Neshat, Tuesday, August 24, 1999

Is State Violence Permissible? By Hussein Baqerzadeh

Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi's notion of a legitimate and relative violence, which he proposed during the Friday prayers in Tehran, has once again brought the pivotal social issue in Iran to center stage. Supporters of violence and the theoreticians of totalitarian groups need such justifications, and what Mr. Yazdi has proposed comes as no surprise. But the political and cultural growth of Iran and the institutionalization of a civil society are in total contradiction to violence. Any partial or relative acceptance of violence by adherents of an open and civil society ultimately renders them supporters of violence. One cannot say that violence is permissible for cultural reasons or when it is exercised by the state, but not if it is carried out by unlawful individuals. Supporters of totalitarianism also accept violence for particular reasons and restrict its use by specific groups and institutions. Justification of violence under any name is in contradiction to the values of modern human society and endangers the well-being of society. Human society in the modern world, especially after the Second World War, has rejected all forms of violence and sees it as contradicting all human values. The crimes and horrors of the Second World War and the institutionalized violence of burning ovens demonstrated a destructive and barbaric aspect of violence. The world witnessed that violence not only destroys the victims but also destroys the humanity of its perpetrators and destroys all the achievements of human society. In addition, when violence is identified as a legitimate tool, it can eventually victimize former aggressors. Thus, efforts were made to lay down the foundations of a world free of violence and oppression. The 1948 Universal Declaration Human Rights (to which Iran was a signatory) was the fruit of these efforts. Article Five of the declaration stipulates that no one may be subjected to torture, violence, or inhuman and humiliating acts. There are no exceptions in this Article, while it also strictly opposes the use of force as an act of punishment. Today in Iran, too, the only hope for the growth of the culture of a civil society lies in a total rejection of violence (and acceptance of all the articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) As a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Iran is bound by its pledge to refrain from any form of violence (legal or illegal), but the only way for supporters of civil society to eradicate this destructive weapon is by fighting persistently and decisively against the culture of violence in any shape or form. Around the time the Universal Declaration of Human Rights rejected all forms of violence 52 years ago, an international campaign was launched to wipe out one of the major examples of legal violence -- capital punishment. This campaign has gained force at the outset of the new millennium. So far, a decisive majority of U.N. members have in effect discontinued the application of this punishment. They agree that execution is a violent, inhuman, and humiliating form of punishment. Also, sociological evidence and experience have shown that, contrary to what had been thought, capital punishment not only does not reduce crime, but encourages injustice and crime. Today, not only human rights organizations are calling for an immediate end to capital punishment throughout the world, but the United Nations has also made it a priority issue. Great international religious and political figures, such as Nelson Mandela, the Pope, and the secretary-general of UNESCO, have joined the campaign to free the world of executions. It's up to the proponents of civil and free society in Iran to join the international campaign and to respond to this humanitarian call in guiding Iran toward a human society that is free of violence. Violence -- in every form -- must be eradicated in Iran. And capital punishment is the most outstanding form of (legal) violence. It is futile to combat "coterie violence" without fighting the cultural roots of this violence. Belief in killing (legal or illegal) as a solution to social issues runs deep in this culture. Iranian society must realize that killing is not a solution to any problem, that neither ideology nor (state) authority can justify violence, and that official violence (including capital punishment) has a direct and undeniable role in perpetuating the culture of violence. One has to fight violence in all its forms and at its every stage. Battling violence against one's own party while condoning it, implicitly or explicitly, for particular reasons when conducted by specific institutions is a characteristic of the forces of totalitarianism. Proponents of an open and civil society must avoid such party politics. END