Complete Text of Mousavi’s Interview with Jamaran

Source: Jamaran.ir
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Jamaran news agency reports: 9 years after the great victory in the revolution some of the loyal clerics close to the leader of the revolution came together. They did not deem it enough to remain in one of the most influential clerical parties of the time. Instead, they decided to separate themselves and create a new organization. The great leader of the revolution approved of this historical birth of his students and the Association of Combatant Clerics rose up from the heart of the Society of Clerics. Later this political stream changed the political scene to win the most seats in the 3rd parliament, and started to have a big and influential impact in all the political affairs of the country.

Imam approved the separation and wrote a letter in the form of suggestions and recommendations that later became famous as the Charter of Brotherhood. We sought the long time fellows of the Imam and great men of this revolution to find out what Imam meant by ‘Unity’ and by ‘Difference’. Now 21 years after the charter of brotherhood was sent out by Imam Khomeini We want to seek out a remedy to the crises facing our national unity and political security and all in one of the most critical of times in the Islamic Republic establishment. Mir Hossein Mousavi needs no introduction. He’s the same man who was the last prime minister of the country, a man close to and approved by Imam Khomeini, and the serious candidate of the 10th presidential elections.

In the meeting between the Jamaran news agency and Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mr.Mousavi repeatedly signified the constitution as a national legacy and symbol of unity. He considered improper readings of the constitutions as the most important cause of divisions. We talked with the last prime minister on the 7th floor of the Saba building; a structure that long couple of other famous structures is a result of Mr. Mousavi’s work as a masterful architect and engineer.

* * *

Imam was not disturbed by the abundance of thoughts and ideas

Our discussions with Mr. Mousavi on the topic of charter of brotherhood unfolded as follows: “[Maintaining] unity was one of those approaches that the honorable Imam Khomeini paid great attention to until the last days of his life. Imam was always aware that our most important asset is our national unity. He would work hard so that our union could exist in its most all-encompassing form, to get people to be around one another. There is not a single important article from Imam where he has not stressed on importance of our union.”

Mir Hossein introduces unity as similar to an acceptance of the fact that there are an abundance of different politics and thoughts in our society and adds: “Imam was not disturbed by the abundance of thoughts and ideas; instead he would see them as a blessing for the Islamic Republic. I believe that Imam himself at times kindly stressed on this issue that our differences are a necessity. One Imam’s action that signifies this the most is Imam’s full approval of creation of the Association of Combatant Clerics.”

The wartime prime minister does not see the crises in the first decade of the revolution as an excuse to limit the political atmosphere by the government. He says: “In countries that emerge from a revolution and are dealing with chaos on the inside and war on the outside, the national and international norm is that leaders of a revolution tend to force all the different thoughts and ideas into a one channel so that there is only one idea in the nation. However, with the stress that Imam had on establishment of the association of the combatant clerics (branched off from Association of the clergy) he showed to us that existence of two independent groups is a good things and such abundance is necessary.

God Forbid if some one-sided religious discussions puts people in constrain so that they lose the freedom.

Mr. Mousavi pointed out a subject in the Charter of Brotherhood’ regarding openness of religious scholarship in the Islamic establishment and stressed: “Imam was always watchful that the insistence on system of Islamic values and fully religious discussions undermine or suffocate other thoughts to the extent that other ideas would lose grounds to show themselves. Imam always insisted that on Islamic issues there could be variety of ideas around every different issue.

I think Imam’s clear stance on this issue, is not only a religious standpoint aimed at religious scholars. It goes beyond that. It is alluding to people’s concerns. Imam believes a one-sided religious dialogue should not constrain people so as to cost them their freedom.

Regarding openness of religious scholarship in the Islamic Republic, Imam said: “In matters that a agreement of all has been reached, there could still be different accounts.” This is important. This means that it is even possible to have differences on issues that all the high ranking religious experts have agreed on. If we look closely, Imam believes in tolerance and concession. This opens up the environment for experts so that they can voice their ideas on newer, more modern phenomena and issues happening everyday in the modern environment of today. Imam has even recommended people without religious expertise to seek advice from different and avoid looking at only one view. He has advised them that there are multiple views on everything.

