On Iran, barbarians and the tyranny of the majority

“Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. “

Although Mill argues for a democratic political system, he is aware of the many potential deviations from this system. In fact, he revisited Tocqueville’s concept of the tyranny of the majority. One modern example of this form of Tyranny is the current theocratic model of government in Iran. In fact, Khomeini gained power in Iran and became its “supreme leader” after a referendum following the Iranian revolution. The voting bill asked the following question: “Age-old [monarchial] regime change to Islamic republic, the constitution of which will be approved by the nation — Yes or No?”. This referendum marked a great victory for the Islamists with 98.2% of voters in favor of an Islamic republic.

There are two ways to analyze this particular case from the standpoint of Mill.

1)    Mill could possibly be in favor of the tyranny of the current Iranian government as he could classify Iran as a backward sate and Iranians as barbarians. (Which I honestly think he would since he did not give a clear definition of barbarians. My interpretation is that anything that does not comply with his western “higher” values would be considered as such.)

2)    Most likely, Mill would regard this as a form of tyranny of the majority. The overwhelming 98.2% vote in favor of a theocratic form of government came in response to forced modernization and secularization attempts by the Shah (More likely to be considered the enlightened tyrant by Mill.) The vast majority of voters decided through elections that an Islamic republic is the most suitable system and history proves that in this case “The majority issued a wrong mandate instead of right” Following this referendum, the Iranian society changed dramatically and an “Islamic lifestyle” was imposed upon them by guidance patrols (religious police). This goes in line with Mill’s prediction that this form of social tyranny “leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself”

The only solution that Mill proposes to this potential threat to democracy is for the members of the majority to create laws which they would accept if they were the minority. However, I cannot imagine how this could be applicable in real life as most issues that involve voting are rather categorical (for example this referendum asks: Islamic government: yes or no) and trying to accommodate the minority defeats the purpose of elections in the first place.