Regimes and rebels: Interview with Iranian dissident Masih Alinejad

Masih Alinejad has been persecuted by the Iranian government for decades for speaking out against women’s rights violations in Iran. Now, she is urging people to unite against gender apartheid.

ADVERTISEMENT

After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini began a harsh assault on women’s rights. 

Today, Iranian women are subject to strict dress codes, including the mandatory hijab, and face legal and political discrimination.

Violations of the rules are frequently met with intense and sometimes fatal brutality.

Speaking exclusively to Euronews, Iranian women’s rights activist Masih Alinejad has called on Western leaders to unite in favour of democracy and challenge dictatorships across the world. 

Persecuted by Iran’s government herself, the journalist-author recently launched a campaign United Against Gender Apartheid, which aims to share the stories of women living under the shadow of oppressive regimes. 

Here is what she said. 

Euronews: Let’s start by speaking about your latest initiative, United Against Gender Apartheid. What inspired you to start the campaign, and what is the aim?

Masih Alinejad: I launched this campaign because I believe in the power of storytelling. If every single woman takes her camera and talks about how it feels to be a second-class citizen in Afghanistan, how it feels to get kicked out of schools, how it feels to get lashes, to get beaten up in the streets in Iran for the crime of showing their hair – they can bring all women together.

It’s not just women in Iran and Afghanistan. Their stories have encouraged the women of Africa to join us. I think this campaign gives a picture of all women from all authoritarian regimes. 

You see women from Nicaragua, women from Venezuela, women from Sudan, from Africa, joining women from Iran and Afghanistan and calling for an end to the gender apartheid regime. And this unity is the key.

Euronews: What assistance have you received from the international community?

Alinejad: So far, some Western countries are trying to understand how the women of Iran and Afghanistan are suffering under gender apartheid, and how they can help to have gender apartheid classified in all international laws.

There are meetings with groups of women from Iran and Afghanistan, member states, and politicians and policymakers everywhere in European countries. But I think this is not sufficient.

We need a global rally, a global movement to unite all women across the globe, to call on their leaders, to get united to end gender apartheid.

Euronews: Dictators are uniting and seeking assistance to avoid sanctions and punishment from Western countries. At the same time, we see how Western leaders are scared to fully punish these regimes. How do you see regimes being held accountable by the new initiative?

Alinejad: This initiative is just one of the tools in our hands, the hands of dissidents, to bring the democratic countries together. Our struggle is important, but it’s not sufficient. The international community must hear the call from the World Liberty Congress.

We had our first general assembly where we united dissidents from 60 authoritarian regimes, the leaders of the movement in every authoritarian country from Africa to Latin America, to many regions in the Middle East, to Eastern Europe, to Asia, and people from Hong Kong. There are pro-democracy movements in each region. But at the same time, all the dictators from these regions are helping each other.

Two-thirds of the global population is living under authoritarian regimes. It is shocking, but it is true. It is a fact that 70% of the global population is living under autocrats. Democracy is in recession. I believe that only sanctions are not sufficient. It is a tool, but it’s not sufficient. We need to see all the democratic countries as united as authoritarian regimes to isolate dictatorships and terrorists.

ADVERTISEMENT

Euronews: You’re asking women across the world who are under authoritarian regimes to record a video of themselves, exposing the atrocities that they’re facing every day. Yet, we’ve also seen how many of these regimes have condemned and arrested people for speaking out. Have you seen a change in the mentality of people in their willingness to speak up against these regimes?

Alinejad: In my country, the regime created a new law saying that if anyone sent videos to Masih Alinejad would be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. I remember I felt guilty. I felt the burden on my shoulders. I wanted to shut down my campaign. But guess what happened? I was bombarded by women sending videos.

Now mothers who lost their beloved ones in the protests, in the uprising, are sending videos to me in the same street where their children got killed, saying: “Masih, you should be our voice because we don’t have anything to lose. They killed our children, and now are telling us to stop being our storytellers? They want us to stop even crying for justice?”