Emphasis on fundamentalism, or assuming fundamentalism as originality and purity would be a dead end [for the nation.]

The last prime minister believes that “The Islam that Imam referred to is an Islam that is involved with different affairs of the society. It is an Islam whose ideas on issues are always changing, are updated and are resolving newer issues. He follows a scholarship that can understand new issues and can produce opinion about them.” Mousavi added: “Quran, Islam and Revolution are words whose meanings are always changing. Based on different issues these words could have various meanings. A person out of the seminary schools, intellectuals, officials on management and supervisory levels who are attached to Imam’s thoughts can solve problems using his view points. Otherwise a monolithic background would always exist in our governments.

The honorable Imam has talked about fundamentalism and monolithic views. Some of his discussions may not have even been published yet. He believes that emphasis on fundamentalism, or assuming fundamentalism as originality and purity would be a dead end [for the nation.] There are times that Imam has given serious warnings to some who were more radically fundamental and had a monolithic mentality. He was always careful that this would not lead the establishment to a dead-end.”

Mir Hossein Mousavi offers his reading of Imam’s religious scholarship on the issue of Freedom of speech: “The first feature of this thought is that you can’t easily label people as outsiders from the inner circle and from religion. You and can not attack and label people who oppose some of the official ideas in a group as against the whole religion and establishment. Such short-sighted view is in a manner applied to the intellectuals and in other manners to the religious scholars. Imam view of such ideas was that they are against our unity over national interest. ”

Unity is not constituted based on political connections

Mr. Mousavi continued in his talk that: “Considering Imam’s view point, our union is not achievable based on political loyalties. The union approved by Imam, is a union that relies on components like national interests and a healthy survival of the Islamic establishment where your connections to power through family, friendship and acquaintance do not matter. The issue is to serve and maintain fundamental and basic values that would cause the success of the country. The charter of brotherhood, written by Imam, aims at key issues of our society. It is expedient that political groups, religious scholars, clerics, intellectuals and people think about this so that other different thoughts and ideas come together based on this message.

In the continuation of the interview we asked Mr. Mousavi about the tone of the letter to the political streams active in that decade. The letter has an optimistic tone that contributes to our union. What is the reality? What were those times like? Was there a unity back then or was Imam trying to induce unity into the political parties? The important answer to our question followed as such: “The truth is that in those times that provide the context for a letter too, there were differences and people were tending to left or right. There were figures in parallel institutions where every institution would commit to tasks dedicated to their corresponding left or right group: The Office for Advertising of Islam and the Institute for Advertisement of Islam and the like. In different bodies such divisions existed. What I noticed in Imams method is that regarding the Economy, Well-being of and life in society Imam’s views were much closer to the government or the party in the power then.

What is important is that none of these differences led to putting some of the people who were from very different parties to sidelines. They were all present in his circle: Mr. Asgar Owladi was there. So was Mr. Mahdavi Kani, Mr. Mousavi Kho’einiha and Mr. Mousavi Ardebili. All of these people were with Imam together. Presence of one group close to Imam, did not mean the omission of the other.

I have thought a lot about this issue. My feeling is that these circles were the links that connected Imam to bases of the society. Certainly, those who were connected to Imam through Mr. Khoeinia – same group who are constantly being accused and berated – could not have done so through Mr. Mahdavi Kani and vice versa.This was in itself a good methodology [that Imam had adopted.] It was due to this [connectivity through differences in inner circles] that Imam strongly resisted against omission of any of these figures around him. They were all with him till the last minute. Their omissions would cause disturbance, and these disturbances would carry out differences to the social scene. Omission of either of these figures did not mean the omission of that specific social base. The social base can not be omitted. Omission of these figures would disconnect the leadership of the country from a segment of society. It seems that in Imam’s belief this issue aside from its religious significance, had some strategic significance as well. He would somehow let in whoever had a right intentions and who was willing to serve.

Today society’s tolerance to accept different beliefs has significantly decreased in the political arena.

Mr. Mousavi, you had sensitive responsibilities in the past. You are also actively present in the political scene today and have always observed the affairs. After the revolution potentials for division increased. There were disputes and chaos on some of the provinces and a waged war externally. There were the economic pressure. Everything was there for the society to divide up and lose its union. We were living in hard times, and the establishment was managing the situation. Now, 30 years after the revolution, the establishment has stepped into unique situation. In you opinion, today situation is more dangerous or that of the past?

