Harsh sacrifice: Vigils are being held around the world for those killed during the nationwide protests in Iran, like this one outside the White House in Washington DC. — Photos: Reuters
WHAT is taking place in Iran is a lesson for the world, especially in countries where there are voters who wish to surrender political power to politicians who use religion to justify their hold on power.
This would include Malaysia.
Here, there are many voters who feel the mainstream political parties have let them down.
To some, when mainstream political parties appear corrupt, elitist, or indifferent, the appeal of a moralistic “clean” alternative grows strong.
In moments of deep frustration, disgruntled voters often reach for the most forceful alternative available.
The perception is that these people in religious robes, who seem to be experts in theology and are able to quote from holy scriptures, must surely be more trustworthy and cleaner than the deal-making politicians.
But the reality is that some of these purported holy men are no different from politicians. They are mere mortals.
History has shown that Malaysian political alliances have been justified from a religious perspective to suit such people.
In 1979, Iran rocked the world with its Islamic Revolution when the Pahlavi Dynasty was toppled. The violent uprising led to the replacement of the Imperial State of Iran by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The monarchical government of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was replaced with the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini.
The revolution against the Shah of Iran was fuelled by widespread perception of the regime as corrupt, excessively lavish, repressive, too Westernised, secular, and overly reliant on Western powers.
Unfortunately, the revolution was also the end of democracy. Iranians handed power on a silver platter to the clerics. Their lives have not improved and perhaps have worsened, with citizens losing their civil liberties.
History also shows that protest votes can sometimes open doors that are very difficult to close.
Malaysia today is not Iran in 1979 but the logic of political frustration that may drive voters towards Islamist parties in future elections carries lessons that Iranians learned at immense cost.
In Iran, the revolution that toppled the Shah was not initially a religious uprising. It was a broad coalition: students, workers, liberals, nationalists, communists and religious conservatives united by anger at corruption, inequality, and repression.
Many Iranians did not want a theocracy. They wanted dignity, accountability, and justice but in the absence of a clear successor, the clerics were seen as moral figures who could restrain excesses.
What followed was not what many had voted or marched for.
Once the clerics consolidated power, Iran rapidly transformed from an authoritarian monarchy into an authoritarian theocracy.
Institutions were reshaped to ensure clerical dominance. Laws became religiously enforced. Dissent was redefined as heresy.
Elections continued, but only within narrow ideological limits. They were not legitimate polls.
Many Iranians who supported the revolution later reportedly found themselves silenced, exiled, or imprisoned by the very system they had enabled.
History seems to be repeating itself in Iran today.
The country’s economy is in serious trouble with the value of its currency taking a beating, resulting in the rocketing cost of living.
A broad-based protest coalition, like in 1979, has taken to the streets but unfortunately the death toll has also spiked.
Today, decades after the first revolution, Iranian society is filled with regret. Protest slogans openly reject clerical rule.
Young Iranians, born long after the revolution, ask why their futures were sacrificed to a political regime they never chose. How long will these old men cling to power?
Many older Iranians openly admit that frustration with the Shah blinded them to the long-term consequences of empowering religious authorities with unchecked political power.
Malaysia must pay attention to this pattern – not because religion is the problem, but because political absolutism is.
Despite the pathetic performance of the Islamist party in states that it rules, it has continued to gain votes.
It lacks detailed governance plans, but presents itself as a morally pure alternative to purported corrupt mainstream parties.
In short, its leaders thrive on disappointment. Their messaging is simple: society’s problems exist because leaders are insufficiently religious; give us power, and virtue will follow.
But morality alone does not guarantee good governance. When religion becomes a political weapon, disagreement is no longer just political – it becomes sinful.
This is taking place in Iran, where the killing of protesters is justified because the positions of the clerics are threatened.
Policy debates turn into moral judgments. Compromise, the lifeblood of democracy, is reframed as betrayal. Over time, laws shift from serving citizens to enforcing ideological conformity.
The Iranian experience shows that once clerics embed themselves in the state, removing them becomes nearly impossible without massive social upheaval. Protest votes are temporary emotions; political systems are long-term realities.
Voters frustrated with mainstream parties are right to demand reform, accountability, and justice.
But replacing flawed democratic actors with ideologically rigid ones does not solve corruption – it often institutionalises it behind moral language, as one report aptly puts it.
It said there is another lesson from Iran that deserves attention: revolutions and ideological shifts rarely affect elites.
“It is ordinary people – women, minorities, artists, students, small business owners – who bear the cost when freedoms shrink and laws harden.
“Once personal liberties are curtailed in the name of religious or moral order, restoring them becomes a generational struggle.”
Religion can inspire compassion, honesty, and social responsibility but when political power claims divine authority, citizens lose the ability to challenge it without being labelled immoral or disloyal.
The Iranian tragedy was not that people wanted change – it was that their desperation made them overlook the danger of absolutism.
Their regret today is not abstract; it is lived daily.
The Iranian clerics are not going to give up their power without a fight, and if that means many more Iranians will lose their lives, the clerics have no qualms about that.
So much for so-called God-fearing, ethical holy men.
