 |
If we accept that Iranian society, along with its numerous challenges, faces three major issues, addressing other difficulties and challenges may also become easier. These three central issues are: 1) the issue of women, 2) the issue of nationalities (and religious minorities), and 3) the issue of fair wealth distribution (social justice). The common thread among these three social phenomena is their close connection to democracy and the desire for freedom, so much so that their ultimate resolution depends on achieving freedom and democracy in Iran. Although realizing and addressing these obstacles fundamentally relates to a process that follows the removal of the primary obstacle, i.e., the Islamic Republic, the stance of political factions and groups currently reflects how they would address and solve these issues. This applies to the factions and political groups of various nationalities within Iran, each presenting its analyses and perspectives in their publications and media, offering their own solutions.
Among these, the positions of the activists in the Azerbaijani National Movement are no exception. They, too, present their ideas and alternatives to address the aforementioned issues in their media outlets.
Exploring the roots and addressing all three major challenges of Iranian society is naturally not feasible in a short article. Therefore, in this writing, I will focus primarily on the second issue, the matter of nationalities, which, in the author's opinion, will pose a greater challenge to Iran’s future than the other two issues. Furthermore, to narrow the scope even more, I will focus on the approach of Azerbaijani Turks and their ideological groups in responding to the national question and Iran's future. This focus is not on all aspects of the phenomenon known as the national question but specifically on the concept of the right to self-determination, its relationship with democracy, and the specific interpretations within the Azerbaijani National Movement, which has a unique view on this concept. Before delving into this topic, it is necessary to briefly and theoretically address the concept of the right to self-determination.
The Right to Self-Determination
Historically, the right to self-determination has been a debated concept, and disagreements over it have led to various interpretations. The debate begins with the meaning of the terms "right" and "self-determination," which could be extensively discussed. However, to avoid wasting time and to bypass lengthy, unnecessary debates on terminology, I will briefly reference a combination of two major definitions of the right to self-determination — the class-based (Marxist) and the legal definitions — and focus on them. The importance of these definitions lies in the fact that the class-based definition has influenced the legal one, and the legal definition has formed accepted norms that international organizations and states have affirmed and are, to some extent, obligated to observe in practice. Additionally, in today’s world, most national groups, minorities, and Indigenous peoples also refer to international conventions and existing laws, seeking to interpret these principles to their advantage. However, it should not be assumed that these interpretations, or the potential contradictions within those standards, are universally accepted.
The foundation of the idea of the right to self-determination is based on the theory of popular sovereignty, which is, in turn, contingent on people’s right to freely determine their destiny. Consequently, it can be said that the ideas of sovereignty and self-determination are interconnected. The right to self-determination today carries ideological weight and traces its origins back to the French Revolution; politically, however, it is anchored in international treaties outlined in the United Nations Charter and its covenants, which gradually emerged, especially during the decolonization of European colonies following World War I. This right, as connected to the theory of sovereignty, also shares an inseparable bond with the principle of the state-territory relationship, such that under UN conventions, a state is recognized only if it exercises sovereignty over a specified geographical area. Historically, the establishment of both the modern state and territorial boundaries with political borders is a product of the disintegration of the Christian world and the formation of national and absolute states in Europe after the 15th century.
Since many countries in the world are not homogeneous or single-nationality, but rather contain diverse nations, languages, cultures, and religions, the right to self-determination has taken various forms in these countries. In some countries, this principle has led to separation and the establishment of an independent state; in others, it has resulted in the distribution of political power through forms of federalism; and in still others, it has been limited to securing cultural and religious rights. However, in a multinational country, the issue of self-determination (whether in the form of physical separation or power-sharing) becomes relevant when political power and the state apparatus are monopolized by one nationality and primarily used to serve its political, economic, and cultural interests. In such countries, the trend of discrimination, assimilation, or organized policies of national erasure typically closes off avenues for protest among different national groups. In the absence of political tools or channels to voice their demands, national groups often turn to the idea of self-determination and its principles as a means to express their demands. In such circumstances, the idea of self-determination can translate into the concept of physical separation from the given state, with a national group compelled to shape a political future for itself and strive to establish its own state to realize its demands.