Women in my country, women in authoritarian regimes, are fearless. They have nothing to lose. They had enough. But at the same time, they have agency. I’m not putting their lives in danger. These are the authoritarian regimes putting their lives in danger. And that’s why they believe they are like the women of suffrage. They have to risk their lives because they believe freedom is not free.

In my country, you see that the clerics are attacking women in the streets. Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, asked the police to put cameras everywhere to identify unveiled women. What happened? You see women showing their middle fingers to the cameras. You see women using their cameras as weapons to expose the violence of those who carry weapons, to expose the Islamic Republic, expose the Taliban, and African dictators.

ADVERTISEMENT

Euronews: During the recent parliamentary elections in Iran, we saw the lowest voter turnout since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. We are also witnessing government top officials voicing their discomfort with some of the conservatives’ policies. People in the streets are rebelling against the establishment. Do you think that a possibility of change might be looming in Iran?

Alinejad: I think the main change that the Iranian people want is regime change. They want to have a secular democracy. And they deserve to have it. There’s a huge gap between the young generation and the rulers. All the criminals, they’re ruling my country. So for that, I have to say that the Islamic Republic is not reformable.

Even those moderate boys who now boycotted the election concluded that they must get rid of the Islamic Republic and have a secular democracy. And believe me, a secular democracy not only benefits the people of Iran, but also the people in the region and the people in the West. So an Iran without an Islamic Republic will benefit the rest of the world.

We, the people of Iran, we’re not risking our lives to just save ourselves. We want to save the rest of the world from one of the most dangerous viruses, which is called the Islamic Republic. They are infecting the rest of the world.

There’s a famous saying in America: “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” – but I believe what happened in the Middle East is not going to stay in the Middle East. They will expand their ideology in Europe. Extremism everywhere.

ADVERTISEMENT

I believe that change will come in my country sooner or later, but history will judge those who could be a voice for the women of Iran, but they decided to ignore them, instead shaking the hands of the killers of my women.

This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.

Source link

#Regimes #rebels #Interview #Iranian #dissident #Masih #Alinejad

The unexpected upside of Russia’s liberal candidate who was not to be

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Boris Nadezhdin’s role was to be a certified loser. Yet, as hopeless and uninspiring of a candidate he was, he unwittingly gave Russian liberals hope, Aleksandar Đokić writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

After a week of what could be described as peak cheap court drama at its finest, the last liberal potential candidate for the Russian presidential election, Boris Nadezhdin, has been finally rejected by the country’s Central Electoral Commission.

In a tense administrative showdown of the opening week of February, Nadezhdin first submitted 104,700 signatures necessary for his candidature to be approved, since he isn’t running as a representative of a parliamentary political party. 

The Central Electoral Commission, the bureaucratic body which formally decides whether aspiring candidates fulfil the criteria to run in the elections or not, then went on to scrap 9,147 of those, or more than the legally allowed 5% of invalid signatures. 

Nadezhdin appealed the decision, but the bureaucrats ultimately rejected his complaint on Thursday.

In the end, there will be just four candidates running for the post of Russia’s supreme leader, all of them representatives of parliamentary parties, which are eligible to run by default. 

All other candidates, except Vladimir Putin himself, had their hopes dashed by the Central Electoral Commission. 

Putin’s official rivals for the 17 March election will be LDPR’s Leonid Slutsky, Nikolay Kharitonov of the Communist Party, and New People’s Vladislav Davankov.

All of them constitute what is known as loyal opposition; in other words, they’re window dressing, as Putin can’t be the only candidate, it’s against the Constitution and the optics are rather bad. 

The message out of the Kremlin to Russians is, the bare bones of democratic pretence must be maintained.

Hardly the leader we need

On the other hand, Boris Nadezhdin himself was not what one would call a leader of the liberal or any kind of opposition by any means at all. 

Over the years, he has repeatedly participated in political talk shows broadcast on Russian federal TV channels, as a handpicked representative of what was supposed to be “liberal opposition”. 

