Iranian protestors in Tehran stand around a burning car during a demonstration.
This past weekend, violent protests swept across Iran in response to the government's decision to raise gas prices by 50%. At least five people were killed and hundreds arrested, and Tehran, the capital, was brought to a standstill. While the plan for reduced subsidies and increased gas prices is not new in Iran, the timing caused anger to quickly ignite in the country. Due increased tensions with the United States and added sanctions, Iran has been struggling economically, and millions of citizens have been greatly impacted by this hardship. This situation combined with the influence of anti-government protests in other Middle East countries quickly turned the anger into action in Iran.
In response, Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, called the protestors "thugs" while authorities warned citizens against demonstrating and shut down much of the internet. The internet shut down and tight control over the media released definitely raises some concerns regarding the actual events occurring and what might be downplayed. During the address made on Sunday, Khamenei also suggested that protestors have been forced into action by counter-revolutionaries and foreign enemies, which I feel might be too hasty an assumption and dismisses the public opinion, allowing him to avoid/ignore the opposition to the policy. He voiced continued support for the price increase, stating that the government plans to use money raised from the raised gas prices for cash payments to low income households. Since the address, the unrest has decreased.
This connects to idea of freedom of speech and the ability to protest as all the Iranians involved are actively voicing their opposition to the new policy. We discussed in class the public's ability to impact the government and its policy-making, and this is a good example of citizens attempting to do so. However, I believe that it is always hard for the public to make as large of an impact as they hope to with protests, such as how these very violent nationwide demonstrations didn't actually result in policy change. Instead, tensions have only increased between the public and Iranian government. This is also similar to the protests in Hong Kong which have been extremely disruptive and violent, and yet led to little satisfaction or change. Or similar to the many marches in the US (whether for gun control, climate change, or another topic) that have yet to result in political action or actual policy change.
4 comments:
I agree with Sabine in that it appears that Iran's leaders were hasty to call the protestors "criminals, thugs and hooligans" from the NBC article. The protestors had a clear intent in mind when creating the destruction; they hoped to send a message to the government that their actions towards the public are not okay. Criminals are not trying to prove a point when they cause destruction; they often mean to simply destroy because they can and think they won't get caught. I also understand where Sabine is coming from when stating that it is hard to make policy changes since violence was used. Governments never like when their people seem uncontrolled and causing chaos, so it is highly unlikely that the Iranian government would wish to pacify the protestors' demands since they used such harsh tactics.
I think the situation in Iran is especially interesting as tensions rise with the US. I think a more tactful approach towards raising gas prices would’ve been to release an address covering why gas prices are to be raised, then over a substantial time period, increase the gas price levels to 50% above what they currently stand at. It’s unfortunate that people had to die in a cause that could’ve been avoided by better communication by the government to its people. I also think it's quite concerning that the government is limiting internet usage as a way to prevent the outbreak or disturbance within Iran. Hopefully these events are not a sign of a potential future norm within economically tense nations (although as the issues in Hong Kong escalate, I am becoming increasingly less certain of my aforementioned assertion).
I believe Iran's supreme leader came to a conclusion too fast, and rushed his decision to mark up gas prices. The reason why he marked up the gas prices is justified and reasonable, but he should have brought it up in a subtle manner; he should have raised the prices slowly or should of warned the public beforehand. It is extremely concerning for those who live in Iran, and I also would be mad if I was in the current situation. Also, the government limiting internet usage would most likely prevent an outbreak from occurring temporarily, but it the madness would probably be pent up, and would eventually be released into the media and into the public.
I agree with Carlos that the Iran government could have handled raising the gas prices differently. Releasing a statement and gradually increasing prices perhaps could have led to less anger and violence over an increase by 50%. Additionally, I agree with Sabine that these violent protests often lead to little change being made. However, I don't think that people should stop participating in them as while the protests themselves may not lead directly to change, the influence they have can spark actions that do. Protesting is the practice of freedom of speech and I think that they do help in raising awareness of an issue and can lead to change.
Post a Comment