Violence, cruelty, and corruption run rampant in many authoritarian governments and play decisive roles in upholding their power. It is, therefore, much easier to overlook the subtler tactics responsible for these institutions’ impervious power. For better or worse, some of these tactics have come to light due to the recent freedom movement in Iran against the oppressive Islamic regime. As many expatriated and exiled Iranians have become involved in the campaign, the intimidation and violence from the regime have spread to a transnational level, presenting an opportunity to expose the extreme measures the government is willing to take to preserve their political control.
Many of us have encountered intimidation in our daily lives and can relate to feelings of powerlessness, fear, and loss of control. However, the effect is exponentially amplified when the perpetrator is an authoritarian regime. Firstly, and perhaps most evidently, the danger of facing real consequences and harm is much more salient. In the example of the current protests in Iran, over 300 protesters have been killed, with thousands more injured. Additionally, the Taliban has notoriously committed great violence in Afghanistan, killing nearly 400 civilians since their takeover and torturing and abusing protesters and their families.
Beyond the much more real dangers implicit in this kind of intimidation, when it is employed in response to movements like the one in Iran, it is no longer directed toward an individual but at a much larger social group. Social identity theory is a psychological theory explaining how humans depend on their social groups for a sense of self-identity and stability. A notable aspect of this theory is that threats to these groups can drastically affect an individual’s self-esteem, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Hence, it makes sense that this group-directed intimidation is much more potent. Seeing friends, family members, and compatriots being harmed and oppressed can incite acute feelings of hopelessness, causing people to feel as if their whole world is at risk, making it that much harder to fight back.
The case of the freedom protests in Iran presents an opportunity for better understanding and combating these intimidation tactics. Due to the international attention that the movement is receiving, the regime’s brutal methods are exposed to a greater extent than before. One example of this has been the increased surveillance and threats of expatriates by affiliates of the Iranian government in foreign countries. Maryam Shafipour, an Iranian activist living in Canada, told CBC News that “they know the view out of my apartment” and that “they knew the friends that have come to [her] house.” The FBI has also exposed plots to kidnap activists such as Masih Alinejad in the United States. There has also been increased exposure of the sham trials involved in sentencing protesters to execution. According to some of the victims’ families, the victims were forced to make false confessions under torture and threatened that their families would otherwise be harmed by the authorities. These confessions were subsequently used to convict and execute the protesters, even publicly, in the case of Majidreza Rahnavard. Although many argue that this injustice and violence are fuelling more protests, there is still a risk of fear hindering the protests, as people want “stop their children from going out to protest.”
Of course, the threat of real harm is high, but similarly to when it occurs on a smaller scale, the perceived threat is greater than the reality, especially if there is unified action against it. The regime aims to portray an impenetrable facade, but as analyst Ali Vaez says, “as long as the protests don’t reach critical mass, the regime is unlikely to fracture and lose its willingness to repress”. However, he adds that protesters have been “much more unified” than they have been in the past, which points to a hopeful outcome. All that is needed now is to expose a crack in the regime’s veneer. Regarding more specific approaches, Dr. J Michael Waller published a paper on the effectiveness of ridicule in undermining the power of intimidation and fear. Dr. Waller explains that ridicule helps to reveal weaknesses and accumulate support against the idealistic enemy. He brings forth numerous examples, including Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed not long after video footage was released of him struggling to operate a machine gun. In Iran, such action is starting to be taken, for example, in the “turban toppling” of clerics to disempower the oppression they represent. Dr. Waller notes that terrorism is “by definition a form of psychological warfare”, and it must, therefore, be fought as such.
Authoritarian governments like the Islamic regime in Iran employ intimidation tactics to maintain the impression of unimpeachable power through violence, digital surveillance, and manipulation of information. Although the fear it creates can interfere with efforts to dismantle these oppressive systems, the increasing international attention, such as in the case of Iran, has exposed some of these tactics. It has also fuelled the process of subverting the regime’s control by unveiling the weaknesses below its surface. As with intimidation on a smaller scale, this kind of intimidation is a psychological weapon and can be fought with unity, concerted effort, and perhaps even ridiculing the bully.
Edited by Ruqayya Farrah
Setareh Setayesh is a second year student at McGill University, currently pursuing a B. Sc degree in Psychology. She joined Catalyst as a staff writer this year and is particularly interested in social epidemiology and the interaction between culture and politics in relation to human rights and development.