Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Hattix t1_j1m20xr wrote

Nobody ever "wants" democracy when in an autocratic state. What they want is what democracy promises, a change of leadership.

Khomeini was popular, but how do people learn that their opinion is positive about him? They don't know him. They've never met him. They were Muslims and knew that he was a religious leader, and that's all they needed.

Until the mid-1970s, Pahlavi had been Western-aligned. The West had destroyed Iranian democracy to install him as autocrat, and everyone was happy. Well, except the Iranians, but who cared about them?

Pahlavi was becoming extremely unpopular after the White Revolution, but while-ever Iran was prosperous and liberal, the people would be happy. Well, they weren't. Pahlavi was seen as a Western lackey, a stooge, he lacked authority of his own, was a Washington puppet and not a Persian leader. They questioned whether Westernisation was really progress.

They saw lots of impoverished Persians, yet Tehran was teeming with extremely rich foreigners. This was Pahlavi's public face in Iran by around 1977.

The USSR saw an opportunity to remove one of America's allies (this was a strategic victory for the USSR) and channelled a lot of support to left-leaning Islamic guerrilla forces, such as the People's Mujahideen. They rejected far-right conservative Islam, seeing religion as a tool to empower the people, not oppress them. They still exist today, as Khomeini turned on them the moment he had power.

40

jon_stout t1_j1mb0gd wrote

> Nobody ever "wants" democracy when in an autocratic state. What they want is what democracy promises, a change of leadership.

... may I ask what the distinction between the two is, in your mind?

10

Guachito t1_j1mds6f wrote

They weren’t fighting for democracy or any specific ideology, they just wanted a change of government because the Shah was did not have their best interest in mind and wasn’t doing a great job.

19

doktorhladnjak t1_j1n5oim wrote

I wouldn’t describe it that way. There were many factions fighting for democracy or ideologies. They only agreed with each other on getting rid of the Shah. So they were united in overthrowing the current regime.

Once that happened, there was another power struggle for who would control the new government. The religious hardliners won that struggle by consolidating power and eliminating opposition from the secular moderates.

3

vandunks t1_j1mdzz2 wrote

Not the other commenter but basically they want the previous ruler gone and replaced with someone else. Sometimes it turns out that the someone else is pretty shit. You don't want them, but you don't want the previous guy either. So you're stuck with someone you don't want, but you don't have the energy, willpower or economic stability to get rid of them too, at least for another couple of decades or until some nice foreign agency wants to install someone new, who you also probably won't like.

In democracy, this happens every four to six years with the revolution condensed into a couple of years of adverts, rallies, and the media telling you who you should or shouldn't like. Then you make your choice with the end goal that hopefully you got the least worst choice, and hopefully that guy you did have who you didn't like is gone. Or if the guy you didn't want gets in, you can complain for four years until you can try again. Meanwhile, you don't have any real power and which guy you choose is meaningless as they're all the same anyway.

5

Hattix t1_j1md1az wrote

Iran got a change of leadership, it did not get democracy.

In my mind.

2

ron4040 t1_j1maooc wrote

I couldn’t remember the exact notes i took some middle Eastern history classes years ago. I remember the Shah being essentially a puppet for the west but you had a lot more detail then I could remember off the top of my. During the revolution wasnt the shah in the states for a cancer treatment?

3

davtruss t1_j1mwpuo wrote

Yes, he fled into exile before being allowed entry to the U.S. for cancer treatment. Pretty sure he and his lovely bride were probably featured in Barbara Walters interviews both before and after the IR.

2

davtruss t1_j1mw3om wrote

Most of what you say is how the world viewed the situation. I posted before reading what you said but after being warned about the 20 year rule. I do think that fighting Iraq to a bloody stalemate during the eight year war solidified Khomeini's autocratic rule.

I don't presume to know how Iranians felt at the time of the 79 IR.

3

Hattix t1_j1njehn wrote

At the time, the world viewed a happy, prosperous, content Persia, a model for autocratic rule.

The Iranians were somewhat less happy than the world was shown!

2

JustLessWorld t1_j1p425o wrote

>They were Muslims and knew that he was a religious leader,

Majority of Iranians were either socialists or communists, as seen by the voting results of the 1952 election.

The muslim revolutionaries allied with the other groups during the revolution and gained control through superior organization.

1