[In response] Mr. Mousavi points out that: “We can learn lessons from the past, but it is hard to compare two arduous situations by trying to put them in parallel. Back then we had just made the revolution possible. We had just escaped the grip of regime and had started a new system. The former system had long historical roots and had left impacts on our culture, politics, society, and way governance. In addition, the movement that the revolution had started was against the then international order, for this very reason had a countless enemies. Problems like the Noje Coup, chaos in our neighbouring provinces, and Saddam’s attacks were the result of this enmity. There were other movements [against us] on the global scale too. What made us powerful was our unity around an extremely advanced and upto-date ideology, and a sort of duty to preserve our union against all that could have attacked it.

What gave us strength during those crises was our unity around a modern ideology which was protected from sedition that was indented to disrupt this unity. Today we are certainly not facing threats of that nature , but the reason we feel more vulnerable is because of the domestic problems . During the war we felt an indescribable strength but that feeling is gone now.

In my opinion the tolerance and understanding of our society toward different thoughts in political sphere has decreased significantly. Back then , there were more problems but there was also more tolerance. Different opinions were able to work side by side, unfortunately this is not the case now.

Cultural, trade, and economic values have changed

During that time , if economic corruption was discussed it would immediately draw attention. The smallest corruption was looked upon with great importance. If there was a claim that $10,000 has been lost in government and it is not clear how it has been spent, it could bring down the government. But now the claims today [of money mismanagement] amount to billions of dollars and no one shows concern. I don’t want to accuse anyone but this creates issues in the country that make us more vulnerable. Back then the goal was to share all the resources, benefits and opportunities that the country and the system provide among everyone. The key issue were the people. Unfortunately today the values in economy, business and culture are different.

I have to point out that the bill for redirecting the subsidies would have been proposed in a different way at the beginning days of revolution This basis of this bill is not wrong. But to remove the subsidies and increase the price of gas while the subway budget funds are not being paid out or no attention is being paid to public transportation, this will cause serious issues for people. People ‘s life , job , income depends on transportation and it will be disrupted. On the contrary if the public transportation system is more developed the increase in price of gas will increase expenses for families. It is the public who suffers from these mismanagements and problems.

The bill to redirect subsidies will benefit the country if it is implemented properly in an efficient and effective government that relies on all available human resources.

The first decade of the revolution is nostalgia for the nation, people can still taste the sweetness of those days

Even in the situation of war, public opinion did not allow the government to have contradictory positions or express conflicting remarks. It is wrong when someone says one thing and does something else and is not able to offer an explanation for his actions. We see this a lot these days. This makes us more vulnerable and exacerbates our difficulties. We feel nostalgic toward the first decade after revolution. This national feeling toward hat period is because under those days conditions people knew that the system has put all its efforts and human resources tackling their problems. They would tolerate any deficiencies and they would support the government. People dealt with all insufficiencies in the country due to poverty, war , bombing of oil tankers , gas pipelines and limitation in import and export and they would not protest. Because they knew that they themselves and those who are serving them [in government] are doing what they can to solve these issues. We therefore witnessed a widespread national cooperation and patience that would help resolve disagreements, solve problems and was a strong support for our soldiers in the front.

Under these conditions with the deficiencies people faced , they would send their sons to the front and give their jewelry to the government to help cover war expenses. The result was a sense of security and calmness generated across society. Unfortunately this is not the case now.

proper and balanced execution of law can gather everybody around a national covenant.

We asked Mr. Mousavi what are the principles for unity? , how is unity defined? It is apparent that fundamental concepts like national interest do not have a single definition that is accepted by everyone, why is that ? Mousavi replied “ the reason is that we don’t pay attention to the constitution. All these issues are discussed in the constitution equally. We cannot give more weight to some sections and ignore other sections. This is what different factions and various officials do now. These sections are all interconnected. Particularly the chapters related to freedoms ( freedom of speech, assembly , opinion ) , city councils, articles regarding individual privacy, the issues related to minority languages and their right of education and so on do not pose any threat for the country. On the contrary they encourage unity. For example, just based on my own desire, I cannot claim that abiding by an article [ of constitution ] or not doing so is in the interest of country just based on my own desire.”

