M for 'Small Successes'

I have known Mohammad Fazeli for only a few years. I have met him in person three or four times in total, but I am aware of his circumstances. He is a sociologist who has studied his discipline well and is a man of ideas. I, of course, like him for one particular trait. It is a trait I possess myself: proximity to power does not at all cause him to cease being himself, to become cautious, or to develop a stammer. He approaches power to the extent that he thinks something can be done for the country or something can be reformed; the moment he realizes nothing can be done, he distances himself or walks away from power.

I, too, approached power in 2000 by accepting the deputy directorship for research at the Majlis Research Center, and after two years, when I understood that nothing could be reformed from within the power structure, I resigned and never accepted any other official position. But my mistake was thinking that one could stand outside the power structure and reform power. For about 15 years, I stood outside power and criticized it. However, for the past two years, I have reached the conclusion that unless civil society becomes empowered, engaging with those in power—whether from within the structure or from outside it—has no effect.

Mohammad Fazeli, however, did not make this mistake. When he saw that in the position of deputy director for research at the Center for Strategic Studies, he could do nothing to reform power, he stepped aside and went directly to civil society, devoting his energy to strengthening the forces of civil society. One of his good works was the idea of launching the Telegram channel "Small Successes." The idea of this channel is that instead of trying to reform a government that will not become aware until it hits its head against a stone, we should not waste our energy and time in vain trying to reform it; rather, we should begin to reform ourselves, our social environment, our natural environment, and our wrong behavioral patterns. If we reform ourselves, when the government becomes aware through an unforeseen shock or as a result of pressures and crises, we can help it improve the situation. But if we do not reform ourselves, when the government becomes aware, instead of helping to improve the situation, we will just begin to take revenge, destroy, and come to blows, and then we will all plunge together to the bottom of the abyss.

This very incident occurred in the Islamic Revolution. At first, the Shah would not listen to us, and we kept shouting louder and became angrier. Finally, when the Shah heard our voice and said, "I have heard the message of your revolution," we were already so lost in the excitement and tumult of our revolution that we did not hear the Shah's voice. The Islamic Revolution was the result of a historical clash between an immature government and an immature civil society. If one of these two had been mature, it would have heard the other's voice in time and would not have let matters reach collapse; rather, before the point of collapse, they would have reached an understanding for a rational transition of power.

In the words of Saadi:

Two wise men will have no rancor or strife;
A sage does not quarrel with a fool.

If an ignorant man speaks harshly out of fear,
A wise man seeks his heart with gentleness.

And if both sides are ignorant,
Even if there is a chain, they will break it.

The government has now entangled itself in crisis to such an extent that sooner or later it must decide between accepting a paradigm shift (horizon-opening / transformability)—that is, accepting serious changes in the prioritization of its goals and the arrangement of its structure—or submitting to the collapse of the current structure. Our criticism is no longer needed at all. Criticism belongs to the time before a crisis arrives; we speak and critique so that a crisis may not come. Now the crisis has arrived; the crisis itself is the best critic of this power structure's performance. Now we must go and attend to our other responsibilities. And above all, we must go and work on reforming ourselves, our behavioral patterns, and strengthening our civic institutions. So, instead of all of us fixing our gaze on power and its reform or overthrow, let us turn our floodlights onto ourselves and our own conduct. The role of our mistakes and the inappropriate actions of various segments of society—from individuals to families to economic actors and other sectors—in dragging the country into crisis is no less than the role of the government. Just one example of this is that if the government executes 500 people a year on various charges, we kill 16,000 of our own, without any charges, in traffic accidents.

Yes, now is the time for each and every one of us to begin reform with ourselves; perhaps if we all begin, waves of transformation will powerfully take shape. For instance, if this very idea of the "Small Successes" channel succeeds, it is a great success. That is, small reforms that begin in one region can suddenly spread across the entire country and create a major reform. Only if this happens can it be said that our people have learned from the three previous revolutions (the Constitutional Revolution, the Oil Nationalization Movement, and the Islamic Revolution).

