Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

October 20, 2008 |  8 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Sepideh  Parsa

"Weblogistan" Key to Democratization in Iran

Sepideh Parsa: The Islamic Republic is strangling the media landscape, crippling the democratic pillar of free speech. Censorship has given rise to the Iranian blogosphere. These blogs pave the way for democratic progress. The West should provide technological expertise to help Weblogistan flourish.

In recent years the blogosphere in the Middle East has experienced significant growth. Blogs have become an essential medium for dissidence against the autocratic regime and its state-controlled media. Iran has one of the strictest censorship policies in the Middle East. Thus, blogs offer Iranians the only platform to peacefully exchange their political thought, emotions, and opinions while overcoming the boundaries that have been imposed by the government.

Iran has experienced remarkable Internet growth in recent years. Between 2000 and 2007, the number of users in Iran has increased from 250,000 to 18 Million, which accounts for 53.7% of the users in the region. Filtering systems are now applied that eliminate sites harming the principles of the Islamic Republic. Various Internet sites - particularly Western media - are blocked. Although the Internet has been denounced as a product of Western decadence, the regime has not been able to forgo the advantages that the medium offers; it participates in cyberspace to promulgate its own ideological interests by jumping on the blog bandwagon.

In 2001 a former Iranian journalist published online instructions on how to create a Persian language weblog, which essentially marked the beginning of the Iranian blogosphere, known as "Weblogistan." There are now around 700,000 blogs in Iran, of which 60,000 are supposedly active. Consequently, it is no surprise that Farsi is among the top ten most used languages on the Internet. Weblogistan is now one of the few safe places for free communication, helping to compensate for the loss of free speech in the country. Blogs in Iran are guaranteed; they are "Iranianized" and are not viewed as a Western threat, since the religious leadership is exploiting them for their own interests.

Many bloggers in Iran are actually journalists contributing to political blogs, thereby circumventing censorship. 70 precent of Iranians are under the age of 30- not suprisingly the "children of the revolution" constitute the majority of bloggers. More importantly there is a rising figure of women blogging. They are aware of the rights that are given in a democratic system, and they reveal their discontent by forming political groups and using blogs as tools to fight oppression and gain access to some democratic qualities.

The cyber world is not just used as a safe space to reflect on politics in the Iranian system. Most bloggers simply talk about their everyday lives, their desire for freedom and a different life. At first glance most of these blogs do not have a political impact but they still have political aspects. Even when bloggers just write about their interests, they are already challenging the government's control over their lives. This means that simple topics become automatically politicized. Furthermore, many blogs are used to consume and discuss American pop-culture. The government tries to shield Iranians from these influences, but the black market offers a variety of pirated music, movies, art, and books from the West that are sold inexpensively. Unlike the way it is often presented in Western media, Iranians readily welcome and enjoy American culture.

For the past 28 years, the Iranian regime has tried hard to cleanse the country of any kind of democratic movement. Today, Iranian society's desire for freedom, self-expression and Western culture seems to be more intense than ever. There is a liberating movement in Iranian society that flies in the face of the government ideology. Blogs provide Iranians with a forum to practice and push for democratic progress. The Iranian people have shown they do not fear the punishment of their government and that they have found ways to overcome restrictions imposed by the regime.

Nevertheless, the regime is still able to observe the blogosphere and imposes restrictions. Free access to information is fundamental for international understanding, and free media can be used as tool for spreading democracy. Many Western nations have already begun to support Iran and other countries where the media is subjected to limitiations by providing them with proxy servers and software to avoid filtering. In order to better protect themselves from the regime's interference, the Iranian people would certainly benefit from further technological know-how from the West. Western governments, however, would have to make sure, that the technological or financial support that they would be willing to offer would actually be received by the blogosphere. This kind of support could be a way to expose societies that are living under autocratic regimes to democratic priciples and further bolster a fledgling democratic movement.

Sepideh Parsa in an editorial intern at atlantic-community.org

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

 

  • 18
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | Weblogistan | US | the West | democracy promotion | Iran |
 
Comments
Jan-Friedrich  Kallmorgen

October 20, 2008

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Sepideh: Thanks a lot for this refreshing piece with a great inside-perspective on how the younger generation of Iranians think.

Why not covering the most interesting Iranian blogs regularly on Atlantic-Community.org? That would allow the West to understand better the concerns and thoughts of the young Iranian elite and would make a direct dialogue with those easier, who do not support the regime.
 
Member deleted

October 20, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thanks Ms. Sepideh, interesting article.

You describe Iranians quite western orientated, what is the attitude with northern neighbouring nations e.g. to Russians, some economical ties are anyway to North - how about cultural?

Could it be possible to get a link list about most poplar Iranian internet sites and online news services with English language? I think that common West - Iranian internet forums would help mutual understanding and prevent Americans or their allies to start bombing this old civilization.
 