Note that in the time of war, in many countries there is no election or if it is, it is a fake one. Also there are lots of problems with executing the laws. However, with all the extensive problems and crisis that we had during the [Iraq] war, all the elections, despite being costly, were held in sequence, and the system remained stable. Nobody thought of any alternative. The only item that was postponed was councils’ law. The reason for that was the difference of opinion among the authorities; I personally believed at the time that executing the councils’ law was one of the most important ways to prevent government centralization. Some had different opinion. They said that because of the war it could cause some essential problems especially in the border regions.

We as the government acted and represented the law to the parliament and we also set up the time for Councils’ election. Imam Khomeini considered the law. In the meeting between the heads of administrative bodies, it was decided to postpone the election to sometime after war. The main objective at the time was to execute all the principals of that law, but these days the opinion seems to be different: some of the principles have been emphasized while some others have been excluded. Not executing the law properly and in a balanced manner can cause concision where as proper and balanced execution of law can gather everybody around a national covenant.

Constantly destructing the institutions and breaking the rules specifically the constitution isn’t going to solve any of our problems.

We asked Mr. Mousavi: “you say that if we consider and execute all the rules in the constitution with a balance, we can solve many of our extensive problems. Don’t you think that the concept of some of the rules in the constitution is so bold that they overshadow the other rules; in a way that many authorities only consider those specific rules and don’t pay attention to other important ones? This has result in the request by some to review the constitution.”

He responded: “we have some problems in our society that routs back into our heritage. Our behaviour, interests, and political conduct has influenced our system’s position more than our constitution. There are countries in the world, which are being governed with democracy while their constitution may seem to have more rigid rules than our own. However the method that they apply to Institutionalize democracy is conducted in a way that doesn’t allow the interpretation of the law in a rigid, traditional framework, which conflicts with democracy and freedom. For example there are few European countries that have rules related to imperial system in their constitution.” He added: “Constantly destructing the institutions and breaking the rules specifically the constitution isn’t going to solve any of our problems. Furthermore it can causes chaos and anarchy in the country. Paying attention to fundamental socio-political problems that we have had in our culture throughout the history is important. Especially if we consider that in most cases it’s not the constitution itself which causes the problem, rather the problem is with our interpretation of the rules based on social and cultural forces.

Having people with critical mindset, who are sensitive to their fate in addition to using all the opportunities, which allow us to gather around the constitution, can provide us the opportunity to better interpret and execute the rules, having said that, the constitution is not a celestial revelation and can be revised within a work- frame based on the time requirements.

Mr Mousavi emphasized: “I don’t think that some rules are bold and they overshadow the other rules. I think the problem is with some of our social and cultural traditions, which with a collection of historical and new misconducts have resulted in a kind of numbness. The numbness is not just associated with the government. It is related to ordinary citizens as well, although; I do believe that government has an important effect on people’s culture and plays an important role in educating the citizens about their rights. Imam [Khomeini] was tolerant toward the difference of opinions, which affected the society’s culture. He always considered diverse criteria and opinions in decision making.”

If it becomes ordinary for the people that their rights get abused and they don’t resist, the system will head toward dictatorship and cruelty.

Mr Mousavi continued: “It’s important how the government interprets the rules. At the same time it’s important how ordinary people and intellectuals react to these interpretations. Imam [Khomeini] said that the rights are there for the taking. Freedom is there for the taking. Freedom is one of the rights that people should ask for it and don’t let this fundamental right to be taken away from them. This is a principle for us. If it becomes ordinary for the people that their rights get abused and they don’t resist, the system will head toward dictatorship and cruelty. The newspapers, the media, the intellectuals, ordinary people, the political and cultural literature have their important roles here. All systems are facing these challenges. In the countries that people are more politically mature, if the government abuses even a little bit of citizen’s rights, it will be followed with immediate resistance. This resistance is institutionalized.

