On the Threshold of Entering the Largest Apartheid System of the Century

Apartheid is a set of laws and regulations that enables a political power to discriminate among its own citizens on the basis of race, religion, personal beliefs or gender.

Racial apartheid in South Africa was the best-known form of apartheid in the last century, but ideological, social, gender and even racial apartheid remain sinister and living phenomena in our world, extending, as described here, from the West Bank and occupied territories to Malaysia and Afghanistan.

Apartheid is always imposed in two principal forms. The first is exclusion from public social services; the second and major form is exclusion from employment, banking and state services.

We have all read in the news that, following the tragedy associated with the morality police and the enforcement of compulsory hijab, women who refuse compulsory veiling are reportedly to be deprived of social services as well as banking and state services. If both levels of social exclusion are imposed, this unwise step would, in the argument made here, turn Iran into the largest apartheid system in the world.

We have moved beyond merely regretting the absence of wise politicians and a normal, balanced society. The question is this: if laws of social apartheid are imposed without restraint, how will the citizens of this society respond?
What is the duty of citizens if injustice and discrimination are imposed upon society in the name of law? Discrimination and the deprivation of citizens’ social rights, of course, are not new in our society.

One among hundreds of examples has been the exclusion of women from attending stadiums. Even the tragic self-immolation of Sahar Khodayari, known as the Blue Girl, in protest at her arrest and sentence did not lead to a unified movement to end one of the clearest symbols of discrimination and injustice in society.

In my view, in a country with a developed civil society, if such a thing occurred all men would boycott stadiums that very day, and even the players would refuse to play. But this did not happen, and the political establishment therefore remained persuaded that Iranian women could be humiliated, dragged along the street and thrown into a van.

What happened in our society with the painful death of Mahsa Amini was something different in its social behaviour. It was as if the political establishment suddenly crossed an unspoken boundary and, even today, remains on the other side of that boundary. Yet neither then nor now has it recognised any boundary that should prevent its presence from entering citizens’ private lives.

Has this society changed? Have you changed?
Before answering, take a deep breath. Because, as this text argues, you are standing at the threshold of entering the largest system of social apartheid in the world in the present century.

Aydin Areta