The Iranian left, after nearly a century of political activity, has still not been able to present even a clear and actionable "social contract" with Iranian society. This contract should address the concerns it has spoken about and advocated for over the years. But why has a large part of the Iranian left, instead of turning its ideals into a tangible social contract with the people, remained trapped in the memories of failures and ideological struggles of the twentieth century?
The Shadow of History over the Iranian Left
The Iranian left still sees the Pahlavi era as a cloak under which it can hide its shortcomings, failures, and wrong paths taken over the years. Whenever the historical record of the Iranian left is brought up, instead of directly confronting its theoretical, political, and organizational errors, highlighting the role of the Pahlavi era becomes the simplest way to escape accountability. It seems that if all the responsibility for today's failures can be attributed to the "Pahlavi era," there is no need to answer the difficult question of what the Iranian left itself wanted and what it did.
Read more: Nikzad: The Strait of Hormuz is affected by fuel prices in America
Identity and Cultural Challenges
This confusion after the 1979 revolution caused part of the Iranian left to face a phenomenon that can be termed "Stockholm syndrome"; a situation in which the victim, instead of completely breaking away from the power that threatens their freedom and security, gradually develops empathy and sympathy for that power. In this situation, suffering becomes part of the political identity and moral capital of the individual. For a generation of intellectuals and political activists, imprisonment and persecution were not only reminders of repression but also part of their heroic political narrative.
However, this situation gradually changed. Some of these intellectuals, after the revolution and especially after migration, found themselves in a world where the rules were different from what they had experienced for decades: a relatively stable society, legal party politics, and freer media. For someone whose political identity was shaped in the battlefield, peace could be more difficult than war. This dependence on the revolutionary situation means an identity dependence on a world in which the individual defines themselves as struggling and being victimized.
The Distance of the Iranian Left from Today's Society
The Iranian left still sees society through the lens of the past in many cases. Today's lived experience is not adequately reflected in the theories and political literature of this movement, and therefore, it is natural that to explain the present, it constantly returns to historical figures and novels. At a time when today's Iranian society is facing issues such as digital economy, social networks, and lifestyle changes, the Iranian left is still caught up in self-destruction and inability to respond to the real needs of the people.
The Iranian left must answer these questions: If power were in your hands, what kind of society would you build? And how would you want to transfer ideals from the level of slogans to the daily lives of the people? Answering these questions not only helps clarify the Iranian left but can also pave the way for reconnecting with today's society.
Read more: Financial support from Amir Kabir University for elites and top scorers in the entrance exam · Meeting of Ararat Mirzoyan with Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in Tehran
