Dedicated to Jafar Panahi and his film It Was Just an Accident
Some time ago, while walking in the large prison courtyard, a middle-aged prisoner sitting against the wall under the sun approached me quietly. After greeting me, he said he had a problem and asked for my help. As usual, assuming he mistook me for a doctor—since prisoners often call me “Doctor”—I explained the difference and suggested he visit the prison infirmary. He immediately clarified that he knew I was not a physician but had turned to me because he had no hope in the prison’s medical services. Eventually, I agreed to hear his issue. He explained that for some time, he had been unable to sleep at night. As soon as he lay down, his wife would appear, and they would converse until morning, leaving him more exhausted each day. He described all this with complete calm, occasionally with a touch of humor and a smile. After sharing my thoughts, I asked about his charge and why he was detained. With the same calm demeanor, typical of many non-political prisoners, he replied, “Nothing!” When I pressed him to explain “nothing,” he said with a smile that he had killed his wife and then burned her body.
His response startled me—not because I had been speaking with a murderer, but because of his serene tone and the complete absence of shame, guilt, or remorse. When I asked him to describe the act of killing and burning the body, he recounted the details of 24 hours—from the initial conversation to scorching his wife’s body in a pit at the end of their backyard—with the same willingness and ease as if he were describing a pleasant trip, a beautiful film, or a fond memory with a friend. There was no trace of an act deemed ugly, inhumane, or even unusual. To this middle-aged man, it seemed that killing one’s wife was as routine as marrying, having children, or eventually dying. For him, what he had done was a normal, socially acceptable act.
The challenge facing peace advocates and the peace movement today is the normalization of violence, war, and death in many parts of the world. In my homeland, Iran, an inflation rate of approximately 40% has long been considered ordinary. Some organic intellectuals and economists have even written articles asserting that inflation exists worldwide, including in Iran, as if having one-third of the population below the poverty line and another third teetering on the edge is a normal and acceptable phenomenon globally. This shameful violence is treated as a norm, something standard, for which a conventional solution might be found within the current political-economic structure. Similarly, we encounter daily cases of news about violence stemming from Iran’s ongoing crises, none of which is considered unusual. Recently, a health official spoke of shortages in vaccines such as Pentavalent (against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type B) and rotavirus (against severe diarrhea) with the same casual tone as one might use to describe the next day’s partly cloudy weather, not the potential death or illness of thousands of children.
In my country, Iran, fifteen years of harsh punishment for two men and one woman is the norm. [1] In Iran, the imprisonment of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate is ordinary. The multi-year incarceration of men and women—students, teachers, workers, writers, and translators—for speaking out or protesting the status quo and the violence pervading daily life is not an exception but part of the regular flow of events. In this country, the formation of 90,000 judicial cases against young women and men protesting mandatory hijab laws, and the violence enacted against them, is seen as obvious, usual, and normal—an unremarkable facet of everyday life.
Globally, we witness the normalization of violence in various regions daily. For instance, media reports regularly detail the deaths of dozens of Palestinians in Gaza, particularly women and children, due to Israeli bombings or starvation and disease caused by the region’s blockade. Thus, what has become normal in Gaza is the death of a population simply for residing there. Have you ever heard news about life, prosperity, or well-being in Gaza?
A fierce and serious competition is underway to normalize either war or peace. In developed countries, thanks to democracy and robust civil societies, the scales often tip toward normalizing peace, prosperity, and well-being. In contrast, in underdeveloped or developing nations, war and violence are what is normal and routine. Consequently, the challenge for peace advocates and the peace movement in democratic countries differs significantly from that in authoritarian ones. The arduous task for peace advocates in Iran and other countries lacking or violating human rights is to fight for peace in a world where war, violence, inequality, and discrimination are routine and integral to daily life.
Theoretical and Practical Transformation of Peace Advocacy
From the perspective of some scholars, peace advocacy is a historically rooted idea traceable across all cultures (Alcalde, 2023). Meanwhile, some peace researchers have explored its religious dimensions. For example, Boulding (2000) notes that Quranic accounts of the Prophet Muhammad’s efforts to promote religion (before the Hijra) clearly demonstrate his nonviolent approach. The same scholar provides evidence regarding Buddhism and Christianity as well.
