I intend to continue the discussion we have begun in a series of writings because, bitter as it may be, we are compelled to have difficult conversations, and only by thinking seriously about them can change become possible. What is certain is that civil resistance against the ruling despotism cannot stop until fundamental change is achieved and citizens’ rights and civil liberties are realised. What needs to deepen within those of us who seek transformation, however, is our understanding of how this transformation can be brought about.

Third Writing: The Narrow Road to Freedom

In her book *On Revolution*, Hannah Arendt raises a serious warning about simplistic understandings of social change and the naïve conception of revolution held by many revolutionaries.

Arendt writes: “Revolutions are the product of the convergence of a series of economic, social and political events, and they become lasting social freedoms only when the ‘political culture’ of that society is capable of making the values of freedom and justice durable within society. Without such a political culture, revolutions produce only the disappointment of revolutionaries who imagined that by overthrowing despotism they would arrive at the rule of law, justice and freedom.”

The greatest question confronting our society today is whether our political activists have acquired this “political culture” sufficiently to guarantee, if they come to power tomorrow, the values of freedom and justice, the rule of law, and the rights of every citizen.

The most dangerous form of political naïveté is to imagine that on the day after the collapse of the ruling system we will be given a multiple-choice question: now that the Islamic Republic has gone, which political system would you like to choose? 1) France, 2) the United States, 3) Sweden, 4) England!!

The naked and unforgiving reality we would face is not this fantasy. It would be nothing other than the resultant of the “political cultures” governing leftists and rightists, republicans and supporters of monarchy, together with all religious forces and supporters of the ruling system, who certainly will not disappear from the political arena overnight.

To understand how a political opposition would govern, look at how that opposition encounters other active social forces. Every political current, after victory, will govern in precisely the same way that it practises political activism and struggle today.

If, like me, monitoring the political sphere of the opposition has left you with sadness, regret and even fear, then we need realistically to recognise that these forces, carrying the political culture that governs them today, are waiting to compete for power tomorrow. Whatever they can bring to Iran’s future will never be separate from the political culture they possess now.

The next difficult question is what global powers will do in the meantime. How confident can you be that they will support the realisation of a free and developed Iran? The history of the region in which we live, and a look at every place in this region where they have chosen to intervene, makes such confidence difficult. Nor is it entirely unimaginable, or far removed from their historical methods, that the option of dividing Iran into smaller and more controllable states that do not pose a serious threat to their long-term interests might sit on their table.