Why Asghar Farhadi’s Letter to the President Is Defensible

When Farhadi wrote to the president to draw attention to the avoidable suffering of the “grave-dwellers,” some analysts in Telegram groups suggested they detected a kind of “soft populism” in his letter. Because in his letter, as a committed artist, he had spoken of social pains on the one hand and mocked “electoral games” on the other. Contrary to this assessment, I actually see in Farhadi’s compassionate act a tendency toward “positive people-orientation,” which I believe differs from demagoguery and populism in its negative sense. To become acquainted with my defense of “positive people-orientation,” you will need to be patient and read the eleven passages below.

1 – First, a conceptual clarification is not out of place. After Trump’s rise in America, I reviewed the theoretical literature on populism again (as an intellectual and practical current that wants the people – rather than a “party” or a “specific class” or the “state” – at the center of modern politics). I particularly followed its empirical varieties. In this Telegram note, I present to you my summary of this theoretical review. “Populism” or “people-ism” has at least two varieties: one is “positive people-orientation” and the other is “negative and destructive demagoguery.”

2 – Characteristics of positive people-orientation (or democratic people-orientation)

▪️ In this people-ism, political and social activists, in their address to the people, do not consider only the problems and interests of one class of people; rather, they are mindful that the people cannot be reduced to a specific group and are composed of plural social groups, and all the people need representation.

▪️ In this people-ism, political and social activists “oppose” a rival political group, ideology, or program. This opposition, through civil methods and in the form of dialogue, competition, and even dispute, helps with identity-building among supporters but does not descend into a “life-and-death game,” elimination, and violence.

▪️ In this people-ism, a central idea that must be realized in the future is always promoted (such as the idea of civil coexistence and democratic governance for all strata of the people).

▪️ In this people-ism, activists do not pursue “a specific and limited program,” but pursue “broad and long-term subjects and goals.” (For this reason, people-orientationists are accused by “elitists” of populism in its negative and demagogic sense).

▪️ This people-ism criticizes the status quo and rival programs, but its main critical orientation is affirmative and relies on solutions aimed at practically resolving the people’s problems.

▪️ In this people-orientation, attention is paid to both gradual changes and structural changes.

▪️ The political plans of this people-orientation are rationally defensible and endorsed by experienced experts, but political and social activists strive to express these plans in simple language and in a form that arouses passion and emotion.

3 – Characteristics of negative demagoguery (or extreme people-orientation)

▪️ In this people-ism, political and social activists claim to have discovered “the true and authentic will of the people” and tell the people that “these bureaucratic elites,” who have no concern for the homeland, are the real enemies of the people.

▪️ In this people-ism, political activists present their political and ideological opponents as their existential and honor-bound enemies. And instead of “criticizing” the rival, they seek to negate and eliminate them.

▪️ In this demagogic people-ism, there is a central idea for attracting minds and mobilizing people’s emotions, but this central idea is not “affirmative and for building tomorrow’s society”; rather, it is mostly negative and its axis is an “enemy” that must be destroyed so that society can regain happiness.

▪️ In this type of people-ism, political activists, instead of emphasizing diverse, concrete, and implementable programs, rely on a specific, quasi-magical solution (for example, we will give oil money to everyone), and when it fails to materialize, they often resort to extreme ethnic, national, or religious nationalism.

▪️In this demagoguery, criticism escalates and leads to “insults” against the rival. And the rival’s peripheral affairs become a propaganda tool for their “elimination” and vilification.

▪️In this demagoguery, promises of vast and rapid changes are made, and they seek to create a false revolutionary atmosphere in society, which is, in practice, nothing more than a mirage.

▪️In this demagoguery, executive plans are presented in a simplistic manner and as magical solutions not endorsed by experts (such as the global management plan during the Mehrvarzi era), without explaining to the people how these plans can be implemented.

4- It is fitting to note that one of the characteristics of the modern world (whether in Western or Eastern societies) is precisely this process of “populism” at the center of politics. The dynamism and changes of today’s societies (including Iranian society) cannot be explained “solely” by the performance of organizations, civil institutions, parties, and governments; rather, “populism” (in both its positive and negative forms) is one of the most important elements of modern politics.

5- Populism

Populism is, on the one hand, a promoter of democracy because it fosters public participation, and on the other hand, it is detrimental to democracy because, in democracies, we need an efficient bureaucracy to fulfill the “promises made to the people.” In other words, fulfilling promises is impossible without strengthening bureaucracy (which is criticized by populists). I do not intend to resolve the conflict between populism and democracy entirely here, but my point is that it is negative populism that is “detrimental” to democracy and bureaucracy, while positive populism actually strengthens and “promotes” democracy.

6- In Iran’s contemporary history, both positive and negative forms of populism abound. In my view, the Mosaddegh movement, the movement of Imam Khomeini (RA) in the formation of the revolution (and Engineer Mousavi during the war), and the reform movement and Khatami are examples of positive and sincere populism (and encouraging democracy) in Iran’s contemporary history. And the demagoguery of the Tudeh Party in the 1940s is among the first, and that of Ahmadinejad during the Mehrvarzi era is among the latest, negative and destructive examples of populism in Iran. (Also, the Obama movement in 2008 in America and the rise of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Labour Party over the past three years are examples of positive populism, and the Trump movement in 2016 has been a negative and destructive example of demagoguery.

7- Within the framework of the explanations in this writing, one can, without embarrassment, advise the reformists to continue positive populism as in the reform era (of course, with a program based on democratic social justice, the discussion of which requires another opportunity) and not fall into the “realm of elitist politics.” Reform and democracy in Iran will become a fantastical and ineffective demand without popular support and presence.

8- Also, within the framework of this writing, while supporting the Rouhani administration, one can point out that Rouhani’s own tone and language are fortunately populist and positive, but Rouhani’s campaign team and the majority of his ministers certainly do not have a positive and penetrating populist language (although, fortunately, they also do not have a demagogic and destructive tone).

9- Again, with these explanations, it can be said that Farhadi’s tone and action in his letter to Rouhani (in sympathizing with the grave-dwellers) is a positive populist act. What harm is there in a society where its civil and political institutions are not very efficient and are suppressed, for a people-savvy artist to share the people’s pain with the president, addressing the people?

10- Ignoring the “characteristic of populism” in analyzing the state of society makes the analyst elitist and “people-blind,” and transforms us from a “people-oriented sociology” to an “archival and ineffective sociology.” Furthermore, this disregard for populism deprives democratic movements in Iran of the warmth of popular support. The summary of the matter is that one can, without embarrassment, defend positive populism and not fall into the destructive realm of demagoguery.

.

---

.

The Necessity of Distinguishing “Positive Populism” from “Negative Demagoguery”

Why Can Asghar Farhadi’s Action in Writing a Letter to the President Be Defended?

Author: Dr. Hamidreza Jalaeipour (Sociologist)

.

---

.