Therefore, the idea of self-determination can either imply peaceful coexistence of nations within the political boundaries of one country or lead to their physical separation. The choice of solution depends on the stance of the political power, intellectuals, elites, and political leaders within a society toward the national demands of various groups, which also determines the survival of the given country. When the space for nations to exist shrinks and discriminatory pressures intensify, the tendency toward physical separation grows. Conversely, when the space opens up and national oppression decreases, this tendency diminishes.
Democracy and Its Relationship to the Right to Self-Determination
Democracy, like the other concepts mentioned above, is a constantly evolving concept. The understanding of democracy a hundred years ago differs significantly from today’s perspective. However, the essence and content of democracy, as indicated by the term itself, have always been centered on popular sovereignty and human rights. The rule of people over themselves may be the clearest and most comprehensive definition of democracy — a definition that also includes the right to self-determination. Historically, the core democratic principle behind the idea of self-determination has been the establishment of a state by the people, which began with the French Revolution. It was, in fact, this revolution that transferred sovereignty to the people, freeing individuals from the status of subjects under monarchs and turning them into free, national citizens. Thus, concepts such as sovereignty, citizenship rights, and the right to self-determination are all part of democratic rights encompassed within the framework of democracy.
It can be said that citizenship rights (individual rights) and the right to self-determination (collective rights) are, in essence, two sides of the same coin, rooted in popular sovereignty. The idea of national self-determination is a guarantee and manifestation of the collective identity values of a nation. However, since a nation is composed of individuals, this right also reflects the individual choice of a citizen and the form of government that the citizens desire. Therefore, the struggle for both rights is, in essence, a struggle for democracy and the people’s sovereignty. The interdependent relationship of these two aspects of democracy is indivisible, and one cannot be prioritized over the other in the pursuit of either. These two concepts are intertwined in the process of striving for overall democracy (and within that context).
As mentioned, the topic of democracy has always revolved around the sovereignty and rights of the people, and its relevance is intrinsically linked to human societies and nations. However, societies and nations do not form a homogeneous mass; rather, they are characterized by various racial, gender, religious, and class differences. Therefore, any struggle for democracy must encompass the spectrum of those groups within societies and nations for whom democracy has either not been implemented or is not fully realized. This includes sexual, linguistic, cultural, racial groups, or those discriminated against and oppressed due to their skin color (even in democratic countries). From this perspective, it can be concluded that the struggle for democracy and the right to self-determination is indirectly related to the struggle against other forms of oppression and discrimination. For instance, one cannot claim to be a supporter of democracy while neglecting the fight for the rights of women in the struggle for citizenship and self-determination, as women are part of those fighting for citizenship rights and the right to self-determination, and these rights should encompass them both as individuals and as a collective.
Thus, just as it is impossible to separate the components of democracy or differentiate against various forms of oppression and discrimination, one cannot set aside the struggle for citizenship rights in the pursuit of national self-determination and claim that the struggle for one is more important or vital than the other. This includes the rights of nationalities within a multi-national country, where the right to self-determination in a multi-national and democratic country can only be the sovereignty of all the nationalities that constitute that country. Therefore, anyone fighting for citizenship rights, popular sovereignty, and a secular state must also fight against national oppression and discrimination.
Problem Statement
A brief look at the map of Iran and its administrative divisions, which in practice represent an ethnic classification, clearly indicates that Iran is a multi-national country! Each of these nationalities is ethnically, religiously, linguistically, and culturally distinct, spread across its four corners. What brings these nationalities closer together and enables their coexistence is the shared geography of a country called Iran, a relatively common historical memory within the framework of Iran, and their cultural proximity. Historically, Iran has been referred to as "Mamalek Mahrouseh," indicating the presence of separate local governments, the absence of an official and imposed language, and the division of political power into state units. This process gradually led to the usurpation of all of Iran in favor of a small ethnic minority with the rise of Reza Khan and the fall of the Qajar dynasty (to meet the needs of great powers). With this innovation (partially injected from abroad), Iran became a country where the promotion of a single language, a single nation, a single culture, and a single history gradually transformed into the official policy of the government, denying the identity of other national groups. The negation of the presence and rights of other national elements, that is, the majority of the country's inhabitants, actually initiated the issue known as the national question in Iran. The project of a mono-ethnic state and the forced assimilation of other national groups in Iran has been pursued with systematic planning and meticulousness by both the Pahlavi regime (father and son) and the Islamic Republic, often accompanied by coercion and violence.
