Today, Sunday July 10, 2005 exactly 30 days have passed since I started my hunger strike. In two phases of hunger strike (11 days in late May, and 30 days since June 11) my weight has reduced from 77kg to 55kg, which is a loss of 22kg in 41 days. Many inside and outside the country ask why I have gone on hunger strike and why I am trying to reach legitimate ends through self-destruction. Is it not true that practical rationality demands that the ends and the means to those ends be in proportion with each other? Is it not true that theoretic rationality demands that for all claims (opinions and beliefs) suitable reasons should be offered? Is my action consistent with practical and theoretic rationality? Am I not considered a madman by intellectuals and liberals and human rights defenders? Here I shall try, despite the extreme physical weakness that has completely worn me out, to share my views clearly with everyone.

1. The Crime of Dissent: A person who defends human rights and democracy via free expression, and fights authoritarian systems through peaceful means is called a dissident. Freedom of expression is a common goal of all dissidents. In ideological systems, dissidents challenge the ideology of the system by offering rival models. Their only weapon is moral courage in exposing the violations of human rights and the tyranny of the rulers. Wherever human rights are violated and dictatorship and tyranny prevail, and an ideology is there to back these two up, courageous dissidents will appear and despite the hardships oppose this process boldly. If this definition is correct, then given the history of my activities and what I have said and written, I am considered a dissident who is in jail for his dissent. The following two points confirm this claim:

1-1. Demanding democracy: In the words of Claude Lefort, the legitimacy of the power is based on the people but the image of the rule of people is intimately related to the image of an empty space that the executives of the public power cannot occupy. Democracy connects these two conflicting principles: first, that power derives from the people, and second, that power is not owned by anyone. However, democracy continues to live with this conflict; once this conflict is resolved or if it has already been resolved, then democracy will collapse or it has already collapsed.

In Lefort’s terms, power is like an empty space and those who hold it are ordinary people who have occupied it temporarily. We are not dealing any more with a know-all, do-all guardian. In this system, there is no law that is unchangeable, whose statements cannot be criticized or protested and whose bases cannot be questioned. In a democracy those who govern are directly chosen by the people to serve and be accountable for a limited and definite time span. Conditional limited power will end by the judgment of people.

I have stressed many times before that the ruling sultanist system of Iran is an undemocratic system. Unelected life-time leader is at odds with democracy. His power does not derive from the people, but rather he is claimed to have been appointed by God to rule over the people. He is not a regular person like all other human beings; his gap with ordinary people is the gap between the shepherd and the herd. This is the content of the incorrect theory of the Guardianship of the Jurisprudent ÄVelayat-i FaqihÅ. The ruling jurisprudent ÄfaqihÅ is the custodian of the people and holds absolute guardianship over them. Whereas, a kind of anti-paternalistic argument is behind both democracy and human rights. That is, there exists no superior person who is qualified to decide for individual or social good (good or prosperous life), unless we have especially and within completely defined limitations given him such a power for a definite time. A virtue is only good if it is chosen freely, and for the choice to be free, there should exist a variety of options so that one could exercise his free will. The highest political figure in democratic systems is a regular human being capable of making mistakes, with definite powers, under the control of the people, and one who is elected by the people for a limited time. However, the theory of Absolute Guardianship of the Jurisprudent and what has been enacted in this regard in the constitution of the Islamic Republic, is essentially at odds with this approach. He Äthe jurisprudentÅ is not accountable to anyone, while all the power of the country is in his coil. We are facing two separate issues here. The issue of concept and that of the instances. Not only the theory (concept) of the Guardianship of the Jurisprudent is in conflict with democracy, but it also leads to an undemocratic system once it is realized in the outside world. The original theory is incorrect and undemocratic, and as a result its instance, in complete disagreement with democracy, has swayed all of the political arena in his hold and has formed a singular rulership under his orders.

