Dr. Abdol Sattar Doshoki - April 30, 2009
 |
| Dr. Abdol Sattar Doshoki |
It seems that the word "federalism" is an unappealing term to the political ears of many compatriots, as they do not consider it a reliable or suitable system for managing the affairs of our country. Advocates and opponents of federalism often defend their positions resolutely and sometimes passionately without a scientific, historical, or objective analysis of the various federal systems in more than twenty-five democratic countries worldwide, or an evaluation of its compatibility with the future of Iran. This article aims to inform and dissect the contentious issue of federalism, free from any biased justification or rejection, to provide compatriots with a deeper understanding of the subject. Opposition to federalism can be reasonable and understandable if it is based on logic and argument, rather than mere prejudice and fear.
The term "federalism" is neither sacred nor synonymous with democracy. Countries like the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were legally labeled federal but were, in practice, centralized dictatorships. Federalism has no inherent connection to the form of government (monarchical or republican). For example, federal countries like Belgium, Malaysia, and Canada are monarchies, while the United States, Germany, and India are federal republics. Some federal states, such as the United States, Switzerland, and to some extent Malaysia, came into being through the union of independent states. In contrast, most federal countries (e.g., India, Nigeria, and Canada) were established after liberation from colonial rule or through referendums and constitutional changes in previously centralized systems (e.g., Spain, Belgium, Ethiopia).
The divisions of states and provinces can be based on historical features, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic compositions (e.g., Belgium, Nigeria, Switzerland, Malaysia, India, Ethiopia) or purely geographical and administrative boundaries (e.g., the United States, Germany, Australia). Additionally, asymmetric federalism, where some states or provinces have distinct identities and features, can combine homogeneous provinces with regions that possess unique ethnic, linguistic, or cultural characteristics, such as Spain. In Spain, regions like Galicia, Catalonia, and the Basque Country have their autonomy. Portugal, for instance, has two autonomous regions (the Azores and Madeira) and twelve homogeneous provinces. Tanzania’s Zanzibar region enjoys internal self-rule (autonomy).
In dual (or dualist) federal systems like Canada, states have the highest degree of autonomy in internal affairs, whereas cooperative federal systems involve high levels of collaboration between central and state governments both horizontally (legislative, executive, and judicial branches at state and national levels) and vertically (village councils, city councils, provincial councils, state assemblies, national parliaments, and central governments). As a result, it can be said that various forms of federal systems exist worldwide, each with its unique features.
Scandinavian countries are not federal, but their decentralized systems based on regional communes and autonomous provinces are comparable to federal systems. The United Kingdom is a more tangible example: it does not officially call itself federal, yet its ethnic regions like Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland enjoy a high degree of internal autonomy.
Thus, there is no need to clash over terminology. Federalism, as a relative and critique-worthy concept, holds no sanctity. Discussing it as a well-known and historically, politically, and objectively successful structure should be welcomed. Emphasis, however, should be on democracy as the decentralization of power, adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, secularism, equality, elimination of discrimination, and governance of the people at all levels. True democracy is a prerequisite for the success of federalism.
Moreover, all compatriots have the right to express their opinions about the future administrative or governmental system of Iran. No one should claim the right to insult or label others as traitors or separatists for expressing their views on federalism or any other system within the framework of Iran’s territorial integrity. Many countries, including Canada, Belgium, India, Nigeria, and Spain, have turned to federalism as an antidote to prevent disintegration and the reproduction of oppressive centralism. For this reason, no truly democratic and federal country has undergone disintegration. However, countries that continuously violated federalism, principles of decentralization, and ethnic rights—operating as centralized dictatorships—have disintegrated. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are two vivid examples.
Conversely, all truly democratic and federal countries where ethnic identities and rights are respected under the law have maintained their territorial integrity. India, Nigeria, Malaysia, Mexico, Belgium, Switzerland, Brazil, and Canada are examples.
