_enhanced.jpg) |
First, one of the fundamental characteristics of federal political systems is the internal division of sovereignty. Dual sovereignty should not be confused with the separation of powers. As Mr. Hedayat Sultan-Zadeh said, “In all parliamentary democracies, there is a separation of powers, which is a necessary condition for a federal government; however, not all parliamentary governments are necessarily federal. For that to happen, there needs to be a vertical division of power or dual sovereignty within the country.” Local governments in a federal state are elected by the people of each area. They have their own parliament, government, police, and judiciary. They legislate and exercise sovereignty over matters such as education, health, tourism, natural resources, taxation, and key aspects of people's lives. They also have defined borders and a specific flag. The central government, in conjunction with these local governments and based on an agreement with them, deals with broader issues such as foreign relations, national defense, and coordination among federal states.
Second, the establishment of a federal state occurs through the voluntary union of independent units or newly freed territories from colonialism. There is no historical precedent to suggest that a centralized government, without undergoing political, ideological, and military collapse, would peacefully and willingly reorganize the existing governance system into a truly federal system. It is possible that dictatorial regimes, in the process of transitioning to popular and democratic rule, may decentralize and move toward a federal system. Based on this, some people hope that the potential process of federalism in Iran might necessarily go through this stage, but since no clear and reliable historical precedents are provided, and the exceptional examples mentioned are either classified as decentralized administrative systems or stem from the prior existence of national sovereignty, the available facts still suggest that a federal state can only be formed through the voluntary union of previously established local sovereignties.
Considering the two points above—that dual sovereignty exists in federal systems and the voluntary union of autonomous units—an interpretation of the issue is that the establishment of federal units precedes the existence of a central sovereignty. In other words, as long as a powerful central government is in place, it is impossible to establish a stable federal system. This is a point on which all experts agree. Even those who view federalism as a simple division of administrative tasks acknowledge the necessity of not having a central power before establishing a federal government. For example, Mr. Seyed Hashem Hedayati, an activist for reform, explicitly opposed the formation of federal units based on what he calls ethnicity. However, even regarding his envisioned decentralized system, when it comes to the context of its establishment, he admits that “One of the serious obstacles to federalism is authoritarian, centralizing, and non-democratic governments.” His view of democracy is summarized as “the existence of collective will and the mental and practical desire of the inhabitants of the territory and country in question for establishing a federal system, as well as the majority agreement of these people through democratic means, such as referendums or other voting methods.” This view, if considered in the current situation of Iran, with its hysteria of ancient Persianism and Iranism among institutions, political parties, intellectuals, and ruling forces shaping public opinion, makes even this process seem impossible. Thus, it can be said with certainty that the establishment of federalism is contingent upon the collapse of the central government, the formation of national units, and ultimately, the voluntary agreement of these units.
Considering the above assumptions, let us now list the existing conditions in Southern Azerbaijan and present Iran:
The government system in Iran, following Reza Shah’s coup, has been centralized and non-democratic, with its political, military, and judicial structures entirely focused on suppressing local governments and eliminating the grounds for the re-establishment of these governments.
In this period, Iran’s government not only exhibited features of individual dictatorship (during the Pahlavi rule) or collective dictatorship (during the Islamic Republic era), but also systematically served the hegemony of the Persian nation and the weakening of the economy in regions inhabited by non-Persian ethnicities. This system organized the flow of capital, material wealth, and cheap skilled labor from non-Persian regions to predominantly Persian areas in such a way that it resulted in the creation of a privileged status for these areas. Thus, the totalitarian centralized system in Iran, not only by being centralized in nature, worked against the interests of national regions, but also, due to its racist Persian-centered nature, intensified the imposition of unequal relations on national regions.