Among these groups, due to the large number and presence of Turks throughout Iran (and their traditional roots in the governmental structure and the cultural-economic life of the country), the process of exclusion and assimilation has been broader and more tangible. It can be claimed that the primary objective of Iranian governments after the coup of 1920 was primarily aimed at destroying the identity of Turks and diminishing their weight in all vital sectors of the country. The negation of the identity of national groups in various periods led to their revolts and uprisings against the central government, most of which were suppressed in the harshest ways. The February 1979 Revolution created a brief disruption in the process of forced Persianization of various nationalities in Iran, but with the consolidation of the Islamic Republic, the organized process of erasing the identity of Turks and other nationalities resumed, and with even greater intensity. The emergence of the Islamic Republic and the continuation of its racist policies inflicted such a blow on the Turkish population, especially the Azerbaijani Turks, that it can only be described as a national catastrophe.
After the suppression of the Muslim People's Movement in Azerbaijan and the widespread participation of Turks in the war against Iraq (which cost the lives of over 100,000 Azerbaijanis), the failure to achieve their goals of the 1979 Revolution, along with increased pressure and the tightening of the political space in the country, led various intellectual groups to increasingly recognize the necessity of defending national existence and organizing to realize their national demands. They had learned from their practical experience that the slogans of the Islamic Republic regarding "Islamic ummah" and respect for the rights of nationalities in Iran were nothing but lies, and that this regime continued to treat them, as in the past, as second-class citizens, pursuing policies that cut off the vital lifelines of Azerbaijan and aimed at national annihilation. Following the events of Khordad 2 and the limited opening of the political space in the country, the process of identity formation deepened, and the need to defend Azerbaijan and the national identity of Turks expanded to become a demand among a significant portion of the populace. In the continuation of this process, the necessity to outline the political future of Azerbaijan also emerged for the activists of the Azerbaijani national movement. The question was how Azerbaijan could defend its national identity and free itself from the devastation leading to its annihilation. Subsequently, the answer to this question revolved around how Azerbaijan could attain its democratic rights for national self-determination. From those days, two alternative questions have predominantly emerged in response to the above inquiry: Can Azerbaijan, within the framework of Iran and alongside other nationalities, achieve its national demands and the right to self-determination, or should the answer be sought in breaking the framework of a country called Iran? Addressing these questions has revealed the perspectives and approaches of various groups within the Azerbaijani national movement toward the concepts of democracy, citizenship rights, political power, and their relationship with the right to self-determination.
Recent Developments in Iran and a Special Translation of the Right to Self-Determination
The 1979 Revolution marked the end of the Pahlavi monarchy and the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The Iranian government, founded on the idea of one nation, one language, and one country, took on an ideological form with the emergence of the Islamic Republic, while also maintaining the mono-ethnic structure, adding the elements of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist) and religious despotism. The fusion of religion with the state on one side and the mono-ethnic apparatus of the government on the other necessitated the struggle of the national and freedom-seeking movement of Iran against both phenomena (the Islamic Republic).
While in the past, freedom-seekers and proponents of democracy fought for equal rights for all individuals in the nation (political and citizenship rights) and against the mono-ethnic system and racism (the right to self-determination) and social justice, after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, this struggle began to reflect both of these issues and to include the fight for the establishment of a secular government and the separation of religion from the state.
The manifestation of the struggle against the mono-ethnic system (the right to self-determination), citizenship rights, and the struggle against the ruling theocracy with the aim of creating a secular state within the Azerbaijani national movement has fueled a theory suggesting that the fight against the religious regime and velayat-e faqih (Islamic Republic) is solely the responsibility of the nation that the state actually represents. This theory positions the struggle of the Turks and Azerbaijanis not as a fight for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic (with or without velayat-e faqih) but rather for the overthrow of the Iranian state (in a political-geographical sense). According to this theory, the goals of the Turkish and Azerbaijani movements are exclusively or primarily a struggle for self-determination (in the sense of physical separation) and the establishment of a national and independent state.