Some argue that Iran was the world’s first federal country. The satrapy systems of the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanian empires were based on autonomous regions, each with its own ruler. The central leader of Iran was the “Shahanshah” (King of Kings) of the protected domains. This decentralized system was abolished with the Arab invasion and the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate. During Iran’s first successful uprising, the Constitutional Revolution, the country’s constitution was based on decentralization and the establishment of provincial and state councils in the protected domains.
Articles 90 to 93 of the Constitutional Revolution’s law state:
“In all protected domains, provincial and state councils are directly elected by the people, and these councils have the authority to oversee reforms concerning public interests.”
A hundred years ago, when the Iranian nation chose the state and provincial system, many of today’s federal countries, such as Malaysia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, and the UAE, did not exist. Thus, those claiming that we are culturally backward and incapable of adopting federalism are conflating issues. The experience of all federal countries has proven that federalism leads to progress; progressiveness is not a prerequisite or condition for federalism.
Unfortunately, over the past century, the centralized autocratic rulers violated the decentralizing constitutional law and, under slogans such as independence, national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national unity, and strength, have dragged Iran into a medieval religious dungeon through centralized authoritarianism in Tehran and Qom.
We Iranians have two choices: either embrace democracy, governance by the people at all levels, and reject absolute centralized power, which has symbolized oppression, corruption, injustice, and Iran’s backwardness—or allow a select few to exploit topics like the fear of disintegration to numb us to the compounded injustices against others, perpetuating centralized authoritarian rule.
Those who believe in democracy must understand that democracy does not emerge in a vacuum. A democratic society must have a decentralized governance and decision-making structure based on equality, participation, power-sharing, and anti-discrimination principles.
In oppression-stricken Iran, people have the right to vote for the country’s president but not for their village chief, city governor, or provincial governor. In oppression-stricken Iran, a Baloch citizen can freely learn English, French, Arabic, Russian, or Spanish but not their mother tongue. In oppression-stricken Iran, if a Baloch citizen holds a placard in their city stating, “I am proud of my mother tongue,” they are immediately arrested, tortured, and imprisoned. Meanwhile, if a Persian-speaking compatriot does the same in Isfahan or Tehran, they are praised and encouraged.
The concerns of fellow citizens who oppose federalism—particularly ethnic-geographic federalism—are legitimate and understandable. Advocates of federalism must address these concerns with patience and mutual respect. The worries of dissenting compatriots cannot and should not be dismissed with labels like "Persian chauvinism." Iran, as a historic and colorful tapestry, has always been a land of diverse ethnicities and religions. However, for various reasons, many of Iran's provinces today are ethnically and linguistically mixed. For instance, most Turks in Iran do not live in Azerbaijan. Many Kurdish-populated cities are located in West Azerbaijan, not in Kurdistan.
Thus, from the perspective of many citizens, ethnic federalism could create problems and lead to tensions or even ethnic conflicts in ethnically and linguistically mixed areas. They argue that the cost of such a risk is extremely high and unacceptable, and that, in today's modern world, ethnicity or religion should not serve as the basis for political legitimacy or administrative divisions within a country. This is a valid concern that must be addressed.
A large group of federalism opponents support provincial or administrative federalism. Many fellow citizens, due to past events such as the Autonomous Government of Azerbaijan led by Pishevari, the Republic of Mahabad under Qazi Mohammad in Kurdistan, or the "controversial and provocative" rhetoric of a small number of ethnic extremist groups, see federalism as the beginning of Iran's disintegration and are therefore strongly opposed to it.
Moreover, some insist—either out of historical prejudice, hostility, or ambiguous and sometimes suspicious motives—that this debate should be pursued through the lens of ethnic or national conflict (between a dominant "ruling nation" and "oppressed nations"), rather than the struggle between a despotic regime comprising various ethnic groups (Persians, Turks, Arabs, etc.) on one side and oppressed ethnic groups on the other. This perspective blurs the clear line between oppressors (authoritarian governments) and the oppressed (Iranian ethnic groups), pitting Iran’s ethnic groups against Persian speakers ("the Persian ethnicity") and diverting attention from unified national efforts against the Islamic Republic.