The Small Successes channel reflects small but successful actions across the country. Actions that, if spread everywhere, could lead to major reforms in the country. These days, in every corner of the country, we witness noble yet unknown individuals who, with the hope of creating a small but profound improvement in their surroundings, have engaged in activism. It doesn't matter where it is, whether in Tehran or in Sistan and Baluchestan, in the field of water and environment or health, within the family or in the educational system; what matters is that it is a necessary, neglected, yet important and impactful action. We have no choice but to identify everyone who, in the current dire straits, undertakes a rational, ethical, and hopeful action, to highlight their deed, and to support them. We—both the government and society—have so far undertaken many efforts for great successes but have failed repeatedly. Now we need an infinite chain of small successes.

So be sure to check out the Small Successes channel, join it, and introduce it to anyone you think believes in reforming the country through rational methods. The more members the "Small Successes" channel gains, the greater the likelihood that when a small success takes shape in the country, it can be transformed into a great success. We should deeply regret that the channels of athletes or actors, and worse still, channels that have taken up axes, destroying, encouraging instability, and spreading false or discouraging news to sever the roots of social hope, sometimes have several hundred thousand and, in some cases, millions of members, while channels that seek the gradual, step-by-step, deep, and incremental improvement of our behaviors and structures have, at best, a few tens of thousands of members.

It is not a good sign that the forces and individuals who desire the country to be reformed through rational and peaceful means, with genuine social participation and self-reliance, possess far less diligence, seriousness, persistence, energy, and motivation than those who wish to change the situation through excitement and by opening irrational and destructive paths. This is precisely a sign of the ineptitude of those of us who, having witnessed the experience of three costly revolutions in the past century, have come to believe that no path to freedom, democracy, prosperity, welfare, growth, and development opens through revolution, rebellion, instability, and chaos. If the members of the Small Successes channel do not reach several hundred thousand, it means that the forces seeking stability and rational change do not deserve to guide the path of society, and in practice, it is these destructive forces that will determine our future destiny.

So our mission is this: each of us must introduce the "Small Successes" channel to all those who believe in rational and ethical methods for reform and transformation in the country's structures, and we must continue this work until the number of members of this channel reaches at least one hundred thousand.

I am very hopeful for the future. I believe that the major ongoing crises in the country will eventually force the power structure to decide between its survival and continuing the current path; and experience has shown that they choose survival. But the difference between this choice and the choice in previous crises is that now only one choice remains before the power structure: the rationalization of the structure. In previous choices, they could also decide between two "irrational" options. Because in previous crises, on the one hand, the options ahead were more than one, and on the other hand, economic reserves and abundant oil revenues allowed the government to cover its mistakes with oil money.

But now, no energy, opportunity, or resources remain for other choices; we either embark on a rational and non-ideological path or we collapse. There is no other option that allows the structure to continue in the same inefficient and corrupt manner as before and to rebuild or reproduce itself. With the current trend of developments, I am almost certain that the system will soon, I think in the next few months, be forced to make big decisions, and I think – of course, solely and only based on an intuitive perception – that the existing structure still has the necessary cohesion and power to make big decisions and pay the necessary costs to fall into a rational path (let us just pray that no incident from outside or within diverts the natural course of developments towards deviation and instability).

In this process, the more capable and cohesive civil society is, and the sooner it can find itself in the developments, maintain its solidarity, and engage in collective cooperation and participation, the less costly we can navigate through the developments. The difference today compared to the past is that communication and information technologies have greatly increased the power of civil society, provided that the intellectual elites and rational forces of civil society can find each other and, during the developments, can replicate patterns of rational activism across the entire country.

For "local small successes" to become "national great successes," we must believe that if we do not seriously act for the solidarity of the national rationality-seeking forces, then those who think they can lead the country towards well-being through authoritarianism or through emotional and irrational activism will drag us into a great upheaval. Let us test our power. Let us start introducing the "Small Successes" channel to our friends until its membership reaches one hundred thousand. We can do it.

.

---

.

M for 'Small Successes'

Author: Mohsen Renani

.

---

.

Related Content:

The Fable of the Elephant and the Pride

Mohammad Fazeli's lecture on the book