The crystallization and best political manifestation of this theory were revealed in the stance of its supporters regarding the recent widespread protests and movements across Iran following the tenth presidential election, where they effectively boycotted any participation of Turks and Azerbaijanis in these protests, regarding the recent struggles against the velayat-e faqih system and the Islamic Republic as a problem solely for "Persians" that must be addressed and resolved by them.
Naturally, the belief in the idea of self-determination (in the context of physical separation) as a manifestation of the public will of a nation to choose its future is a democratic principle that no true democrat can oppose or deny. However, the tendency and theory that somewhat hide behind the idea of self-determination and draw non-democratic conclusions from it must be examined and critiqued. This necessity arises from both the specific conditions in Iran and Azerbaijan and the international context, along with the wave of democratic aspirations in the world.
The Idea of Self-Determination and Non-Democratic Interpretations
Firstly, the existence of a country named "Iran" with defined political borders is an objective reality. This objective reality is largely accepted by the majority of the country’s population at the national level and is also recognized and established at the international level (in accordance with international laws). South Azerbaijan, whether we like it or not, is considered part of the country called Iran, which has a distinct historical background within the framework of Iran, and the majority of its people currently define themselves within this country and express their cultural and political-economic demands within that context.
Secondly, the basis for the demands and struggles of the Azerbaijani people stems from the objective realities of the Turkish community and is shaped by their understanding and analysis of the political-social situation as well as their experiences, both past and present, in Iran and the world. They have learned from their past experiences, evaluated their strategic tools, and, considering their capacities, have tried to align these demands and movements with objective realities. For this reason, the national and democratic movements of the Azerbaijani people have historically and contemporaneously limited their aspirations and goals within the framework of a country named Iran, engaging in political action accordingly. It can be confidently claimed that the struggles and demands of Azerbaijan have occurred within this framework during the Constitutional Revolution, the national government period of 1945-1946, the events of Bahman 29 (February 18, 1979), the Muslim People's Movement in 1979, and the protests of Khordad 1 (May 21, 2006).
Expressing these realities should not be interpreted to mean that the idea of self-determination, as a means to break the political and geographical structure of Iran, has not existed or has not been raised in the context of the Azerbaijani national movement. Rather, it is a fact that representatives of this idea have not been a leading and influential current within the freedom-seeking movements of Azerbaijan. The growth of the mentioned theory within the Azerbaijani national movement should be evaluated in the context of domestic reactions from various factions of the Iranian government, the responses of the opposition to the Islamic Republic, and the Persian intellectuals to the national demands of the Turks and Azerbaijanis, as well as international events, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
It is also important to acknowledge an undeniable truth: in both the aforementioned struggles and other protests (including the student protests of July 9 and the campaign for the mother tongue), the activists and people of Azerbaijan have faced the reality that their struggles and demands have been systematically unsupported, ignored, and unanswered by the opposition to the Islamic Republic (ranging from non-affiliated intellectuals to left- and right-wing organizations) to the extent that many have actively prevented or boycotted the coverage of these protests in their media. In contrast, any protest actions (no matter how small or limited) led by Persian individuals or occurring in Persian-dominated areas of Iran have been exaggerated and supported without reservation by the same organizations and media.
From these truths, one can conclude that the pressure from the government on one side and the silence, cover-up, or even justification and endorsement of discrimination and oppression against the Turks and Azerbaijan by the opposition and Persian intellectuals on the other hand have been significant factors in the serious proposal and growth of the idea of self-determination as a means of separation from Iran among certain Azerbaijani activists, with international and regional events acting merely as reinforcing elements.
However, the existence or expression of undeniable realities of discrimination and oppression does not in itself lend legitimacy to a theory. A theory that assigns the struggle against the Guardian of the Jurisprudence and the ruling theocracy solely to "Persians" and disregards the struggles of other nationalities in Iran, or renders them secondary and inactive, can have disastrous consequences for Azerbaijan as well. First, this perspective is fundamentally flawed in its reasoning and overlooks the interconnectedness of the various components of the issue and its outcomes. In fact, this type of reasoning compels one to make a comparison that, for example, assigns the struggle against racism in the United States or Australia (or any other country) solely to the white population of those countries, under the logic or premise that the governments of the United States and Australia essentially represent white people (primarily Anglo-Saxons), while Aborigines and Native Americans (or Latin American and Mexican populations) should mainly engage in the struggle to establish their own national state! Such reasoning not only trivializes the social-political struggles of the masses but also assumes that all whites or Anglo-Saxons are homogenous and considers them all as supporters of the system of discrimination and oppression. Secondly, relegating the struggle for replacing or dismantling racist structures solely to whites confines the efforts of those who are oppressed to a realm where it is practically impossible for them to realize such changes.