He said: “We have come a long way since Mashrutiyyat[constitution revolution of 1905] What we see now is not comparable with that era or even with 30 years ago. We have made some progress but we can’t say that we reached to the end point in our way and now people can go and rest and don’t ask for anything; everything is going to be solved by itself. People’s demand for their rights from the government and government’s open interpretation of the constitution is the way to solve the problems.”

I strongly believe that the transference of billion dollar contracts to the revolutionary guard doesn’t benefit the system or the revolutionary guard.

The [Iraq] war time prime minister emphasized: “Imam [Khomeini] was very sensitive toward financial issues. At one time a discussion started by some regarding army’s financial requirements, which supported army’s involvement in commerce. I opposed the suggestion since I believed it would have caused many problems. They said that the army would be involved only in developing infrastructure. I said that if the army gets involved with dollar’s rate, it couldn’t perform its tasks and would cause corruption. Their reasoning was based of some rules in the constitution that supports army’s involvement in construction during peace period. I advised that the army could get involved in construction without putting away its task; that there is no need for the army to get involved in commerce.
Army’s financial need should be handled by government and defence ministry. I strongly believe that the transference of billion dollar contracts to the revolutionary guard doesn’t benefit the economic situation, the system, or the revolutionary guard. This can face the country with dangerous situation.” He added: “Such problems has elevated in the last 3 or 4 years. The creation of strange and non-familiar financial institutes has caused problems not only for the military forces and police, but also for people. We shouldn’t think that a revolutionary guard member who looses his life in the border regions, gains any benefit from this. No, this economic activities has created a web with not just economical aims but also political agenda. The country doesn’t benefit of this. Imam [Khomeini] repeatedly pointed out this problem. If we acted based on his words, we didn’t get here.

Certainly some people gain political advantages in an environment of distrust and some others benefit from personal advantages.

Imam [Khomeini] in his letter talks about middlemen that create pessimism, and he strongly recommended that they should be avoided. Who are these people? , what is their occupation ? , Mousavi says regarding this: “There are people who make a living by spreading lies and accusations. I really don’t know if they have faith or believe in our religion? The atmosphere of slander and accusation is prevalent today. Some of these people, if we look at their actions from the perspective of Imam’s [principles] , have a filthy record. They have come forward and claimed that a great movement created by people is related to PMOI organization. These are people who encourage quarrels and differences and they benefit in concealing their own actions by creating an atmosphere of distrust and pessimism. On the contrary [ I think] it is to everyone’s advantage to respect people’s rights and create optimism. That some people constantly claim that this person or that person are an agent of foreign adversaries only over emphasizes the foreigner’s role. If they have played such an important role that they could bring so many people out on the street , we should raise our hands to surrender and resign from the Islamic Revolution [ establishment].

In response to the question “ who is responsible for this atmosphere of cynicism and distrust ? “ Mousavi said : “ Certainly some people gain political advantages in an environment of distrust and some others benefit from personal advantages. It was famously known that in the presence of Imam [Khomeini] no one dared to talk behind someone else’s back and assault them . Imam would harshly respond [to such an act]. I have witnessed occasions that Imam would get angry in such situations. This had a positive side effect in the society. Therefore it is necessary to watch people who are responsible for creating an environment of distrust.”

We asked Mr. Mousavi that some people emphasize the necessity of unity in today’s environment and some people oppose it. Some people say that first trials then [talk of] unity, what do you think about this ? He replied :” [this is ] power politics , what is not discussed is the meaning of the term unity. It is to the benefit of certain individuals that the country is dominated by disputes and disagreements and that the circle and context of the system becomes thinner and smaller every day. Imam [always] tried to enrich the real core of the society and the revolution so that it has the biggest volume and the margin the smallest volume. When he , in his will , advises those who have turned against the revolution to return to it , it shows that he does not even stand that small margin. He wanted everyone in a sea of unity.

What is happening these days is that the margin has extended more than core.

The core has become very narrow. I just say it symbolically: in this margin, we have large number of former government executives and clerics, a few Marjas , a number of ex – presidents, and even an ex head of parliament. You can’t call this the margin. In a situation like this, those who remain in core rely on few people in a militarized environment since they don’t have the support of this large margin. This is not to the advantage of our country. It is in the interest of the country that the space they[ in the establishment] define for dissidents is the smallest possible. If what is taking place is in contrast to this we should doubt our actions. It does not make sense that in a country, thousands of distinguished executives who have served the country are set aside and pushed to the margins.