In the modern era, the term “pacifism” was perhaps first used in 1901. As the concept of violence expanded, so too did the meaning of peace, and accordingly, peace advocacy encompassed a range of issues—from the absence of war on one end to the elimination of all forms of violence, discrimination, and inequality on the other (Alcalde, 2014). Consequently, today’s peace movement significantly overlaps with anti-war, anti-apartheid, human rights, environmental, and justice movements. What is evident is a global shift from negative concepts (anti-war, anti-discrimination, etc.) toward a more affirmative understanding. As a result, few collective actions—such as campaigns, uprisings, or social movements—lack a connection to peace advocacy in its broadest sense. Indeed, although nearly four decades ago, Iranians were embroiled in a war resulting from Iraq’s invasion and patriotic defense, today, given the widespread violence—individual, interpersonal, group-based, and systemic—that pervades Iranian daily life, peace advocacy in its narrow sense lacks meaning or relevance. However, in its broader sense, it is an urgent necessity. This does not mean ignoring the trend toward militarization or the significant increase in military budgets but rather highlights the spillover effects of such trends on the daily lives and existence of Iranians.
Another significant transformation in the literature on peace and peace advocacy is the emphasis on nonviolent approaches to resolving conflicts in political, social, economic, gender, and environmental domains, alongside a belief in not responding to violence with violence (Brock, 1972). Leo Tolstoy, the renowned writer and thinker and a pioneer in opposing the death penalty, rejected all forms of violence, playing a major role in laying the foundation for nonviolent movements. This idea, advanced by figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, has undoubtedly led to a rich body of literature, offering critical lessons for the peace movement in authoritarian systems and reducing the costs of transitioning from a violent state to a world of peace and security for nations and peace activists. The adoption of nonviolent principles by the global justice movement and the uprisings and movements of the “Arab Spring” as a core tenet has enriched the repertoire of protest movements against violence worldwide, particularly in developing or democratically transitioning countries.
Although some scholars still challenge the moral primacy of nonviolent peace advocacy, arguing that violence can be an effective and even just means to counter violence in authoritarian systems, thus questioning absolute pacifism or nonviolence as a strategy or principle (Howes, 2009), such approaches do not yield favorable outcomes for Iranian society. These theoretical and spiritual transformations regarding peace and peace advocacy have given rise to innovative concepts such as “human security,” “non-offensive defense,” and the advancement of ideas surrounding “civil resistance.”
Challenges of Peace Advocacy in Today’s Iran
Peace activists, in addition to facing challenges and risks common to all human rights movements in the pursuit of global peace, encounter specific issues due to the nature of peace and peace advocacy. Moreover, as previously noted, peace advocacy in authoritarian systems presents distinct challenges compared to democratic ones, and in Iran, these challenges may be amplified due to the relatively short history of the peace movement. The primary challenges include:
- ● Labeling : Since peace activists must engage and collaborate with competing or even hostile groups and factions, they are often branded as traitors, sometimes facing violent rejection and suppression for their interactions (Wehrenfennig et al., 2023). With the aid of virtual platforms, particularly the anonymity offered by platforms like YouTube and Instagram, labeling has become a thriving practice among Iranian activists in cyberspace.
- ● Group Incoherence:Cohesion in peace movements is often at risk. These movements typically form around a shared theme or in response to injustice or calamity, but over time, members and peace activists face disagreements and challenges. Peace advocacy requires insight, but defining peace or its manifestations is often difficult and contentious. Like many disputes over asymmetrical concepts, definitions and perspectives on peace are similarly contested (Wehrenfennig et al., 2023). For example, peace activists in weaker groups—such as a suppressed opposition—often view justice and equality as prerequisites for peace, emphasizing political peace. In contrast, activists in stronger groups—such as ruling parties or segments of the power structure—focus more on interpersonal or intra-factional peacebuilding, as seen in the idea of consensus in the Pezeshkian government. These differences significantly hinder the horizontal integration of diverse peace supporters, obstructing the formation of a unified and robust peace movement.
- ● The gap between political realism and idealism : While most progressive social movements lean toward participating in political processes as opponents of the status quo, peace movements must adopt political realism. Consequently, there is often a (seemingly) conservative/radical tension between these two tendencies within peace advocacy (Wehrenfennig et al., 2023).
- One day, a young man serving a sentence for a non-political crime approached me in the prison courtyard. Nearing the end of his sentence and soon to be released, he offered to provide me and my political friends with any weapons we needed at a low price. I explained that my friends and I, though critical of the status quo, are nonviolent and reject any violent solutions to Iran’s current issues. The young man listened in disbelief and, with a contemptuous look, said, “I knew you were an agent of the regime.”