The above reasoning, when generalized to the conditions of Iranian society and Azerbaijan, takes on even more dangerous dimensions, as it renders the struggle against a regime like the Islamic Republic impossible by isolating a segment of the population and encouraging another segment to remain silent. In effect, fragmenting resistance and suppressing it into smaller, manageable components is precisely what the ruling authority has always sought with all its efforts and resources. Therefore, such a position not only facilitates the control and suppression of future movements in Iran but also marginalizes and isolates the national movement of Azerbaijan from the broader political events. A movement or actor that cannot assert itself on the political and activist stage of Iran effectively eliminates any chance of achieving independent and final victory. On the other hand, a movement that shirks from the united and comprehensive struggle in a multi-national country cannot, by creating various mechanisms and channels, pursue its essential demands in the aftermath of political turmoil in Iran. It is only through participation in nationwide movements that a movement can gain leaders, defenders, and allies at the national level for its demands. In other words, the logical outcome of the theory mentioned (knowingly or unknowingly) leads to the silencing of victims of oppression and discrimination, compelling them to remain silent in the face of the Islamic Republic on one side and erasing Azerbaijan from the political equations of Iran on the other. However, both historical experience of the struggles in Azerbaijan and recent movements in Iran (especially in Tehran) have clearly shown that any struggle for liberation from the grip of the Islamic Republic can only be achieved through united collaboration and shared struggle among the peoples of Iran.
Furthermore, the ideological and religious state, the structure of the Guardian of the Jurisprudence, and the Islamic Republic are issues that the Turks (and other nations in Iran) have always felt and tasted the bitter consequences of in their flesh and blood, such that the struggle of the Turks and Azerbaijanis against the phenomenon of the Guardian of the Jurisprudence and the Islamic Republic has been an objective reality over the past thirty years. Therefore, just as the struggle for democracy is not solely the pain of "Persians," the struggle against the Islamic Republic and the Guardian of the Jurisprudence cannot be the sole responsibility of "Persians." The Islamic Republic does not distinguish between oppressing Persians and Turks; it extends its octopus-like grip over all of Iranian society, of which South Azerbaijan is merely a part. "The struggle for national independence, for obtaining the right to self-determination, and for self-administration (and liberation from the yoke of colonialism)"—whatever name you give it—can only be pursued today through the struggle against the despotism and the ruling system of the Guardian of the Jurisprudence, which the Islamic Republic represents. The current regime, with its coercive force and machinery of repression, is the main obstacle to the organization and mobilization of the Azerbaijani people's movement (and other nationalities) toward achieving their national-democratic goals. Thus, without a struggle to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran (which also embodies the power of chauvinism and national apartheid among the ruling elite), no nation in Iran will attain freedom. However, it should not be forgotten that the overthrow of the Islamic Republic in itself does not automatically mean that the Azerbaijani nation and other nations will achieve their democratic goals and rights, but it is a necessary step toward realizing them.
Another crucial point in the aforementioned theory is the understanding of the consequences and reflections of its results on distorting or questioning the continuity of the struggle of the national movement of Azerbaijan with democracy and freedom. This theory conditions the struggle for democracy and against the totalitarianism or the theocratic government ruling Iran (the primary obstacle to achieving national demands and the right to self-determination) on the precedence of the struggle for establishing a national state. However, it is evident that today, anyone or any force in Iran that seeks to fight for a free and democratic society must struggle both to transform the religious state into a secular and non-ideological government and to gain citizen rights, as well as to change the structure of the single-national government into a multi-national system. This responsibility includes all democracy fighters, including those activists in the national movement who believe in an independent Azerbaijan. This necessity arises from the fact that neither the struggle against the Guardian of the Jurisprudence, nor the attainment of citizen rights, nor the establishment of a democratic society in Iran contradicts the idea of the right to self-determination for Azerbaijan or an independent Azerbaijan; on the contrary, they facilitate the achievement of those goals. Therefore, any trend or theory that separates the components of democracy in the path toward an independent Azerbaijan or places its principles in opposition to each other, or focuses on establishing a national state at the expense of other components of democracy, effectively negates democracy and contributes to its destruction.