Now , certain individuals have discovered that Mousavi Khoeiniha is a leftist, the very person who was one of the students of Imam [Khomeini]. They say Forghan[1] group were his students. With this mentality we won’t find one person in this system that has not have a relation with this person or that at some point. When the issues are reduced in this way , it is a sign of a sickness that has permeated our society . We should all be worried.

“ It is very important that when a biannual Cartoon conference was organized more than a hundred of our best cartoonist announced they will not attend. This is a big incident. If we see these as signs we can solve the problems. The signs are not always visible on a macro level in society , rather they are visible in certain parts of society. The fact that most of writers , painters , actors, directors and so on are now in the margin is a sign of crisis in the country

[As a society] We have become insentient like a person with leprosy.

Section [of forces] of the revolution disconnects from the core and we don’t take notice. This is the situation that we are facing now and Imam ‘s [Khomeini] concerns in devising the Charter of Brotherhood is related to this issue so that to keep all the forces with responsibility in the system, alert.

At the beginning of the year 1980 a group of people came from India and asked us to send a delegate there to introduce the Islamic Revolution. Martyr Beheshti asked me to go with few other people. One day I was sitting on the stairs of Delhi Grand Mosque when I realized a person with leprosy is sitting beside me who has lost some of his fingers and his leg. I asked my Indian friend why is this happening to him ? , He replied his body is numb when he loses body parts he does not realize it. This is what is happening to us. When we see that people who are genuinely worried for this establishment and are not asking anything in return are subject to insults or in the case of Mr. Karoubi physical assault we should realize that we are experiencing a serious stupor .

W asked Mr. Mousavi , what is known from memoirs of Imam and his followers in the first decade [after revolution ] portrays this image that the freedom to question, criticize and disagree with him or others was common. Why was it that he who devised the theory of Velayat Faghih ( ruling of clergy) did not expect full obedience ? . He replied “Of course at that time due to Imam enormous popularity , opposing him was looked upon with a negatively in the society but this did not stop people and various institutions particularly the parliament to propose their views. I remember various individuals who had talked harshly of Imam and they did not think he would have heard what they had said . When they became aware later on that Imam knows and requested a time to meet with him , he immediately accepted to meet them . Tolerance and freedom of thought is part of our religious beliefs that is not in any way in contradiction with the constitution. This is actually emphasized all over the constitution. Of course there is always this concern that due to our inefficient and failed performance a consensus is formed among people not to trust us in any matter. I don’t think there is a problem in the original ideals of the revolution , the problem is in our conduct. When people make a socially collective decision no one can stand the wave that spawns from it.

It will benefit us to reach consensus over an important and fundamental issue called constitution.

What I have been proposing as an individual who has a brief knowledge of the situation in the country is that It will benefit us to reach consensus over an important and fundamental issue called constitution. We might have different beliefs or opinions. But it is necessary that we reach consensus over this constitution so that we can get over the differences, solve the problems and carry out reasonable reforms in the country. I see this as the best basis for consensus. The constitution is not a revelation, if necessary the fundamental principles of it can be revised as it was done in 1989. If we reach this consensus , in an atmosphere that Imam [ Khomeni] depicts in the Charter of Brotherhood , people will protect our religious values. If problems are resolved people will follow the leaders, but it they see that the leader only add to the problems, deepen their miseries and increase pressure this will not happen.

It is not right to ask people to support the government despite all the failures and corruption. The government should either solve people’s problems or convince people when it is not able to find solutions. People expect this from the system in all areas such as economic and efficient management policies to nuclear technology.

People did not participate in the revolution to face all these problems. They did so in the hope of reaching freedom and welfare. If we don’t act properly this hope will be lost. The state should find solution to the serious issues people face. During the war if people were not present the country was lost to the enemy. If the state is not efficient people will not tolerate and will protest. This inefficiency will undoubtedly take away the legitimacy of the system.

[1] An obscure religious terrorist groupt that was responsible for murder of of some key individuals in the early years of the revolution.