By Kourtney Pompi, NDI citizen participation program manager

Social movements are a powerful means for citizens to participate directly in creating positive social change, particularly when formal channels for democratic political participation are not available or do not function. Sustained, successful movements have clear goals, effective leadership and energize people to work together toward a common objective. The Iranian elections – both prior to and in the aftermath – have provided the opportunity for Iranians to build a new durable social movement.   

In the days surrounding the June 12 election, there was a surge in political activity among Iranians, who rallied in support of both conservative and reformist candidates.  Citizens flooded the streets, airwaves and Internet to express their political views and call for a transparent and fair election.  Following the election, an Iranian grassroots movement emerged, capitalizing on the unprecedented pre-election debate and collective discontent with the regime’s handling of the election and its aftermath.  Mobilized through the Internet, SMS and social networking sites, vast numbers of people took to the streets in protest. 

As the election recedes, the grassroots movement now faces building solidarity among disparate civil society activists and social causes, all with their own agendas, under a common banner of change.  The long-term success of such movements depends ultimately on civic activists harnessing their energy to define clear goals, enable leaders to emerge and call for a common agenda supported by strategic, unified actions.

Like Iran, citizens in Moldova and Burma have limited ability to participate fully in political processes without fear of oppression. Both countries provide recent examples of how activists similarly maximized small openings in political space to engage citizens and sustain grassroots movements during critical periods of social discontent.  In Moldova, civil society activists organized in opposition to electoral fraud in the wake of April’s parliamentary elections.  While in Burma, the country’s 2007 Saffron Revolution took advantage of growing discontent over consumer price hikes to lead economic-driven demonstrations, providing a rarely seen opportunity for citizens to use collective action to air their concerns and grievances. 

Taking advantage of new social media tools for strategic action.   
Much like Iran in the post-election period, opposition movements in Moldova and Burma effectively used Internet-based tools to organize and mobilize citizens. Natalia Morar, one of the leaders of ThinkMoldova, described the genesis of popular protests as “six people, 10 minutes for brainstorming and decision-making, several hours of disseminating information through networks, Facebook, blogs, SMS and emails.  And 15,000 youth came out into the streets!”

In response to the junta’s severe restrictions on access to information, pro-democracy Burmese bloggers and digital activists – either located internationally or concentrated on the Thai-Burma border – worked together with internationally-based advocacy organizations to spread information and images of police brutality to the outside world.  Though police violence continued, it is widely believed that the posting of images and videos on the Internet led to a more restrained response to the protests.

In Iran, in the weeks immediately following the election, the movement used new technologies to inform those inside Iran about rallies and protests, document abuses by the basij and other government forces and inform the world of what was happening in the increasingly closed country.  Iranian activists’ use of new media to mobilize supporters, as well as peaceful acts of civil disobedience, has thus far sustained the grassroots movement in the face of increasing regime violence.  However, these tools must ultimately be accompanied by the emergence of a unified leadership and clearly defined objectives that articulate the movement’s vision for “change.”

Defining Clear Goals. 
Collective action is most successful when there are clearly defined goals and objectives. The unity this common agenda creates helps fuel momentum behind demands for action and change. In Moldova, protesters, led by several youth-oriented NGOs, domestic election monitoring groups and human rights activists, united in their efforts to demand a recount to resolve questions of electoral fraud.  The unrelenting focus on a specific demand, ultimately led the Moldovan president to call for a recount.  

In 2007, the Burmese government began lifting subsidies on key consumer staples, prompting activists to speak out against the regime’s economic policies.  Rumblings of dissatisfaction began in local markets, but as the impact of fuel price hikes hit larger sectors of the population, more people began to speak out. By protesting economic policy, instead of voicing discontent with the government more broadly, opposition activists united Burmese citizens around an issue that affects everyone, regardless of their political leanings.    

Unlike Moldova and Burma, the grassroots movement in Iran lacks clearly defined demands.  Although united in opposition to the government’s administration of the election and violent response to post-election protests, some demonstrators appear to want democratic reform while others may prefer a return to the fundamentals of the Islamic revolution.  Recently, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani called upon the government to resolve the public’s doubts about the election, but did not specify how.  Mohammad Khatami, also a former president, proposed a referendum, but it is unclear what question he envisions the referendum would pose.  Without clearly defined demands that galvanize the range of Iranians who form the grassroots movement, it may risk ultimately running out of steam.

The importance of unity among leaders. 
Moldovan youth’s widespread disillusionment with government actions united them after the parliamentary elections, causing many to take to the streets when youth-led NGOs ThinkMoldova and HydePark used social networks to send out a call to protest.  However, it was the leadership of opposition parties that was instrumental in guiding demonstrators, reducing violence and identifying a common goal, ultimately leading to the investigation of election fraud.  Similarly, the 2007 uprising in Burma took on a new dimension when 10,000 Buddhist monks joined students and opposition political activists to protest deteriorating economic conditions.  While early protesters set the agenda against government economic policies, the monks’ involvement helped bring together Burma’s ethnically diverse people to demand that the government manage the country’s economy in a more equitable and just manner. Many see the monks as key “unifiers” that kept political space open long enough to garner intense international attention.

Currently, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, Khatami and Rafsanjani are the dominate voices of the Iranian grassroots movement.  However, none of them has articulated a clear vision or defined the short- and long-term objectives of the movement.  Further, it is uncertain whether they are in agreement on the way forward or if they represent the totality of those engaged in street-level civil disobedience.  While Iran has so successfully used new media to mobilize the grassroots, one of the benefits of new media tools – that they are essentially “flat” and remove the necessity for hierarchies to facilitate mass action – can also impose new challenges to the emergence of essential leadership.  This may prove to be the case in Iran.  As a result, some of the groups that have participated in the collective movement may naturally return to their individual causes.  Those seeking broader democratic change must work in concert to accomplish their goals.

–

Published on August 4, 2009