The only impact a green icon has made for me is that it's harder to tell who's posting what. I mean, I could see that (as my brother pointed out) seeing a greenified icon might make an Iranian American feel nice if he happens to be following you, but that guy's worried right now about his friends and relatives and probably couldn't give a damn about your show of solidarity. It's nice, but it's not enough.
This weekend, I was talking with my brothers about the revolution. The problem I saw, inherently, was that the revolution was to protest the loss / theft of an election for someone who ideologically is not ANY different from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at all. Mir-Hossein Mousavi was selected by the Iranian "Supreme Leader" along with 4 other candidates (including Ahmadinejad) to run for president of the country. The country itself is actually run by the "Supreme Leader", one Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The president is more of a figurehead, and wields SOME power but only at the pleasure of the big guy. It honestly doesn't matter who the guy is at all - and honestly, there are revolutions in Iran every 15-20 years anyway, always with the same result. Of course, now Mr. Mousavi is changing his stance on some things and fitting himself into the revolutionary mold, but who knows how genuine that really is?
SO I was doing some thinking last night about the situation. There IS a difference here, in this revolution, versus the revolutions for power that we've seen cyclically all over the Middle East. The difference here is that the knowledge held by the electorate is much higher than it used to be. I've talked before about the internet being the great equalizer- that once countries had populations who realized that they had complete access to all the information they might want, then the populations would force a true democratization of their government. Honestly, at this point it doesn't actually matter WHO the president is or will be.
I'm realizing that it's NOT about who got the election stolen or even if it WAS stolen. I think, from what I can see, that the current revolutionary aspect is entirely about the government's reaction to the questions about the election. You can't just stifle information when a populace is used to having that access. It's a very destabilizing notion.
What will the outcome be? Pfft. No one knows. Probably there will be no difference in 2 years, regardless of the course of events... but MAYBE.. just maybe, there will be enough of an event to make a permanent change toward a more secular and intelligent middle east, whether in Iran or another country where the young men and women are inspired by the sequence of events unfolding on every media outlet from Twitter to Fox News to Al-Jazeera. MAYBE we'll see a moderate Middle East emerge, where countries look to Jordan as examples of co-existence, and MAYBE we'll see a ratcheting-down of religious and dogmatic persecutions which result in the killings of innocent men, women, and children in the name of an imaginary deity.
Will I be greenifying my icon? Nah. But am I sitting here hoping to see that the people who CAN make a difference actually do? Yes. Absolutely.
Posts
3 comments:
I refuse to do the green icon. It's just a sheep thing in my opinion.
I agree with you on the icon, it's a useless, possibly even detrimental gesture - the latter since, many, no, most of those who do it will feel like they've "done something" and make no further effort.
The only thing in your analysis that I don't really agree with is a common suposition, mostly by americans - that having access to information and news and such that's going on in the world will result in a populace that, as you put it, "would force a true democratization of their government". On what basis can we assume that people will necessarily choose democracy, of any sort, over another form of government? Just because you, someone, we, whomever, thinks democracy is the way to go doesn't mean that all people will agree with that, regardless of how much information they have.
Interesting, SaltShaker. I actually had to think about that - and I see where you're coming from. I suppose I should rephrase and say that people would force a more representative or moderate form of government.
Most studies show that the more educated a person is in a wider variety of material beyond their religious dogma or their country's propaganda, the more they desire a less absolutist power in their leadership... so perhaps "democratization" was too western of a prejudice to use.
Post a Comment