It should be noted that the pursuit of democracy, the struggle for civil rights, and the effort to establish a secular state, whether with or without Iran, are essential and final goals of the Azerbaijani national movement. If we agree that the right to self-determination, civil rights, and having a secular state are democratic rights, then the struggle to realize them should be permissible for everyone in a multi-national country. The torturers in prisons, intelligence agents, plainclothes officers, the Quds Force, Ansar Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards, and the ideologues behind them are not all Persians, nor is the thought of the Islamic Republic confined only to "Persian-speaking regions" and "Persians." The reality is that part of the religious thought (of the type associated with the supreme leader or its relatives) also exists among Azerbaijanis, which could grow in the future and become a threat to democracy. Thus, addressing this issue requires the same struggle that the Azerbaijani national movement must undertake against the Islamic Republic and the system of the supreme leader. This matter will have special and decisive importance in the future, given the regional events and the religious polarization that is often fueled by great powers for their own interests. Separating or abstracting the secular and democratic aspects of the Azerbaijani national movement from its goals and tactics and focusing solely on establishing a national state can promote Machiavellian ideas, anti-civil norms, and undermine the democratic character of the national movement.
What distinguishes the struggle of the Azerbaijani national movement from the struggles of other nations in Iran, including the Persian nation, lies not in the priority or delay of the struggle for democracy, secularism, or civil rights, but rather in the independent stance and prioritization of national identity and ultimately the realization of the right to self-determination in this struggle. The error of our fathers and mothers was not in fighting for freedom and against dictatorship, religious despotism, or foreign colonialism but in forgetting and disregarding their national existence. Since the ideological foundations of historical struggles in Azerbaijan were somewhat influenced by social democracy and Bolshevism in Russia, the theorists and activists of our historical movements were also deceived by a kind of aimless and abstract internationalism. They witnessed the suffering and oppression of the people of Iran and took on the mantle of fighting against oppression and discrimination while forgetting themselves.
Another point in this discussion is the critique of the absolutism of this theory, which becomes particularly pronounced in dealing with Iran's multi-national society. The reality is that in dealing with political-social phenomena and struggles, one cannot treat everything absolutely and divide it into black and white (or Persian and Turk) and punish or burn all alike. The practical outcome of this would lead to nothing but failure and a resignation from being human. This mistake was made by Mr. Bush, the President of the United States, in the "war on terror," as he announced that anyone who is not with us is against us, thus signaling the failure of his policies from the very beginning and creating numerous enemies for himself, leading to actions that humanity is ashamed of. Therefore, neither in politics nor in war, which practically means continuing politics with different tools, can one adopt absolutism and chant slogans of "everything or nothing." Achieving human, social, political, and wartime aspirations and goals primarily requires organization, patience, and persistent effort, and the realization of all these pertains to a time-consuming process that must go through many ups and downs. Perhaps the definition of politics in an opportunistic understanding is merely the science of utilizing opportunities and resources, with its subject always being human gatherings. Thus, in dealing with social phenomena and human groups, one must exhibit exceptional care and precision, thoroughly consider the methods and techniques for achieving objectives, and then proceed with calculated steps.
If the Azerbaijani national movement enters the battlefield to claim its human and natural rights with absolutism and a division of Iranian society into black and white (Persian and Turk) or with the slogan "everything or nothing" (either independence or death), its failure is inevitable, and it will never achieve its ultimate democratic goals. It is no coincidence that the people of Azerbaijan have understood this matter more deeply and have articulated their demands not all at once, but in parts and stages, considering the internal and global political conditions. By reckoning pure yet abstract wishes with the desire of a nation or generalizing them to society and politics and deriving unrealistic and impractical inferences from political-social conditions, one cannot guide the ship of the national struggle to its destination. Such policies and stances often serve more as tools for governments and enemies of the peoples of Iran to suppress them than to aid the democratic and humanitarian goals of the national movement. Therefore, what the Azerbaijani movement currently seeks is respect for its identity and the realization of its democratic rights and demands, which are acknowledged by international covenants and human rights organizations. However, the new Azerbaijani movement, in its strategic policy, demands the complete elimination of discrimination in any form and equal rights with the Persian nation in all areas of social, economic, political, and cultural life, which is nothing but the idea of national self-determination.
