Academia undermined by political entrepreneurs, emotional activism and poor media coverage

FYI: This article is the original version which I sent for publication in SGIA newsletter. As the news letter is yet to be released I taught it would be good to put it here in advance.
Ehsan Abdoh

The Brawl over the "Iranian Theocracy & Democracy" Seminar
Academia undermined by political entrepreneurs, emotional activism and poor media coverage.
By Ehsan Abdoh,
Durham University's PhD candidate and member of Centre for Iranian studies

The recent row over Centre for Iranian Studies' "Iranian Theocracy & Democracy" seminar outlines some of the basic problems within the world we live in. Much of this little escapade was caused by the same factors poisoning and discrediting the way journalists and political activists choose to operate: misrepresentation of truth due to political and personal interests, loose babble and minute yet significant mistakes. These byproducts of political disdain have a tradition of bullying academia and academic cooperation. We in the small but active Centre for Iranians Studies (CIS) were surprised to find ourselves in the most recent dispute over academic cooperation.

At the centre of this spectacle was David Toube, AKA David T, political commentator, blogger, and proud owner of the political website Harry's Place. At first glance Mr. Toube's article on the Seminar seemed to raise genuine concerns about the event and the memorandum of understanding between CIS and Cultural Centre of Islamic Republic of Iran in UK. Mr. Toube's alarm was partly justified by the way the seminar was portrayed by Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) which had misquoted both the title and the agenda of the seminar. Durham University and CIS take such matters very seriously and have already discussed it at length with Cultural Councillor of Iranian Embassy.

However, in his article and subsequent comments and "interview" with Palatinate, Mr. Toube's legitimate questions lurched into self-serving demands and baseless accusations. His readers' comments were even more ludicrous and sometimes so shamelessly bogus that leads us to believe that the most ardent readers of Mr. Toube are hopelessly misinformed, emotionally disturbed and cynically uninterested in truth; not to mention having very weird names! Mr. Toube went as far as accusing CIS and Durham University of promoting IRI's policies in exchange for "cash handouts".

Palatinate's careless coverage of this ordeal was another sad sequence of this business. As the official student newspaper of Durham University, Palatinate has a duty for fair and balanced coverage of all university related news. This has not been the case with the "Iranian Theocracy & Democracy" seminar; in which the mere title of the report is offensive. While the reporter did interview Mr. Toube, he did not bother to contact the CIS. Also Palatinate misquoted Vice-Chancellor's remarks which added another twist to this strife. We accept that all these may have been honest mistakes but editors of Palatinate must know that such mistakes ruin reputations.

In all this David Toube, carried himself with a disturbing sense of self-importance: asking the CIS to disclose its' "Memorandum of Cooperation" to him, and demanding Parliament inquiry on the matter and ... For someone whose main political achievement has been a short mentioning in the 'Private Eye', Mr. Toube seem quite found of overindulging his ego, which leads me to question the sincerity of his actions. He could have at least tried to contact the CIS officials but did not even bother to follow up the seminar, presumably because he had bigger fishes to fry. This further degrades his "supposed concerns" into self-serving political entrepreneurship.

Political activism has always been valued for its' stand on conscious and fight against immoral compromises and hypocrisy. Today it suffers from lack of objectivity and is haunted by political opportunists and with it suffers the academia.

Will Ahmadinejad’s positive gesture work?

By Ariabarzan

Ahmadinejad message to President-Elect Barack Obama in which he congratulated Obama on his election was a turning point in Iran’s foreign policy after the revolution. Yet for Ahmadinejad the main obstacle for destroying the “high wall of mistrust” between the two countries emerges from no where else than his own political faction.

The dilemma of Iran-US relation has been looked at and discussed for countless times and from various angles. Different reasons been mentioned as the main or the periphery causes of the mistrust between the two countries. Iran hostage taking situation, the war with Iraq, Lebanon’s civil war, the first and second Gulf war...

But I do not want to write about the long list of unsolved issues between the two countries.In this article I am trying to explain why some Iranian political factions who are enthusiastic about having relations with America resort to tactical opposition to the idea if the initiative was made by another political bloc .

This can be looked at from the point of view of competition between various factions inside the Iranian regime over who should take the lead in normalisation of the diplomatic relations with the U.S.

These factions who belong to the wider Conservative coalition are prepared to offer a solution for the highly sensitive issue of Iran-U.S. relations only if it was resolved by their very own bloc. Therefore many oppositions to Ahmadinejad’s “positive” gesture toward president-elect Barack Obama are derived from pure jealousy rather than ideological differences.

Those Principalists and Conservatives who felt being marginalised by Ahmadinejad and his team are now trying to stop him from starting talks with the new American administration.

The reason is simple in their mind; Who ever opens the doors of dialogue with the “Great Satan” will be the ultimate gatekeeper to the Satan's palace!

In other words if Ahmadinejad and his foreign-relations team (including Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari) were to be succeeded in resolving the staggering issues with Americans (such as differences of approach in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine and more importantly the Iranian nuclear program) the benefits and bonuses of such proximity will be theirs and theirs only.

In addition such a development if implemented with care could have immense impacts on the every day life in Iran, thus giving Ahmadinejad a huge advantage over his rivals in the upcoming presidential election in 2009.

To clarify more let us look at the case of Ahmad Tavakoli a prominent MP in the Iranian parliament.

Tavakoli who endorsed Mahmood Ahmadinejad in 2005 elections was denied any governmental position despite his credentials as a renowned university Professor.

In his turn Tavakoli tried his best to turn the tables for Ahmadinejad. His letter to Ahmadinejad in which he fiercely criticized the Iranian presidant for congratulating Barack Obama can be explained by my above mentioned argument. This case demonstrates the potential harm that the marginalised people from Ahmadinejad’s own faction can impose on his initiative unless he somehow counters their actions.

It looks that In the coming days we should expect more direct attacks similar to that of Ahmad Tavakoli , Ahmadinejad seems to have only two choices

1. To include all the marginalised MP in his government which is actually impossible
2. To ask for a supporting speech from the Supreme Leader in order to have a political leverage over his competitors. But will he accepts Ahmadinejad's request?

Finally it must be noticed that any attempt by the Iranian Supreme Leader to address the issue of American election in the coming days can either strengthen or destroy Ahmadinejad’s hopes for starting a new era with the United States of America.