Throughout this entire period, the only times the establishment of self-governing local governments was possible were when the central government’s power weakened or obstacles arose to the exercise of this power. The formation of the Azerbaijan national government during the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan period, under the presence of foreign forces that prevented the central government's authority from being applied, is an example of this condition. When the external obstacle to the central government’s military campaign was removed, the inherently dominant central power had no hesitation in dismantling the existing federalism. From this historical process, it can be concluded that in order to achieve a federal state, the first step must be the collapse of the central sovereignty to the extent that it cannot exercise repression or military force over autonomous regions. Without the collapse of the totalitarian system in power and its military apparatus, any agreement to form federal states or even decentralized governments depends on the policy and will of a power that is inherently focused on domination and is inflexible in the face of disobedience from autonomous units. In other words, if the establishment of autonomous units results from an agreement with the existing central government, and even if in initial agreements these units are permitted to exercise sovereignty in specific areas, since the establishment of the central government does not originate from their will, and these local governments are a product of the centralized system itself, they will ultimately always be under the threat of repression by the central military, political, and propaganda apparatus.
In order to establish national governments before the establishment of a federal government, it is essential that national will and determination also exist in the autonomous regions for the establishment and exercise of sovereignty over their land. The current movement in Azerbaijan, regardless of internal struggles between its various political and ideological tendencies, has now reached a stage where, relying on the surprising awakening of Turks in Iran to counter cultural and economic suppression, it has reached national awakening and a collective will to assert national sovereignty. Public opinion in Southern Azerbaijan is now at a point where, firstly, it has seriously recognized its distinct identity from the one that the centralized and Persian-dominated system in Iran seeks to impose and promote, and it strongly resists the centralized cultural, economic, and political policies. Secondly, the movement has become a national one in which various segments of the people, regardless of class, religious affiliations, and local attachments, have joined. The deep influence of national tendencies is such that, under suitable conditions, one can expect the existing administrative and military apparatus in the region to also move towards establishing the national sovereignty of Azerbaijan.
Based on the national awakening among Azerbaijanis, the process of establishing political and human rights organizations as part of the Azerbaijani national movement, as well as the development of specific national symbols, which are essential characteristics for the exercise of national sovereignty, has begun and is being successfully advanced at the grassroots level. In terms of the specific symbols of the Azerbaijani national movement and its qualitative expansion, it is enough to consider the starting point of this movement, i.e., the designation of a unique and specific day for Turkish students, which has replaced December 7th and the song “Yar Debestani” in Azerbaijan at least, as well as the commendable movement of turning sports stadiums into scenes for the expression of the people’s national sentiments. Now, every major sports competition becomes a scene where people, in organized groups with a national goal, emphasize the independent and unified identity of Azerbaijan, thereby showing their distinct path from other parts of Iran.
6. Against this backdrop of national sentiments in Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani activists abroad, in the Amsterdam meeting in 2009, issued a theoretical document clearly outlining these national demands. The main issues in this document are national sovereignty, the official status of the Turkish language, and the formation of a democratic and modern government in Azerbaijan. The Amsterdam document has been endorsed by all prominent groups in the Azerbaijani national movement abroad—both the federalists and the separatists. Those who have not explicitly spoken about it due to security reasons inside the country have not shown any signs of dissatisfaction.
7. The established fact that national sovereignty is a common goal for both the federalists and separatists of Azerbaijan implies that until this goal is achieved, both groups must travel a common path. Until this initial objective is reached, no urgent issue will bring these two groups into conflict with each other. The only group opposing them is the supporters and defenders of the totalitarian, centralized, Persian-dominated system. During this shared journey towards the eventual realization of national sovereignty, both federalists and separatists will be subjected to relentless attacks from a treacherous and experienced adversary, one that relies on vast, uncontrollable financial resources, both governmental and non-governmental, inside and outside the country, and possesses a complex and organized lobbying system with mafia-like influence in the media. Additionally, they will attempt to sow discord and recruit from the ranks of the wavering.
8. The enemies of Azerbaijani national sovereignty, while directly opposing this demand, also, as a tactic of harassment, insidiously distort the concept of federalism. While they present the decentralization and the limited, unstable delegation of power from the central government to the provinces as “federalism,” they suggest that its achievement is possible through nationwide parliamentary elections. The goals of this policy can be categorized under several general points:
a. To deceive and attract some active forces in the Azerbaijani national movement to their ranks using a false, federalist mask.
b. By exaggerating the true federalist tendencies of Azerbaijanis, to create a misleading sense of an irreconcilable contradiction between federalists and separatists, a division that only becomes evident after the achievement of national sovereignty.
c. To create conditions for the domination of divisive elements within the ranks of Azerbaijani activists.
