Who Is The State?

You may have seen my open note to Barack Obama a few posts ago.  This question of Iranian sovereignty has deep implications for free people and for people who understand why freedom is worth wanting.  

I suggested that Obama’s wording around “respecting Iranian sovereignty” does more harm than good in the present crisis in this sense:  by grounding a refusal to become involved in the struggle on respect for “Iranian sovereignty”, he’s sending the message that the current regime’s understanding of sovereignty is intelligible and morally equivalent to the sovereignty of free nations. Clearly, it is not.  Yes, Iran is sovereign in the real politik sense and in the classic sense:  the regime is a free actor and is not a client nation in suzerain relationship with a greater hegemony. But is this really what we mean by sovereignty?  Is this what a century of sham governments, right and left wing juntas, appeasements, world wars, atomic bombs, cold wars, containment, police actions, terrorist wars, regime changes and blatantly stolen elections has done to the word?

The best of Western political philosophy (and yes, I will show preference here because I think classic liberalism rightly understood  is the most viable course for peaceful living in a pluralistic, global community) has always maintained that sovereignty comes from the ground up.  People, are sovereign, not regimes.  Not even perfectly democratic regimes.  Who, by God, is sovereign in Iran?  What claim to sovereignty does any government have if that government isn’t constantly checked by the consent of the governed?

Who is sovereign in Iran?  Who is Iran?  The answer in both cases is the same. The people, not the regime. But when world leaders speak of respecting “Iran’s sovereignty”, what they really mean is respecting the right of the current system to rule, a right not checked by fair and free elections or free expression, the right to assemble, or a free press.  That is, quite frankly, outrageous.  

Imperfect as the American system is and other Western systems are, Barack Obama was elected precisely because we have these checks.  You hated Bill Clinton?  Fine. You got George W. Bush.  You hated George W. Bush?  Fine, you got Barack Obama.  You hate them all?  Scream it from the rooftop.  Convince your friends and neighbors.  You hate the mullahs and Ahmadinejad?  Tough fucking shit.

Respecting Iranian sovereignty is about respecting Iran’s people (including the people the regime is oppressing), not the right of the regime to rule without popular consent.  

I’m not suggesting that any government or corporation or coalition of nations should take the electoral crisis in Iran as an opportunity to impose their own version of democracy on the ground.  That would be an unmitigated disaster and an illegitimate use of power by the international community.  Still, there are ways to show support, to instill hope, to inspire change and to strengthen the weary, and the best of these will come from people, not from governments.  If you don’t believe me, sign up for Twitter.  But the formal non-involvement of Western nations ought not be predicated on respect for the current regime’s sham government, but rather on a keen awareness of the way state-sponsored foreign involvement has hurt Iran at every turn for over a century.  

There are ways to support the democrats in Iran. So far, millions of ordinary people on social networking platforms around the world have been better at finding them than have our governments.   That’s why we, and not the regimes that govern with our anxious permission, are sovereign. We are the people.  We are the state.  We are the media.  We are the open-source, real-time locus of all political power.  Tyrants, tread lightly.