Key Questions
Will federalism exacerbate ethnic tensions, or will it serve as an appropriate solution to prevent them? Could federalism undermine Iran's territorial integrity? Are ethnic organizations genuinely pursuing the elimination of discrimination, or do they have other ambitions?
Proponents of federalism must create an atmosphere of mutual understanding, respect, and trust by employing constructive, confidence-building rhetoric. They should also draw upon the experiences of federal, multiethnic countries to demonstrate to compatriots that what happened in former Yugoslavia was the direct result of ethnic repression by the central government under Marshal Tito, who built an authoritarian and powerful state by trampling on a decentralized constitution. Tito managed to plant seeds of discord and mistrust among Serbs and other ethnic groups in Yugoslavia through oppression and executions. Ultimately, Yugoslavia reaped what had been sown through decades of coercion.
Fortunately, Iranian ethnic groups have lived side by side for centuries in a spirit of friendship and brotherhood, not only coexisting peacefully but also intermixing. The root of our problems has been the centralized authoritarian governments, which have always been composed of various ethnic groups.
I also agree with those compatriots who believe that initial emphasis should be on democracy, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and secularism, rather than on a specific executive system like federalism. At the same time, we must explain in what framework or system democracy can be implemented. Iran is not unique compared to the rest of the world. We must not allow history to repeat itself, as when Ayatollah Khomeini deceived the people (including myself) with promises of an Islamic democracy tailored to Iran’s cultural and traditional characteristics. Similarly, we must reject claims that Iran’s cultural conditions are too different from Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, or the United States to adopt their federal systems.
This argument may have an audience, but what about federal systems in India, Ethiopia, and Nigeria? Do they possess more advanced political cultures than us? What about Malaysia, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa? Why have we always been taught to see ourselves as unique and exceptional?
Final Points
It is essential to clarify some issues: federalism (federation) differs from confederalism (confederation). In international law, confederations grant member states the right to self-determination (secession), whereas in federations, this right is not automatic. For example, while some in the Indian states of Kashmir or Assam demand referenda for independence, the Indian Constitution and international law do not recognize such a legal right to secede.
In a federal system, all Iranian citizens will have equal rights regardless of ethnicity, culture, or language. Discrimination based on these factors will be illegal. Even if certain provinces, such as Baluchistan or Kurdistan, are organized along ethnic and linguistic lines, no ethnic or linguistic superiority will exist. Every Iranian citizen, regardless of ethnicity or language, will enjoy equal rights in every province or state, including rights to mother tongue education, residence, work, and the right to vote and run for the highest provincial or state office.
Just as in a secular system no religion or sect enjoys special privileges, in a federal system, no ethnic group will have special advantages. The goal of federalism is to eliminate discrimination and double oppression in all aspects—not to establish the dominance of one group over others.
Persian will remain the official and common language of all provinces and states. Iran’s central parliament and government, like those in federal countries such as the United States, Brazil, and India, will remain strong and exercise authority over national matters, including the military, macroeconomics, natural resources, international relations, large-scale projects, higher education, and more.
In a federal system, part of the executive powers of the three branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—will be delegated to the states. This means political power will be distributed, not national sovereignty. Iran will retain a single, indivisible national sovereignty. Democratic decentralization based on global standards, accompanied by adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and secularism, represents the future of Iranians.
We share a common destiny and must collectively seek a shared solution. Instead of sowing seeds of mistrust and division among ourselves, we must work together to remove the obstacles to democracy, equality, the recognition of ethnic rights, and adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and secularism. We must be vigilant to prevent anyone—on either side of the debate—from misleading us with emotional provocations or false solutions.
The link to the original article in Farsi on Asre-nou:
آيا فدراليسم به تجزيه ايران منتهی خواهد شد؟