These circles are not necessarily associated with pan-Iranian groups or Persian fascists seeking grandeur. Part of the left-wing spectrum, which pretends to be free of Iranism and nationalism and presents itself as federalist, also follows this same policy. The central strategy of both groups is to maintain the central system and its military apparatus of repression, while offering empty hopes of a voluntary division of central power through a legislative and parliamentary system. Among these, we should not overlook the role of those who, in theory, do not believe in the concept of national sovereignty in South Azerbaijan, but who present themselves as part of the Azerbaijani national movement under the mask of federalism, thereby stirring theoretical and practical confusion within the movement. Of course, to understand the nature of the ideas and actions of this latter group, there is no need to delve into their thoughts and programs. Their actions speak for themselves. These are individuals who see their friends and allies not within the ranks of Azerbaijani activists but among the adversaries and enemies of this nation, and conversely, they direct their attacks towards their own people. The main characteristic of this group is their cooperation and sometimes joint action with non-Azerbaijani forces whose core aim and program is to preserve the existing administrative and military system during the transition from the rule of the Supreme Leader to forms of governance such as reformism, left-wing ideologies, or Iranian national-religious movements.
9. In summary, the primary goal of both federalism and independence is the acquisition of national sovereignty, and for achieving this goal, breaking the central power is essential. Specifically, any movement in Iran that only aims to change the players on the scene while keeping the central repressive power intact cannot be considered as advancing the cause of national sovereignty for Azerbaijan and, consequently, stands against the wishes of both the federalists and the separatists. Since, until the attainment of sovereignty, the paths of federalists and separatists are the same, joint action of Azerbaijani forces is essential for success. Cooperation with non-Azerbaijani forces can only lead to independence or federalism if it is based on the defense of Azerbaijan's national principles and aimed at facilitating the fundamental dissolution of the existing system and eliminating the central military and administrative powers. Joining forces with movements that claim to be national but are, in fact, representatives of the current dominating system—unless these efforts are part of a regional movement based on equal rights and with a transparent, guaranteed program to dismantle the centralized military and administrative power—will, in practice, act contrary to the national interests of Azerbaijan.
10. It is crucial to repeatedly emphasize this point, especially for those who naively expect that the totalitarian system under the influence of the destructive ideology of pan-Iranianism, with all its sycophants and blind followers, will dissolve itself through democratic means. They must realize that as long as the centralized government with its repressive machine is ready to act, any talk of achieving federalism will seem like a joke. Therefore, it is vital to stress the necessity of understanding the tactics of this phase of the struggle, especially the need for unity among all national activists, so that the limited and valuable energy of Azerbaijani activists is not wasted on self-destructive actions and unethical behavior. The final point is significant, as Mr. Aslani said: “Given that the active opponents of Azerbaijani political activists in Iranian society are not limited to the central government, and other groups in the opposition to the government, who exploit the lack of the aforementioned factors, try to gain the political trust of Azerbaijanis, negligence and lack of commitment from the activists of the national movement could benefit political opposition groups, which, in many cases, are aligned with the government and oppose the national movement of Azerbaijan.”
All signs indicate that the Islamic Republic is going through the final stages of collapse. A government that, by the accident of history, came to power during a time of political, economic, civil, and cultural growth worldwide and attempted to implement pre-historical laws under the guise of divine destiny is nothing more than a historical joke and will inevitably collapse. The main question is whether the process of this collapse will lead to the true liberation of the peoples of Iran, the establishment of democracy in the country, and the arrival of prosperity and happiness for its people, or whether, due to lack of planning, superficiality, and perhaps personal ambitions and conflicts, the racist, oppressive system of pan-Iranianism will rebuild itself in another form, possibly with a deceptive appearance, and once again mark another defeat for this long-suffering land?
Original text in Farsi