- Priority or lack of priority for peace: ● Political and social activists, as well as social movements, assign varying priorities to peace and peace advocacy based on their approaches, strategies, and goals. From the perspective of peace activists, peace provides a conducive environment for all progressive movements, even if it slows the pace of political-social transformation. However, many political activists—particularly radicals-view—view peace advocacy in a world rife with violence and authoritarian repression as romantic and emotional, potentially derailing the political struggle. Consequently, they often regard peace activists as agents or pawns of the established system, obstructing change. Conversely, peace activists, by prioritizing peace and nonviolence—especially in authoritarian systems—face the challenge of whether to engage in political struggle or abstain from it.
- ● Risk-TakingIt is often assumed that peace activists should face less repression and pressure from established systems compared to other political opponents. However, this assumption is entirely invalid in authoritarian systems. Since peace advocacy and the peace movement often entail rejecting violence—particularly in its political, economic, social, gender, ethnic, and other dimensions—peace activists must oppose discrimination and violence in any domain of an authoritarian system. As a result, they are as vulnerable to threats as other political opponents. Clearly, there is a significant difference in this regard between democratic and authoritarian countries.
Conclusion
Numerous scholars have studied and researched the peace movement and peacebuilding. [2] They have sought to explain some universal principles and rules governing this movement worldwide. Without diminishing the importance of these efforts, I emphasize that peace activists in every part of the world must define themselves within the political, economic, social, and cultural contexts in which they operate. This does not mean disregarding the shared theoretical and empirical achievements of the global peace movement or negating the common issue of global peace. Rather, it underscores that these shared elements in the peace movement’s repertoire may yield different outcomes under specific conditions. The initial manifestation of this difference can be seen in the varied understandings of terms like peace, violence, violence promotion, and nonviolence
During the recent round of negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Trump administration regarding Iran’s nuclear program and sanctions, my compatriots were divided into two groups: supporters and opponents of the talks. The opposition, largely based abroad, strongly opposed the negotiations, viewing them as a means to rescue the Islamic Republic from its intertwined crises and prolong the authoritarian system. In contrast, another segment of the opposition, primarily based inside Iran, supported the talks—not necessarily for their impact on the Islamic Republic’s fate but because a potential agreement could avert the shadow of war over Iran and bring some relief to the daily lives of nearly half the population living in poverty or at risk of it. Undoubtedly, part of this divergence stems from differing beliefs, strategies, and political affiliations. However, a significant portion also relates to the different environments in which individuals and groups operate. These differing contexts lead to disagreements over the meanings of peace and violence.
Peace and violence are contentious terms, and reaching a comprehensive agreement on their meanings is challenging.
There is undoubtedly a fundamental difference in the scope and dimensions of violence against students and academics supporting Gaza and advocating for a ceasefire in the United States, compared to the suppression of students during Iran’s “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests in 2022.
Acknowledging this difference does not imply preferring one over the other but emphasizes the theoretical and practical issues, problems, and challenges faced by peace advocates and nonviolent activists in Iran and other parts of the world.
Damavand Prison
Khordad 1404 (May/June 2025)
References
1. Alcalde, Javier. 2014. “Human Security and Disarmament Treaties: The Role of International Campaigns.” Global Policy 5(2): 139–148.
2. Alcalde, Javier. 2023. “Pacifism.” In Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, Vol. IV, edited by David A. Snow et al., Wiley Blackwell.
3. Boulding, Elise. 2000. The Cultures of Peace: The Hidden Side of History . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
4. Brock, Peter. 1972. Pacifism in Europe to 1914. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Fisher, Roger. 1997. Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
6. Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1983. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In . New York: Penguin Books.
7. Galtung, Johan. 2004. Transcend: An Introduction to Conflict Work . London: Pluto Press.
8. Howes, Dustin Ells. 2009. Toward a Credible Pacifism: Violence and the Possibility of Politics . Albany: State University of New York Press.
9. Kelman, Herbert C. 1972. “The Problem-Solving Workshop in Conflict Resolution.” In Communication in International Politics, edited by Richard L. Merritt, 168–187. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
10. Saunders, Harold. 1999. A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Voorhees, James. 2002. Dialogue Sustained: The Multilevel Peace Process and the Dartmouth Conference . Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
12. Wehrenfennig, Daniel, and Nevin T. Aklan. 2023. “Citizen Peacebuilding Movements.” In Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, Vol. I, edited by David A. Snow et al., Wiley Blackwell.
[1] Reference to issued judicial rulings
[2] Kaldor 1972; Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1983; Fisher 1997; Saunders 1999; Voorhees 2002; Galtung 2004