It is true that the issue of national apartheid has poisoned a significant portion of the public opinion of the Persian nation and its intellectuals, leading them to be brainwashed by 80 years of continuous racist propaganda, making discrimination and oppression of other nationalities seem normal and natural. It is also true that a large part of the Persian people actively or passively support the discriminatory policies of the state apparatus and Persian chauvinism, to the extent that the issue of national apartheid and discrimination has become institutionalized within Persian society, habituating the minds and thoughts of intellectuals, political activists, and ordinary people to oppression and victimization. However, it must not be forgotten that Persian society is not a homogeneous entity and, like any other society, has its own internal conflicts and divides. This means that a large portion of Persian society does not harbor personal enmity or hatred toward other nationalities, and if their political-economic demands and interests dictate, they can align with the freedom-seeking and anti-racist aspirations of other nationalities or at least not stand against them. Just as a significant portion of the population in democratic countries expresses their solidarity with the victims of oppression against the world, segments of the Persian nation also possess such potential.
Just as the overthrow of the Islamic Republic and even the realization of basic civil rights and individual freedoms in Iran will not end the discrimination and oppression of nationalities, the social and political problems and demands of all layers and sectors of Persian society will remain unresolved the day after victory over the Islamic Republic, and the struggle to achieve them will continue (including securing women's rights and their full equality with men or the fight for social justice and the rights of workers, peasants, and the political demands of intellectuals and artists). These forces can also align with the demands of other nationalities in Iran in the future or act as strategic allies with them in the struggle for the right to self-determination. The Azerbaijani national movement must recognize the internal contradictions of Iranian society and engage in political slogans and actions that correspond with the existing objective realities. A policy that helps unite and consolidate racists and chauvinists with its slogans and actions, or drives indifferent and inactive Persians and non-Persians toward racists, will actually isolate the Azerbaijani national movement (and other nations) in its struggle and deprive it of its natural allies.
On the other hand, we know that millions of Turks live in various parts of Iran (especially in Tehran and its surroundings), and millions of Persians (unlike other nationalities) have married Turks and formed joint families. The majority of the children from this group, which numbers in the millions, have not yet made a decision regarding their identity as Persian or Turk, or they may have doubts about it, but in practice, they have taken no position for or against Turks. Therefore, a slogan or policy that seeks to separate this vast population from the movement of the Turks and hands them over to chauvinism and racists cannot be excused. This policy causes fragmentation within the national movement and diverts its energy to remedying mistakes and fighting secondary issues, detracting from its focus on primary and fundamental goals. This means violating the first law of warfare, consolidating the ranks of supporters of national apartheid and racists, and dispersing the ranks of the national movement of Turks and Azerbaijan. Let us remember that the duty of the Azerbaijani national movement is to struggle for the realization of its democratic rights and the establishment of democracy, not to oppose and harbor animosity towards "Persians."
Summary and Conclusion
The foundation of the right to self-determination is built upon the theory of popular sovereignty, and the right of popular sovereignty is, in turn, conditional upon the free exercise of the right to self-determination by the people. The right to self-determination in a multinational country becomes relevant when political power and the state apparatus become monopolized by one nationality and are employed in the political, economic, and cultural interests of that nationality. In a democratic, multinational country, this right can only mean the sovereignty of all nationalities that constitute it. This idea can, on one hand, embody the force of peaceful coexistence among nations, and on the other hand, it can serve as a factor for their physical separation. This matter depends on the positioning of leaders and elites within society regarding the national demands of various nationalities, which shapes the future of the presumed country's survival.
Concepts such as citizenship rights and the right to self-determination are part of the democratic rights embedded within the framework of democracy. The roots of citizenship rights (individual rights) and the right to self-determination (collective rights) lie in the governance of people by the people. The reciprocal relationship between these two facets of democracy is indivisible, and one cannot prioritize one over the other. The struggle for democracy and the right to self-determination is also related to the struggle against other forms of oppression and discrimination. Therefore, in the fight for democracy, one cannot separate different forms of oppression and discrimination, nor can one focus solely on a single form of oppression. The national struggle and the existential philosophy of the Azerbaijani national movement can only be understood and comprehended within this framework.
