There exists a fascinating tension between the perceptible harm that the modern technology of social media has done to certain societies — think, e.g., Trump and Twitter — and, concurrently, the social liberation it promises. Iran is a case study in the latter. Its repressive regime has been incapable of preventing its citizens from witnessing certain sociocultural advancements in the West; the Iranian people have seen others' freedoms, they have shared their desire for same on social media — and by now, for them, there is no turning back. Consequently, the Iranian regime's days are numbered. (Photo: Associate Press.)
Because of the country's immense unrest since the state murder of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, Iran's attorney general, Mohammad Javad Montazeri, said Saturday that the morality police — who had ignited the nation's turmoil through Ms. Amini's deadly persecution — had been "abolished by the same authorities who installed it." His was a dubious claim, however.
As The NY Times reports, "Montazeri’s comments appeared to suggest the government was making its first major concession to the protest movement ignited by [Amini's] death." And yet the government was silent following Montazeri’s remark. "It was unclear whether the statement amounted to a final decision by the theocratic government, which has neither announced the abolition of the morality police nor denied it." In fact, "there were suggestions on Sunday that the government might be trying to play down the significance of Mr. Montazeri ‘s remarks."
His comment had been taken out of context, said one state television channel. And other state television stations announced that the government remained firm in its intent to enforce the mandatory hijab law — the exceedingly minor violation of which brought about Ms. Amini's murder by the state. What's crucial to note, however, is that none of what television stations are saying or what the Iranian government is thinking is any longer determinative of the state.
As the Times further notes: "If the [morality] force is abolished, the change will be unlikely to appease protesters who are still clashing with other security forces and have become so emboldened that some are calling for an end of the Islamic Republic." For years the Iranian government has overreached in its repression — just as the shah did — and now nothing can save it. The theocratic regime ruled dictatorially too harshly and for too long. It exterminated itself.
From Shadi Sadr, a human rights lawyer and prominent women's activist:
One can almost feel the truth of Ms. Sadr's words. There is no going back for either side, but only one side has the momentum of virtue and the spiritual power that comes with it. The other side has rested on a desiccated, anachronistic theology of self-destruction. What's more, as it wrung itself into tangles over a woman's out-of-place strand of hair, the regime overlooked a collapsing economy and its intolerable corruption. The Iranian people did not.
But back to my opening point. The medium on which Ms. Sadr pronounced the regime's doom — indeed the medium which helped to bring about the regime's doom — is the same technological venue that malignantly elevated Donald Trump and has now positioned Elon Musk as a leading purveyor of national slime and decline.
Is it simply the sociocultural differences between emerging democracies and aging democracies that make the difference in social media's conflicting tensions?