Episode #162: Contrasting Iran and Myanmar
“I think the people are saying, ‘You know what? They lied to us!’”
So says Pardis Mahdavi, Provost and Executive Vice-President as well as professor of anthropology at the University of Montana, who joins the conversation to talk about the growing discontent and protests in the Islamic Republic of Iran. At first glance, one may not see a connection between Myanmar and Iran, but a closer examination of the dynamics of the protest movements reveals otherwise.
Professor Mahdavi is the author of Passionate Uprisings, a book that explores the sexual revolution of Iran’s younger generation as a protest against the punitive moralism and repression of the Iranian regime. It is only one of several movements against the regime that have appeared once the afterglow of the revolution against the Shah in 1979 started to fade. Mahdavi describes how the Iranian people increasingly saw how the new regime was little better than the previous one: in how it dealt with pressing social challenges, that it was equally repressive, and even more than that, how it instituted the harsh yet often mercurial application of morality laws that made simply having fun— like dancing, singing, just hanging out with someone of the opposite sex outside marriage, or even just wearing lipstick in public—fraught with the possibility of arrest by the Morality Police.
While the ability to seek pleasure and fun in the context of economic hardship, unemployment, and government repression might appear somewhat frivolous on the face of it, Mahdavi explains how the Iranian population had become abnormally skewed towards a bubble of young people born between 1979 and 1995. The Islamic government had rewarded larger families with tax breaks and other incentives (only to reverse course later when they realized how untenable this policy ultimately was). The result, Mahdavi explains, is that when she was in Iran doing her fieldwork for her book in the late 1990s, approximately 70% of the population was under 25. In other words, 70% of the population had not experienced life under the Shah, and all they knew was that the Islamic government was neither willing nor able to solve the country’s many social challenges—and moreover, as young people, they couldn’t even enjoy themselves as other young people over much of the world simply take for granted.
Professor Mahdavi describes two threads that run through Iran’s 20th century history. One is the people’s periodically resurfacing desire for true, popular, representative government in the face of Monarchical rule. The first instance of this was the Constitutional movement of 1910. While this aspiration was quashed for many years by the Pahlavi Shahs and their repressive governments, it manifested again in the 1950s-1970s, in combination with the second thread: the Iranian people’s growing disgust with what they call “westoxification.” This term refers to the Pahlavi Shahs’ infatuation with Western cultures, and pushing for changes within Iranian society which often went against Iranian Islamic social and cultural mores; “Iran for Iranians” was a growing theme throughout the mid-20th century’s social, political and artistic movements. Ayatollah Khomeini became the most popular and inspirational of the anti-Shah voices, giving a very Islamic face to the Iranian people’s discontent. However, after the 1979 Revolution, the Islamic government grew more brutal and repressive, instituted the Morality Police, engaged in the catastrophic Iran-Iraq War, etc. History began to repeat itself, as popular discontent festered under the surface and then eventually burst out into the open, much like it had under the Pahlavi regime.
In Myanmar, some of the sparks that helped ignite widespread popular protests against the junta came in the form of the military gunning down teenagers in the street, beginning with Ma Thwe Thwe Khine and reaching a crescendo with Kyal Sin. Similarly, the latest iteration of anti-government protests in Iran exploded with the death of a Kurdish-Iranian teenager, Mahsa Amini. She was arrested by the Morality Police because her hijab (veil, or headscarf) was slightly askew, and then subsequently beaten to death while in police custody. As with the regime’s brutal military crackdown on protests in Myanmar, Iran’s Islamic government has responded with harsh, repressive measures. But just as the increased repression in Myanmar has only strengthened the Burmese people’s resolve to resist, a similar dynamic is happening in Iran. When Mahdavi asks her Iranian friends whether they aren’t afraid of arrest and torture and death if they continue to protest, she often hears “I’d rather die than live like this.”
But the similarities between Myanmar and Iran don’t end there. Just as in Myanmar, where young people have been in the forefront of the protest movement, a similar dynamic has been at play in Iran. And like in multiethnic Myanmar where there is now widespread solidarity in opposition against the regime, a similar situation is unfolding in the diverse country of Iran. Similarly, both movements have responded to the challenging environment for information sharing and reporting. In both countries, information is dangerous to have and share, reporting is fraught with challenges, and the respective regimes are both trying to limit if not eliminate online access; yet the people are nonetheless figuring out ways to continue sharing news and inspiration. Finally, there is a real need to keep international attention on the situations in Myanmar and Iran, so that the democratic movements are not isolated and can be supported. Mahdavi believes that greater collaboration and discussions between these resistance movements could be a boon for activists on both sides.
In terms of what she predicts might happen in Iran, Mahdavi says, “So, people often want me to have a crystal ball. And I say, ‘Well, you know, one thing I've learned with Iran is to not do that.’ But what I can say is we don't have to just sit and wait silently. I think we can continue to do things like we're doing right now, like having the conversation, elevating the visibility, and making sure that the international community continues to have this attention.”
Professor Mahdavi leaves us with the following thoughts, which are expressed about Iran but have equal resonance in Myanmar: “I would want to invite our listeners to think about what kind of a situation must people be facing to be willing to die for their cause? And how can we help them? How can those of us who are not facing those same challenges on not just a daily but on an hourly basis? What is it that we can do to support them and to bring about meaningful and lasting social change that is rooted in justice and human rights for all?”