1-2. Struggle for human rights: Human rights form a set of necessary minimum criteria for an individual to be able to lead a life in dignity and honor. David Beetham also considers human rights as the minimum necessary conditions for the individual’s healthy and humane life. In the opinion of John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin, justice as fairness, is based on the assumption that all men and women are entitled to the natural right to equality in attention and respect; not a right that they have attained due to birth or trait or merit or moral distinction, but the right they hold as merely being humans capable of planning and demanding justice. In Dworkin’s opinion, rights are not a divine gift but derive from the primary right to equality. ÄJohnÅ Finnis, too, shares Durkin’s opinion and believes the main root of rights is the equality of human beings. In his words, the modern usage of rights correctly emphasizes Äthe concept ofÅ equality, the truth that every human being is a fertile land for developing human characters, and that the importance of this development should be considered equally for all. In other words, the discourse of rights keeps the justice in the foreground of our considerations.

The connection between democracy and human rights is one of the problems of contemporary philosophy. Michael Freeman says: “the theory of democracy asks: who should rule?, and answers: people; the theory of human rights asks: how should the rulers behave?, and replies: they must respect the human right of all individuals. Democracy is a collective concept and democratic governments may violate human rights of the individual. On the other hand, the concept of human rights is created to limit the power of governments, and to the extent that it puts the governments under public control, it has a democratic character. However, human rights limit the legitimate power of all governments, including democratic governments.”

David Beetham considers public supervision of collective decision-making the core of democracy. In his opinion, the principle of equality of all citizens gives them the right to express their views on public issues through associations of civil society, and participation in the government. If the right of all citizens to express their opinion on public issues, and to supervise the government is the essence of democracy, “to implement this right we need, on the one hand, political institutions such as elections, parties and legislative assemblies and, on the other hand, guarantees for the group of human rights that are called civil and political rights, and which are listed in conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

In Beetham’s opinion, the common human nature provides a single philosophical justification for democracy and human rights. Man’s ability to make informed and logical choices, or to act out of thought and purpose about the issues that affect his life, is a philosophical assumption about the nature of man. Democracy is founded upon admitting “the assumption that man is able to solve the problems that influence his communal or governmental life, such as the right to vote or run for public office.” Human beings are capable of making decisions in public and private arenas and of managing their lives. Ronald Dworkin believes individual rights are like trumps in the hands of individuals, trumps that the state cannot overrule even with the excuse of public interest. In his view, the moment these rights are recognized, they cannot be pushed aside. He says if a person has the right to publish his views, government officials cannot violate this right, even if they happen to be correct in believing that it would be in the interest of the society in general if they did so.

The author of these lines has exposed the cases of human rights violations in Iran several times. Here I point out a few examples of widespread human rights violation in Iran:

* In the past few years, about 100 journals were banned all at one time and journalists were sent to prison, following the explicit and public speech of Mr. Khamenei claiming that the press has become the base of the enemy. The judiciary officials have announced formally in interviews that they have persecuted the press following the words of the Leader. This is the meaning of freedom of expression in the sultanist regime. After years of hard work and keeping journalists in solitary confinments they were unable to discover even a single enemy base. But the judiciary system never asked Mr. Khamenei to submit his evidence to the court, or documents showing that the press are the base of the enemy, and now that it has become clear that that claim was false, the Leader is not prosecuted for trampling on the right of the press and journalists.

* That is, the Leader is not equal to other people. He can accuse citizens with no evidence whatsoever without being prosecuted.

* When Mr. Khamenei took hold of the Leadership of the system, he talked about “cultural invasion of the enemy” and the necessity to resist it. This was followed by ÄTVÅ programs such as “Hoviat”(1) and intellectual dissidents were butchered in the most brutal way, as agents of enemy’s cultural invasion by the top-officials of the Ministry of Intelligence.

* Assassinating the opposition outside the country by “Foreign Servicemen”(2) was another part of the project dubbed ‘healing through murder’. The terms, Eminence and Gray Eminence were forged to refer to the principle commanders of this project. The killing of Zahra Kazemi was formed on the same background. Zahra Kazemi is the only murder victim of the world without a murderer.

* The brutal attack on the dorms of Tehran University and widespread arrests of beaten and oppressed students is another instance of human rights violation in Iran. Nowadays the students are not even permitted to hold a simple commemoration in one of the universities for the occasion. Sweeping political oppression is implemented in order to create a single-voiced society. In such a society only one voice must be heard: the voice of the Leader. There must be only one speaker and the rest should be listeners.