Discrimination and national oppression in Iran have led to the emergence of a theory within the Azerbaijani national movement that derives undemocratic outcomes from the idea of self-determination. An idea that considers the struggle against the velayat-e faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist) or the struggle for securing citizenship rights in Iran as primarily the responsibility of "Persians" can have detrimental consequences for Azerbaijan. This theory effectively renders the struggle and victory over the Islamic Republic impossible, leads the victims of oppression to despair, and removes Azerbaijan from the political equations of Iran. If Azerbaijan cannot present itself effectively in the political-struggles of Iran and exert influence, it forfeits its chances for ultimate victory and cannot pursue its fundamental demands on a national level in the aftermath of political turmoil by creating the necessary mechanisms and channels. The undemocratic inferences of this theory further obscure and question the continuity of the Azerbaijani national movement's struggle for democracy, as this idea conditions the struggle for democracy against totalitarianism or theocratic governance and prioritizes the struggle for establishing a national state.
In Iran, the struggle for establishing a free and democratic society is intrinsically linked to the struggle to transform a religious state into a secular one, to secure citizenship rights, and to change the structure of a mono-national government into a multi-national system. Separating or isolating the secular and democratic aspirations of the Azerbaijani national movement from its goals and tactics could promote Machiavellian, anti-civic ideas, undermining the democratic essence and future of the national movement. The right to self-determination is a democratic principle that has an inseparable relationship with democracy, and thus, the struggle for democracy cannot be overshadowed or sacrificed for the fight to establish a national state. What distinguishes the struggle of the Azerbaijani national movement from that of other nations in Iran, including the Persian nation, is the independent stance, independent slogans, and the prioritization of national identity, ultimately striving for the realization of the right to self-determination.
The struggle for national independence and to secure the right to self-determination under current conditions is channeled through the fight against the tyranny and the system of velayat-e faqih that the Islamic Republic represents. The current regime is the main obstacle to the organization and mobilization of the popular movement of Azerbaijan (and other nationalities) in achieving their national-democratic goals. Therefore, without the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran, no nation in Iran will attain freedom. However, the overthrow of the Islamic Republic does not, by itself, mean that the Azerbaijani nation and other nations will achieve their democratic goals and rights, but it is a necessary step towards realizing them.
In addressing political and social phenomena and struggles, one cannot treat everything as absolute or divide it into black and white (or Persian and Turk). What the Azerbaijani movement seeks is respect for its identity and the realization of its rights—principles that are democratic and recognized by international agreements and human rights institutions. The Azerbaijani national movement, in its strategic policy, demands the complete elimination of discrimination in any form and the enjoyment of equal rights with the Persian nation in all aspects of social, economic, political, and cultural life. In its struggle for its rights, the Azerbaijani movement must recognize the internal contradictions of Iranian society and engage in political slogans and actions that correspond with existing realities. A policy that, through its slogans and actions, helps unite and consolidate racists and chauvinists, or drives indifferent and inactive Persians and non-Persians toward racists, isolates Azerbaijan in its struggle and deprives it of its allies and natural partners. The experience of the history of struggles in Azerbaijan and the recent movements in Iran shows that any struggle for liberation is only possible through the collective struggle of the peoples of Iran.
Currently, a significant portion of the Iranian people, for various reasons, is in opposition and conflict with the Islamic Republic. This reality has made the alignment of the national objectives of Azerbaijan with those of the Persian and other nations in Iran an inevitable necessity. Since this movement seeks to dismantle the velayat-e faqih system and separate religion from the state, on one hand, and to secure citizenship rights and individual freedoms and eliminate the security and military atmosphere, on the other hand, it not only does not contradict the demands of the Azerbaijani national movement but actually aligns with its national interests. Failing to support or interrupt this process through boycotts or unrealistic and impractical slogans will not secure the short-term interests or the long-term benefits of the Azerbaijani national movement and the Turks.
Link to the original text in Farsi: http://iran-chabar.de/article.jsp?essayId=23972