He was on the infamous Vladimir Solovyov’s show more than once, whose rants can only be compared to those of Hans Fritzsche, the Nazi star radio host, later convicted of war crimes by the Nuremberg tribunal. 

Nadezhdin also frequently took part in other federal TV talk shows such as Pyotr Tolstoy’s “Time Will Tell” and was a guest on Yevgeny Popov’s and Olga Skabeeva’s “60 Minutes” program. 

All of the “journalists” mentioned above went on to join Putin’s United Russia party and renounced any semblance of journalist integrity. The democratic world has also sanctioned them in the meantime.

Nadezhdin’s political background is in line with his previous, but more successful colleagues from the ranks of Putin’s technocratic elite of today, such as the influential post-Soviet mainstay Sergey Kiriyenko, known as one of Boris Yeltsin’s former prime ministers. 

Nadezhdin was also a member of Boris Nemtsov’s team at the end of the 1990s when the liberal wing of Russia’s political system had its last hurrah. 

Nemtsov was assassinated late into Putin’s era, refusing to submit to autocratic rule, like many of his peers did. 

Nadezhdin went on to change several mainstream liberal parties in Russia while Putin was already in power. 

ADVERTISEMENT

He worked with Putin’s former Minister of Finance Alexey Kudrin and took part in the primaries of Putin’s United Russia party in 2015 but was defeated. Then, in 2021, he unsuccessfully ran in the parliamentary elections as the representative of the Just Russia party, which was by then an openly alt-right political organisation completely loyal to Putin.

Supporting the platform, not the face on the posters

In essence, Nadezhdin as a political figure bears no importance. Putin’s administration could’ve picked anyone out of several other characters ready to perfectly fill his shoes as representatives of the loyal liberal opposition. 

What matters for Russian society and bears mentioning is the effect which Nadezhin’s failed candidacy achieved — an effect which even Nadezhdin himself couldn’t have hoped for.

In another twist of cynical irony, his last name happens to contain the word “hope”. And all of a sudden, traces of hope appeared, albeit briefly.

For the first time since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian liberal public dared to show its collective face on the streets of the big cities. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Long queues of people who wanted to give their signatures and show support for his candidacy could be seen as early as the beginning of this year.

This was mainly achieved by the real liberal opposition, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Alexey Navalny’s associates, unexpectedly standing behind his candidacy. 

From then on, it didn’t matter in the slightest whether Nadezhdin was coopted by Putin’s administration or not; he still ran on the anti-war and pro-democracy platform and the large number of people supporting him did so because of the issues and not out of affection for him as a political leader. 

Maybe hope does die last after all

What came to be was the next best thing to protest in Russia’s middle-class circles. 

For the first time, in the middle of totalitarian Russia, liberals took to the streets, stood next to each other, likely conversed on political issues and no force could scare them away. This is a big deal for Russia’s atomised big-city segment of society.

ADVERTISEMENT

Liberal support for Nadezhdin grew so much, that he was realistically seen as a runner-up in the coming elections, an outcome Putin’s administration did not want to see happening. 

Nadezhdin’s role was to be a certified loser, garnering no more than 1-2% of votes, thus demonstrating to fragmented and disenchanted Russian liberals that they were isolated and few in numbers. 

The snowball effect of grassroots support for Nadezhdin annihilated the premise of Putin’s team, so when the first independent polling results came out, giving Nadezhdin a projected share of no less than 10%, it was clear that his project was to be cancelled and his candidacy refused. 

By then, however, it was already too late to erase the positive social effect Nadezhdin’s candidacy had caused. 

The decision of the Russian liberal opposition turned out to be the right one, for a change. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Nadezhdin had achieved what they could not. He brought Russian liberals out of their kitchens, where serious matters in Russian society are commonly discussed, and into the open. 

And as hopeless and uninspiring of a candidate as he was, he unwittingly gave Russian liberals hope.

Aleksandar Đokić is a Serbian political scientist and analyst with bylines in Novaya Gazeta. He was formerly a lecturer at RUDN University in Moscow.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#unexpected #upside #Russias #liberal #candidate