By Publius
It is precisely our duty to inquire as to the why of things! When a group of people have the audacity to form a Transition Council, naturally, many questions will be raised by inquiring minds. Some will question with cautious optimism, some with pessimistic doubts, some with jubilation, some even with malice or jealousy and some with scholarly pursuit in mind. All, however, will ask about the why and the how of this Council. These questions, from the outset, will set the parameters of the debate and will shape the narrative or the discourse which will determine the eventual outcome of the transition project itself. The proper question to ask, is not “ Why do we need a Transition Council or why now?” The more appropriate question is “Why did it take 40 years to create this Transition Council for Iran?”
Within the body of work which has come to be known as “transition paradigm,” the term “transition” signifies the process through which non-democratic regimes are replaced with democratic ones. Although, one technically could use the term “transition” for the process of conversion of any form or type of government to any another form or type, the division of all forms of government into the two grand types of non-democratic and democratic has made this “transition paradigm” exclusively about the process of moving from the former to the later. Aside from this concern, the literature on “transition paradigm,” addresses another major topic, namely, “ democratic consolidation.” Although the two topics of “transition” and “consolidation” are related, they should be treated as two distinct and separate problems. Whereas democratic transition addresses the challenges associated with the conversion from non-democratic regimes to democratic ones, “democratic consolidation“ focuses on the challenges within the regimes that are procedurally democratic already, but, still, struggle to substantively adhere to certain aspects of democratic principles. Thus, both Democratic Transition and Democratic Consolidation share the general concern about the establishment of democratic governance; however, the starting point for the “transition” is the non-democratic regimes, while the starting point for the “consolidation,” is a democratic regime which has not quite solidified itself.
Iran properly falls within the category of “transition paradigm” which is primarily concerned with the conditions under which non-democratic regimes could become democratic. Yes, ours is to reason why, but is it appropriate to ask, “why is democratic governance preferable to non-democratic governance?” Does this question even belong to this day and age? The question of “why does one need a transition council?” is just as inappropriate and outdated as the previous question regarding the desirability of democratic governance over the non-democratic kind.
In a ground-breaking article first published in the Journal of Comparative Politics in 1970, Dankwart A. Rustow, wrote about “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model.” Rustow was not just concerned about the path that some “mature democracies” like the United States, Britain or Sweden had taken, rather he called for the construction of a more “dynamic model” which would help diverse struggling countries( at that time) like Ceylon, Lebanon, Turkey, Peru, or Venezuela through that democratic journey. Notice the use of the plural form, “transitions,” which refers to many different types of transitions through which democracy as a system of government could be established in different nation-states.
We have learned a lot since Rustow. Southern Europe, South America and post-communist Europe have provided considerable case-studies and have helped us develop new models for our “transition paradigm.” Comparative studies in Asia and Africa have also shed considerable lights on this problem of transition. We have learned that the type of regime in power, the quality of civil, economic and political society in a given regime, the military-security structure within a given nation-state, presence of internal or external crises, and many more factors like legitimacy , acceptability and public trust could all play a decisive role in this process of transition to democracy. Given this level of complexity, is it a legitimate question to ask, “why one needs a Transition Council?!”
Linz and Stepan, in their seminal work, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation, published in 1996, having compared 15 countries from Eastern and Southern Europe and South America, identified 7 different paths to democratic transition: Reforma/Ruptura Pactada, Defeat in War, Interim Government, Extrication from Rule by Hierarchical Led Military and three other Regime Specific Paths. In applying a path or paths, some legitimate questions to ask are: Could a Transition Council play a constructive role in Reforma-Ruptura Pactada? Could a Transition Council be useful in the case of Defeat in War? Could such a Council help the formation of an Interim Government? Could the presence and the active participation of a Transition Council facilitate the disengagement from a military rule? Could a Transition Council assist with Regime Specific Paths, assessing the unique cultural, structural and religious or ideological characteristics of a nation and the regime in power?
We do not need to solely rely on these case studies of the 1980s and the 90s in Europe and South America. The recent history of the MENA Region proves just as much, about the necessity of a Transition Council. The experience of Afghanistan and Iraq during the past two decades, Iran’s own Green Movement, the Arab Spring and the experience of Tunisia and Egypt, combined with the three disastrous civil wars in Libya, Syria, and Yemen demonstrate the necessity of a Transition Council as a vital instrument of any realistic path for transition.
Precisely, because, we do not know the particular transition path a nation-state may take or the exact time of such transition, we need a Transition Council. The transition may be initiated from within the Regime or from with-out it; it could begin from below, from the masses, or from above, from the elites; it could also be initiated from an invading foreign force or from an impending domestic crisis; it may start from a combination of these elements. The point is that without a Transition Council, one leaves everything to chance and caprice!
Thus, the proper question is not “why do we need a Council or why now?” The proper question should be “ why did it take 40 years to form this Transition Council?”
Dankwart A. Rustow, started the conversation about Democratic Transitions almost 50 years ago by asking two legitimate questions: “What conditions make democracy possible and what conditions make it thrive?” The proper questions to ask today are: What are the prerequisites for an effective Democratic Transition Council and what conditions will make it thrive?
These are the two questions to which I will turn next!
The opinion expressed do not necessarily reflect those of ITC