E. Ben Heine

October 20, 2008

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you for this insightful article. I was especially interested in your remark that some Western countries have set up proxy servers and circumventor software for Iranians to use.

This actually brought to my mind one of the great ironies of Internet liberalism: autocratic countries, such as Iran, with which the West has a bad relationship and few ties, actually stand a better chance of being supported in the defense of Internet freedom, than countries such as China, in which Western companies (Google, Yahoo, etc) are complicit in censorship.
Tags: | Iran | China | Internet censorship |
 
Sepideh  Parsa

October 21, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Ari,

I guess blogs will give you the most authentic view of what is going on in the minds of Iranians. I would recommend to take a look at:

http://blogsbyiranians.com/

This page contains a great deal of blogs from Iranians inside and outside from Iran. Almost all of them are written in English.

http://www.farsinet.com/news/ might also be helpful. You will find also a list to Iranian TV and radio stations that are based in Los Angeles, since there is a huge Iranian community. Iranians especially from Iran often participate in live debates.

The English version of some more "moderate" newspapers

http://jamejamonline.ir/e

http://www.ettelaat.com/index2.asp?code=etb8

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index.asp
 
Fouad Naji Maarouf

October 31, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
What do Iranians really want?

Is it really democray? or a western styled Iran similer to that of Turkie with no religious control and a free civil rights society and press? What do the young iranians want?


I asked those questios many Iranians living in Germany and the UAE. Their answers were
to that what Miss Parsa worte.

But the events we saw during the histoty of the Middle East and Iran speak an diffirent language...

I think that the theatrical play Iran and the USA are presenting in the world media show us that all is moslty smoke without fire. If we take a good look at the past realtions (1945-1978) between those two nations we notice many strange things.

In the era of Ronald Reegan, the USA sold weapons to Iran and financed the contra rebels in Nicaragua. (Iran-Contra Aiffair)... Today we see that Ahmendi Nejad had th e chance to visit the USA and even hold a lecture in a US university!

What does that all tell us undirectly, well... Iran and USA are strating to become the next best freinds of the middle east. Iran can help the US security and oil companies. Iran is rich with oil and gas. Let's also not forget the superb relation between the Shah Reza Pahlavi and the CIA.

Most of the iranian capital and lies in markets and bakns of Dubai, which the iranians always concerdird to be a colonie sicne pre-islamic times. The only big losers are the Arabs. Becuase of so called terrorism concers we can notice that the US public view of this part of the world has always been negative. Hollywood reflects the fears of the US goverment.

Normal iranian really don't care about Islam, they would rather live under a domecracy without any influance of religoin, which they blame the arabs for bringing to Iran in the eraly 7th century A.D.

Iran wants its old pre-islamic kingdom and influance back on the regoin when it had colonies everywhere reaching to Greece and Egypt and Yemen but with a new look using deplomacy, money and its big armee.

Does Iran really care about the Arabs? The Tonb Kubra, Tunb sughra and Abu Musa Inslands alaways belonged to the UAE. Its occupation of Bahrain in 1971 and of those Islands really show the real relation Iran wanted back then with the Arabs, The Shah even wanted to get rid of all arabic words in pesrian by creating an institute for clensing of persian langugae from arabic words, and as well known pesrian contains more than 60% arabic vocabulary!

As we have noticed in the last 5 years there is a wave of anti-US movements in the arab and islamic world. Iran wants to profit from that and act as hero and saviour of the muslims (the hidden Imam cult under the 12 imammyyah sect of shiit relegion and not islam!). It's interfearance in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine with american greetings show how NATO, USA, Turky and Iran want to be the masters of the middle east. The Iraq war was a real blessing for Iran too. It profited financially through weapon sales and smugling. The Kurds profited too. The only big loser were the Iraqis, Palestinians and Saudi Arabians.

Iran is helping Israel and would never dare attack it, did we ever hear or see and israeli jet bombing Tehran? No only Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and of course Lebanon were pulled into decades of war thanks for Europe and Russia for there anti semitism! Iran was just wating and watching and palying it's chess game in the regoin. Iran alaways and still has good relations with USA and Europe.

After all want peace? But why do we have a conflict that has been going on since the Othmanic Empire collapsed? Why did Europe and Russia expel the jews to Palistine (not Israel) and why are all Arabs denied the simplest human righst since 1948? Does Iran really dare wipe out Israel?
Ahmedi Najad is a real good actor on the political sence, and if iranian really wanted democray they would have already started a revoltuion but they will never do. Ahmedi Nejad was elceted by Iranians and not only chosen by the Mullahs. Lets not forget that the Mullahs always were an active part (the Ulamas= shiite scholars) since the Qajar dinesty.
Iran fogot it constitutional Revolution that ended with a (Shahen Shahe Iran!) The communist iranian parties fled to Russia and the democrates to Europe and US and of coure to the arab world.

