice. Everyone needs a scapegoat to sacrifice for the almighty politics!
The government needs it to blame the opposition, and the latter needs it to
demonize the former. In this business neither side is innocent AND the name of
the game is POWER. That is why the scapegoat becomes a valuable asset in favor
of the opposition to be used against the government at all times. I mean
whether the scapegoat is held in prison, freed or demised. But it is more of a
liability to the government and a political trial is the only way to either
reduce the liability or to turn it into an asset!
The poor guy
serving as the scapegoat, all of a sudden becomes (or the government makes
him/her to become) sensitive to the consequences of his FREE will. Since, the
traditional principle of honor is no longer the prevailing factor for
politicians nowadays; it would become obvious how a politician would react in
his/her new position as a scapegoat. S/he would do his/her best to appease the
government. What is even more disturbing is the opposition to use his/her close
relatives’ agony for political purposes. It is indeed unfortunate that neither
the government nor the scapegoat is sincere in a political trial. Either one in
POWER, can assume the position of the other and play it exactly the same in
substance, but different in shape and form.
one sides with either the government or the opposition, it would be a waste of
time arguing in favor of a political trial or against it.
criminal trial is entirely different. Iranian people had suffered human loss of
lives as well as economic damages. The government is responsible to investigate
such crimes, and press charges against suspected individuals. A fair and open
criminal trial can help educating people. It can also serve justice.
Now, let’s take a
domestic murder trial for an example. When a murderer is convicted by an
independent jury, hardly any immediate family would be convinced a loved one had
received a fair trial, let alone admitting the fact that s/he took someone
else’s life. On the other side of the isle, the victim’s relatives have already
lost a loved one. They would be happy to see the murderer being punished for
it. The media should be neutral, but most of the times that is not the case.
They can forget about the victim, and paint a nice picture of the murderer or
the other way around.
criminal trials would be litmus tests for both the government and the
opposition. Unfortunately, I have lost faith in opposition to engage in
intelligent discussions. They have already convicted the government ONLY on
innuendo. Accordingly, it is hard for a reasonable person to qualify them for a
life and death verdict. Let’s see how the government will perform.