The Perils of Leading by Common Sense

Iran’s reformists often put down former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a “populist,” and refer – disdainfully — to his eight years in office as the only populist era in post-revolutionary Iran.

This is nonsense. The Revolution was led by perhaps the greatest populist of all: Ayatollah Rudhollah Khomeini.

Here’s how the distinguished historian, Ervand Abrahamian, puts it. Khomeinism, like other populist movements.... “elevated its leader into a demigod towering above the people, and embodying their historical roots, future destiny, and revolutionary martyrs. Despite all the talk about the people, power emanated down from the leader, not up from the masses. Thus the title of imam should be seen not as purely religious but as the Shia-Iranian version of the Latin American El Lider, El Conductor, Jefe Maximo (Chief Boss), and O Pai dos Pobres (Father of the Poor).”

Populist leaders — whether Jefe Maximo or Supreme Imam – present themselves as men of the people who talk good old common sense.  It takes a brave citizen to point out that the leader’s “common sense” masks simplistic foolishness.

Take Chairman Mao, another populist demigod, and his 1950s Great Sparrow Campaign in China. Determined not to have to rely on Western (imperialist) powers for wheat, he set out to make China self-sufficient.  Sparrows eat grain so, he reasoned, no more sparrows equals more grain. All over China, peasants shot sparrows by the millions. They even posed for photograph with heaps of the dead birds to show their loyalty to the Chairman and the Revolution. 

It was a disaster.  With no birds to prey on them, insect populations exploded and feasted on the wheat crop. Grain production shrank. Famine followed.

Here in Iran, now only was our first Supreme Leader Ayatollah Rudhollah Khomeini a demagogic populist, but so is our second and current one, Ali Khameinei.  He, like Mao, makes poor policy based on common sense dressed up as – in his words — “scientific expertise,” i.e. not something ordinary citizens can criticize or question.

Let’s take the example of the so-called “Economy of Resistance”, Khamenei’s answer to globalization. Basically, he says Iranians should minimize trade with the US and Europe, and make everything ourselves.  He’s afraid that stronger commercial ties will bolster non-Islamic values in Iran (and he may be right – but that’s another story).

Recently the supreme leader, speaking to a group of young militia members, praised Iran’s ballistic missile program. It was proof, he said, that the country has no need of outside expertise or imports. Iran’s factories might be outdated and in need of modernization, he said, but the new equipment should be made in Iran with the help of “talented Iranian youth.”

“If gifted Iranian minds can fire a missile 2,000 kilometers with an accuracy of 10 meters, why can we not also re-fit machinery and equipment in our industries, including car manufacturing?”

Clearly the leader has only a rudimentary understanding of business and the global economy.  There are dozens of reasons why it doesn’t make sense for Iran to pursue a policy of industrial isolationism, starting with the enormous cost for inferior results. 

I wonder if he’s familiar with the words of Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of the isolationist Soviet Union, which had bankrupted itself making sophisticated weapons at the expense of almost everything else.  He said:  “when a country can put a satellite into space,  but still has to harvest potatoes by hand – there’s something wrong in its approach.” 

Take heed, Mr. Khameinei. Developing efficient weapons is no guarantee that a country can make modern cars, planes and refrigerators. We all know what happened to the Soviet Union.

The supreme leader’s paranoia about Western “toxification” often leads him to the wrong conclusions.  Recently, on Teacher’s Day, he told an audience of teachers that “India was colonized by English language.” That is, that it was subjugated. Blinded by fear and mistrust of the West, he cannot see that English turned out to be the great unifier of India – a lingua franca that allowed the emergence of the most populous democracy on earth. If any of India’s dozens of native languages had been imposed as the official national language, it would have led to rivalry and maybe even war.

The supreme leader’s position on birth control is also presented as common-sensical, but is actually deeply flawed. Khameinei has said birth control should not be a state priority until the population of Iran tops 150 million.  His argument: populous countries are more likely to win wars, and to produce more talented citizens.

No one dares contradict the leader – not in public anyway. After all, who wants to be the first to point out that the emperor is naked?  But it’s no secret that Pakistan – with a population well over 150 million – has neither distinguished itself in war nor been able to offer educational opportunity to most of its talented citizens.

In fact, many officials – including some the leader’s inner circle – know perfectly well that his populist proposals are misguided and simplistic. But when I ask why they don’t speak up, they turn pale, and mutter: “I’ve got a family to support.”

Such is the tyranny of “common sense”.