Will iranians be realy able to get rid of Islam and the Mullahs for the sake of democracy?


I really hope for peace and justice for Iran and the region but with the Arabs as equal partners not as under dogs! Islam is an undiviedable part of the Middle-Eastarn ethics, morals, culutre and way of life...has been sicne 700 A.D.

Forcing "democary" through voilance, occupation and blood will not work...All wise people all over the world know that....
 
Sepideh  Parsa

October 31, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Fouad,

I agree, US-Iran relations aren't really transparent. But I must say that I disagree with your statement that "Normal Iranians don't care about Islam". Iranian culture is shaped by the teachings of Islam. Most Iranians simply disagree with the way the autocratic regime interprets and carries out the ideals of Islam. People distant themselves from the regime's approaches but arguing that Iranian's don't care about their religion is not quiet appropriate.
Just think about the Shah era. The Shah forbid to wear the hijab in public spaces and people started to demonstrate and rebel against his orders. The hijab used to be an optional profession of faith but in a very much westernized era this order violated people's religious belief. People were enjoying the advantages of a more open society but religion has always played a vital role in Iranian society.

And yes, Ahmadinejad was elected by Iranians but with regard to the alternative candidate Rafsandjani this choice is not very suprising. Iranian's already went through more than just one term of a corrupt Rafsandjani administration. Ahmadinejad used to be a very popular mayor of Tehran, promising a redistribution of wealth to poor Iranians. I doubt that Iranian's would have elected Ahmadinejad knowing that nothing would change or that things would even get worse. Iranian's are tired. After going through a corrupt Shah era , a long war, a revolution resulting in a mullah state how could Iranian's be blamed for not starting a revolution. Even if they did how could they possibly win against a militariy very strong government without being able to protect themselves?

The question is not about Iranian's getting rid of Islam for the sake of democracy. An implementation of a demcratic-like system can only be successful if it is in accordance with Iranian traditions, islamic principles etc. Islam is part of Iranian history, culture and self-understanding. You can't just wipe that out for the sake of democracy. Iranian's would welcome a democratic system which is compatible with their values. Believing in Islam doesn't disqualify the possibility of a free society and state that upholds human rights.
 
Donald  Stadler

October 31, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"Forcing "democary" through voilance, occupation and blood will not work...All wise people all over the world know that...."

I would say rather that it rarely is appropriate. Violence can at mot remove an entrenched dictatorship which uses violence and repression against it's peopl to remain in power illegitemately.

Consider the case of Iran, since Iran is the topic at hand.

Iran is not a true democracy because the people are not sovereign; that is they are not free to pick whomever they wish to lead them. The entrenached mullahs pick the candidates they find acceptable, and the people then elect from that narrow list.

That is not a democracy, but the potential is there to make it one. All that needs to change is to remove the clerical veto on candidates standing for office, and Iran is most of the way there. Democracies have come into being many ways, but one possible parallel is England, where the Commons gradually took power from the King by controlling the power to tax. Every time a fiscal crisis arose the commons took more power.

Iran is about to have a major fiscal crisis, it's first since the Shah fell. Last time Iran lost a king and gained a religious oligarchy cum democracy. Perhaps this time it will gain a true democracy.
 
Donald  Stadler

October 31, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Reading the above I find I have a need to further explain my argument about the use of force to 'promote' democracy.

Accurately speaking, force should never be used to promote democracy when there are no other reasons to use force. That is, promotion of democracy is a post-effect rather than a pre-condition to the use of force.

Consider a case like Afghanistan. The reason for making war against the Taliban is that they were harboring a third party group (Al Qaeda) which had made war against the United states, and refused to hand them over to the US for justice after September 11th. Making an act of war or condoning, encouraging, and supporting the making of an act of war are causus belli. Not being a democracy is not a causus belli.

Having a causus belli against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, NATO made war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Having defeated Taliban and Al-Qaeda, the question arose as to what kind of government to give the country. NATO mostly consisting of democracies, the decision was made to try to create a democracy. That was appropriate if not in hindsite necessarily wise. Then again - it may be that NO form of government was going to work to western standard after what Afghanistan has been through since 1979 - democracy may have been the best of a set of poor choices.

But had there been no causus belli there would have been an insufficient case to make war. International Law is inadequate in cases like these, I think. Apart from condoning the making of offensive war by a third party, Taliban was by no means the worst possible government the world has seen, despite it's oppression and corruption of it's people. Consider the Kmer Rouge, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, all of which have oppressed and killed far more of their citizenry than Taliban had managed to do to date. There should be clauses in International law justifying armed intervention to stop mass slaughter.


 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Olaf  Theiler
Olaf Theiler
Member since
May 4, 2009

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?