The death of one dictator only paves the way for another. This fundamental principle holds in any system built upon individual, party, or governmental despotism. Often, the new dictator proves to be worse than the previous one, not only shattering false hopes of political change but also intensifying the politics of oppression to a degree where people yearn for the return of the former “devil you know.” In countries like Iran and Afghanistan, where despotic and undemocratic regimes hold sway, this possibility is much stronger than imagining that the new dictator provides citizens with more opportunities and space to breathe freely. If what we have stated is correct, then why the celebration and joy in countries under the dominion of religious and non-religious despotism upon the death of authoritarian rulers? Why do people always get caught up in trivial and non-serious matters?
The death of Ibrahim Raisi, the President of Iran, due to a helicopter crash, has been accompanied by widespread jubilation in both Iran and Afghanistan. However, it should not be overlooked that supporters of the Islamic Republic regime in both countries have not been and are not few, and they are not mourning due to Raisi’s death. In a deeply polarized and class-conscious society where even joy has a class nature, it cannot be otherwise. The happiness of some is the source of misery for others, and vice versa. In this discourse, we are not concerned with the misery of Islamic Republic supporters; rather, we are simply delving into our concerns—those who have been defeated and forgotten, sometimes even the death of one of the pieces of the despotic regime serves to elate the troubled hearts of such individuals.
The celebration and joy surrounding the death of the President of Iran reflect the anger and hatred that people harbor toward religious regimes—a resentment that is quite justified and logical. Citizens of Iran and Afghanistan, who are practically enslaved by despotic religious regimes, if indifferent to what they endure, are essentially dead. Celebrating the demise of a tyrannical ruler whose primary task was to oppress the people is entirely appropriate, and not only should it not be criticized, but it should be embraced. However, rejoicing over the death of a dictator, if not accompanied and coordinated with a struggle to overthrow the entirety of the dictatorial system, not only lacks much effectiveness but can even reinforce the despotic regime. Superficial, shallow, and passing reactions to a phenomenon do not weaken it; on the contrary, they contribute to its growth and sustainability. This behavior, which does not threaten the dominant system, increases regimes’ knowledge of people and consequently leads rulers to exert even more effort to strengthen the foundations of power through more severe oppression policies. Moreover, transient and pleasing celebrations lead to an increase in the anger and resentment of supporters of authoritarian regimes, thus solidifying their determination to support their favored governments further.
I’m not suggesting that anyone suppress their emotions regarding what is happening in society simply because it doesn’t lead to any action and is not profitable. Such an expectation from people who have experienced or are experiencing defeat and despair more than anything else in life is baseless and unethical. Whether you like it or not, people express their emotions in various, sometimes new and innovative, forms, and it’s hard to control them. My emphasis is on the fact that if people’s anger and hatred towards authoritarian regimes are not channeled into sustainable and organized forms of resistance, it remains transient and temporary and does not pose a significant threat to political systems.
Looking at this issue from another angle leads to an even more discouraging conclusion. Expressing happiness over Ibrahim Raisi’s death, in conditions where there is no sign of the decline of the system that nurtured him and the revolutionary struggle is not particularly clear or hopeful, has only a comforting aspect. People, to cope with misplaced grief and delay the impact of the tragedy, even find solace in the smallest failures of the powerful enemy and thus alleviate their pains. Because joy has a comforting aspect and makes it easier to bear the heavy burden of tragedy. Laughter and happiness cannot change reality; they can only alter our perception of it. Laughter and happiness create an opportunity for some of the knots and grudges to be loosened and forgotten.
Therefore, the joy over Ibrahim Raisi’s death, rather than being an indication of our strengths, indicates our failures and defeats. Unfortunately, we in Iran and Afghanistan have failed in the real battle against extremism, religious dictatorship, and superstition. For this reason, we find solace in the death of one of the not-so-serious pieces of the Wilayat al-Faqih regime (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist). What’s supposed to change with Raisi’s death? Ultimately, another dictator will succeed him, and the Islamic Republic will continue to implement its policy of oppressing the people—perhaps even more vigorously this time. It is said that Raisi was supposed to succeed Ali Khamenei, and now the situation has taken a different turn. No significant change has occurred. Khamenei has enough trusted individuals around him that he can ultimately make one of them his successor. If Raisi is dead, dozens of “guardians of the regime” can be found in the Islamic Republic whom Khamenei can choose as the future dictator of Iran.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here:
