Introduction

A country is defined as a geographical area where one or more nations exist within a polity model. Charles Tilly and Doug McAdam divide the polity model into three main components:

1. Government consists of bureaucratic organizations and institutions that uphold stable internal relations and routines.
2. Policymakers wield control over resources and establish laws, maintaining internal connections with governmental organizations and institutions.
3. The masses are ordinary citizens who lack access to resources and typically do not interact with the other two sectors. However, the masses with common grievances can challenge the two other components through civil society.

Fukuyama describes civil society as the realm of self-created social structures independent of the state, which support democratic political institutions (Fukuyama 1998)[1]. Members of civil society, united by common grievances, often organize into parties and NGOs to address the discontent arising from the actions of the other two sectors. By forming organizations, parties, and NGOs, civil society actively challenges these components, leading to changes in economic, cultural, and political fields.

These changes can be manifested in democratic societies. Civil society and social movements play crucial roles in protecting democracy and ensuring that the government serves all members of society. Laws approved by legislative institutions regulate social relations, and the government is responsible for enforcing these laws. Civil society and social movements monitor the implementation of the laws, both through formal written agreements and informal social contracts, holding the government accountable in cases of violations.

In contrast, civil society faces significant challenges in non-democratic societies. Authoritarian or totalitarian governments often resist accountability and are unwilling to engage with the public. As a result, establishing a social contract becomes impossible. In such contexts, social movements are compelled to adopt strategies and tactics different from those used in democratic societies.

Historically, Iran has struggled and failed to move away from authoritarian or totalitarian political systems, which has hindered the development of a social contract. However, this does not imply the absence of civil society and social movements. At least, during the last 150 years, the effort to build civil society and social movements has never ceased to exist despite their challenges. Among these, the feminist movement was one of Iran’s most active parts of civil society during the above-mentioned period. This article will first examine the conditions following the 1979 revolution, and in the second part, I will analyze the Woman-Life-Freedom Manifesto. I will discuss the role of women in fostering a civil and democratic society by establishing a social contract.

The Women’s Movement, the First Challenger to the Islamic Republic

In the months leading up to the Islamists’ rise, the revolution was initially expected to end tyranny and bring freedom and justice; however, instead of liberation, a new form of theocratic tyranny replaced the old secular tyranny. Women became the first victims of this new regime. Khomeini enforced mandatory hijab rules and repealed the family protection law.

In response, a small group of women mobilized a protest rally on International Women’s Day. In a few hours, thousands of women joined the protest. From March 8 to March 12, 1979 (equivalent to Esfand 17 to Esfand 21, 1357), tens of thousands of women across Iran took to the streets and erupted in protest against the new leader’s decrees. In an unusual move, for the first and last time, Khomeini took a step back, and the collective action of the protesters made a significant impact.

Unfortunately, the movement faced strong opposition from certain so-called intellectuals, as well as some leftist and liberal women, who accused the protesters of betraying the revolution. As pressure mounted against the protesters, their momentum began to decline, allowing Khomeini to retaliate and regain control.

Had both men and women—especially those identifying as leftist and liberal—recognized the gravity of the situation and supported the women’s collective action, we might be living in a very different circumstance today. Future generations would likely have benefited from that solidarity and would not have had to endure the mistakes—this was one of several—made by the revolutionary generation.

Over the past forty-five years, there was an eight-year period in Iran characterized by relatively open political and social freedoms, which occurred during the presidency of Mr. Khatami (1997-2005). During this time, women demonstrated significant growth in cohesion, organization, and the creation of a space for dialogue. We witnessed discussions among liberal feminists, leftists, and Islamic feminists. The Women’s Participation Center was established within the government, although its relationship with the women’s movement was weak. During this period, a kind of social contract was formed between the government and the women’s movement.

However, with the arrival of Mr. Ahmadinejad (2005-2013), who waged a fierce battle against civil society, we entered an era marked by severe repression and a complete disconnection between the government and civil society. Despite this repression, civil society did not diminish. The activities of civil society, particularly the women’s movement, continued. With the illegalization of the NGO movement, women turned to campaigning for specific cases. Initiatives such as the One-Million-Signature Campaign, the campaign against stoning, and several other campaigns emerged.

In the aftermath of the Green Movement, many activists fled the country, while those who remained sought to continue the struggle in any way possible. Following the Green Movement, the fight against the mandatory hijab emerged as a central focus. This issue, which the feminist movement in Iran had previously deemed less relevant, became a crucial concern for the younger generation of activists. Women’s resistance intensified, leading to significant movements such as White Wednesdays[2] and acts of stealthy unveiling protest[3] among women and girls. Since late 2016, the Girls of Enghelab Street emerged, inspired by Vida Movahed. Women took to the streets, staying in the crowd on a utility box on Enghelab street, waving their headscarves in the air as a symbol of their fight against the mandatory hijab. These brave women faced imprisonment, torture, and exile in their quest for freedom.

For the past 45 years, women in Iran have been in conflict with an authoritarian bureaucratic militaristic regime that is deeply entrenched in misogyny and gender apartheid. Controlling the identity and existence of women is one of the most significant ways that those in power assert their dominance. This display of power culminated in the Jina (Mahsa) movement, which carried the slogan Woman-Life-Freedom.

The slogan “Woman-Life-Freedom” did not emerge suddenly as a response to the state-sanctioned murder of Gina (Mahsa) Amini. It has a rich history and identity of its own. Approximately four decades ago, Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan PKK Party, stated:

A society whose women are not free will not achieve independence and democracy. We need a women’s revolution to change society (Ocala 1987)[4].

According to many female Kurdish human rights advocates, the women’s revolution is not the men’s revolution for women’s freedom. It means a revolution with women’s leadership, a social revolution that changes the position of women in civil society and in society as a whole, and a revolution that recognizes the role of women as leaders as equal to men.

Women’s leadership in civil society is very important, both in the transition phase from authoritarian regimes and in the reconstruction phase of the society damaged by suppression and after that. Efforts against domination and for peace with the presence of women in central roles will get different results compared to struggles where only men are in the decision-making position. This is not a claim. It is proven based on research. In 2000, the United Nations approved Resolution 1325, which calls for the central role of women in peace negotiations and political decisions at the macro level. Six supplementary resolutions were also approved during the first decade of this century. The member states, especially the states that were at war or in internal conflict, were asked to implement resolutions. After about a decade, research was conducted to evaluate its effectiveness and that of the resolutions. The findings from this research, recognized by the international community, reveal significant insights.

In many parts of the world, particularly in countries experiencing war and crisis, the involvement of women in peace negotiations has had a notable impact. Firstly, the likelihood of reaching an agreement and ultimately signing a peace accord increases by 64% when women participate in the negotiations. Secondly, peace talks that include women have a 20% higher chance of yielding a peace agreement that lasts for at least two years and a 35% greater likelihood of lasting 15 years or more, effectively preventing a resurgence of conflict.

These findings emphasize the importance of women’s participation in political decision-making (Keohane 2020)[5]. If women can play effective roles during wars and conflicts, it stands to reason that they can also be crucial in advancing justice and democracy. Women often exhibit greater patience and foresight in organizational efforts, leading to more favorable outcomes in the initiatives they engage in. Additionally, when women occupy leadership positions, the likelihood of division within the group reduces considerably.

There are specific examples of this dynamic in our country. For instance, during the One Million Signatures campaigning, some differences arose among the members, but these did not result in a split or halt in the campaign. In contrast, nearly all campaigns primarily led by men eventually faced fragmentation.

Unfortunately, women in Iran’s political and civil organizations have not yet been given genuine leadership roles. They have traditionally worked behind the scenes or filled out logistical roles. Hannel Keohean, in her article titled “Women, Power, and Leadership,” wrote:

The issue of representation within organizations and political parties is further explored. High-ranking officials in important societal organizations and institutions have exceptional opportunities to influence society’s direction. While behind-the-scenes and supportive forces are crucial, it is ultimately those in the spotlight who make decisions. Historically, this role has been predominantly held by men. This must change.

To date, our efforts to achieve freedom and democracy have fallen short. We have struggled to build a strong and progressive civil society. One reason for this challenge is that men have typically occupied the decision-making roles on the front lines. It’s essential to reevaluate our approach and consider new paths forward.

In 2022, we embarked on a new direction in our movement for justice and abolition. This time, we confronted suppression and violence in a different way. We took up arms in the spirit of the Woman-Life-Freedom manifesto, and our march toward victory has been significantly strengthened. The editor of Iran Wire wrote on his site’s blog on December 13, 1402:

The slogan of Woman-Life-Freedom, which has become an all-encompassing movement, expressed demands. He brings under his banner all the dissatisfactions, uprisings, strikes, and activism of 40 years ago. Woman-Life-Freedom is not a slogan specific to the women’s movement and egalitarian demands. This slogan was not only aimed at the Islamic government in Iran, but it touched the strong and older roots of inequality, oppression, anti-others, anti-human, death-seeking, and freedom-repressing relations. Therefore, other civil and political movements, regardless of differences or conflicts of interest, joined this uprising, which, for the first time in the contemporary history of Iran, its organizers, promoters, and linkers to other movements were young women and girls who were the generation of the decade. They were called “eighties.”

This time, our movement was based on the Woman-Life-Freedom Manifesto, in which our women and girls played a leading role. For the first time, they united the country from north to south and from east to west. For the first time, we succeeded in organizing demonstrations of fifty to one hundred thousand people in the diaspora. Unfortunately, factors that stemmed precisely from the short-sightedness and power-hungriness of a group of men brought the movement to a standstill at this stage.

Manifesto of Woman-Life-Freedom: The Transformation of the Strategy

The feminist movement is characterized by its reformist nature. The feminist movements have always tried to force them to reform and change the law to create gender equality by bargaining with the two other parts of the polity model.

In democratic countries, feminist movements utilize existing social contracts to enhance their bargaining power.

Although no social contract exists in authoritarian or totalitarian systems, feminist movements still employ bargaining as their only means of advocacy. This approach can sometimes yield results, but it often does not. The Iranian feminist movement tried the bargaining method. A notable example of the bargaining method of action is the One Million Signature Campaign in Iran.

The Woman-Life-Freedom Manifesto has transformed the Iranian feminist movement from a reformist movement into a revolutionary movement. Today, the feminist movement in Iran has moved beyond mere bargaining; it is actively fighting to transform the political system. The women’s movement has chosen not to participate domestically and in the diaspora in the 2024 presidential elections. This reflects a strategic decision to focus on larger systemic change rather than engaging in traditional electoral politics, which clearly signifies a significant transformation. The feminist movement in Iran aims to move away from an authoritarian theocracy rooted in militarism. Today, this movement seeks to establish a system where citizenship rights—rights that belong to all human beings—are respected, regardless of personal affiliations. The revolutionary feminist movement has demonstrated its capability to lead this endeavor, bolstered by the Woman-Life-Freedom manifesto.

The Woman-Life-Freedom manifesto forms the foundation of a new social contract. It represents a dynamic and evolving discourse. Over the last 40 years, it has offered various interpretations of human society’s structure and has reshaped our understanding of human relationships, particularly those governed by gender norms. This manifesto outlines a path forward, facilitating a transition from the current system.

The Woman-Life-Freedom manifesto is seen as the only solution to the forty-five-year deadlock that has resulted in stagnation.

Woman-Life-Freedom Manifesto, the Foundation of the New Social Contract

The Woman-Life-Freedom Manifesto is a dynamic and living discourse. The history of 40 years has different definitions of the structure of human society and gives us a different picture of human relationships, especially relationships that are based on gender norms. It draws a new way to transition from this system. The Woman-Life-Freedom manifesto is the only way out of the forty-five-year deadlock and moving within the zero circle. The manifesto, which should be drafted as soon as possible for Iran’s political and social situation both today and in the future, gives the birth of social justice, non-dominance, and equal rights, regardless of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, and any other separating factor, in front of social movements. The Woman-Life-Freedom Manifesto has the potential to create peace, justice, and democracy far beyond international, regional, and national charters. This manifesto emerged from the struggle against occupation, war, and religious, national, and gender oppression. Therefore, it gives us the power to fight against all these sufferings. A golden opportunity has been created for us today. Suppose the patriarchal vision strongly influences many narrow-minded. In that case, this manifesto will not only pull the movement out of the deadlock and pave the way for the transition from this political system, but it will also lead us to the building of a society based on justice and without domination. In this manifesto, we can formulate the creation of civil society and social movements that protect freedom, social justice, and democracy.

The Necessity of the Women’s Leadership

The bitter truth is that the movement against the authoritarian regime of the Islamic Republic has reached a dead end. The patriarchal and monopolistic views within the opposition, combined with the regime’s violent repression and cyber tactics, are the main factors contributing to this impasse. Transitioning from this deadlock requires strong and coherent social movements.

It is not an exaggeration to claim that Iran’s feminist movement is older than many other movements and has demonstrated remarkable resilience against repression. This movement has extensive experience in leading campaigns and mobilizing. Women’s leadership is essential for creating transitional social movements and, subsequently, a civil society that can ensure social justice, freedom, and democracy through social contracts.

Women comprise half of society, and without leveraging their experiences, the movement will remain stagnant and fail to achieve meaningful results. This emphasis on women’s leadership does not imply usurping power from men; rather, it advocates for occupying the rightful place of women, a right that the patriarchal system has long denied and persists not only in Iran but also in many countries around the world, with men often holding a patriarchal understanding of leadership. Many men view leadership as their inherent right, while women are expected to follow suit.

As a result, feminists often oppose social contracts, which they rightly define as the institutional transfer of patriarchy from governments to society, rendering women more vulnerable. In societies where social contracts are established, they are typically seen as a fundamental right of men, with little to no involvement from women. Consequently, social contracts perpetuate their sexist and patriarchal nature. Feminist movements, as vital parts of civil society, are typically excluded from the formation of the social contract and must abide by its terms. Carol Pittman (2018)[6] describes the social contract as a shift of a patriarchal social order from the governmental level to society at large.

The Woman-Life-Freedom Manifesto proposes a new direction for us, presenting an opportunity for change based on new social contract(s). In this manifesto, we recognize that all individuals who face double oppression due to their gender are included. This encompasses people of various sexual orientations and gender identities. Life affirms everyone’s right to exist and coexist regardless of religion, beliefs, nationality, language, or sexual orientation, embracing both their strengths and weaknesses, as well as their joys and sorrows. Freedom entails non-domination, equal citizenship, equal opportunities, and equal influence in social and political matters. Within the framework of this manifesto, we aim to establish a contract that redefines the concepts of citizenship, civil society, and democracy.

Historical evidence and modern research have shown that men, in particular, have consistently failed to create a social contract rooted in justice and free from gender dominance. This remains true today. If men genuinely seek a system based on justice, they must acknowledge the essential role of women in shaping such contracts.

We advocate for equal citizenship, equal opportunities, and equal influence in social and political matters. This manifesto aims to establish a new framework that redefines citizenship, civil society, and democracy. Historical evidence and modern research have shown that men, in particular, have repeatedly failed to create a social contract rooted in justice and free from gender dominance. This issue persists today. If men genuinely strive for a system based on justice, they must recognize the essential role of women in shaping such contracts.

Notes:

[1] Fukuyama, F. (1999). Social Capital and Civil Society. The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, www.imf.org

[2] White Wednesdays was the name of a protest campaign against hijab. Using the hashtag #whitewednesdays, women posted pictures and videos of themselves wearing white headscarves and putting them on their shoulders.

[3] In a Facebook movement, women took off their scarves in the public sphere, took selfies, and posted them on Facebook.

[4] Ocalan, A. (1987). Statement on Women’s Revolution (referenced in Liberating Life: Women’s Revolution, 2013).

[5] Keohane, N. (2020). Women, Power & Leadership, www.jstor.org/stable/48563044

[6] Pateman, C. (2018). The Sexual Contract. Stanford University Press. (Carol Pittman is sometimes used as an alternate transliteration/short form.)

Bibliography

Fukuyama, F. (1999). Social Capital and Civil Society. The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, www.imf.org

Keohane, N. (2020). Women, Power & Leadership. www.jstor.org/stable/48563044

Moghisi, H. (1996). Pluralism and Feminism in Iran, London: McMillan Press

Ocalan, A. (2013). Liberating Life: Women’s Revolution. International Initiative Edition in cooperation with Mesopotamia Publishers, Neuss, www.freeocalan.org/wp-contact/uploads/2014/06/liberating-final.pdf

Paidar, P. (1996). Women and the Political Process in Twentieth-century Iran, Cambridge University Press

Pateman, C. (2018). The Sexual Contract. Stanford University Press

Rakhsh, S. (2017). MENA Feminist Movement in Political Turbulences, LAMBERT Academic Publishing

Sansarian, E. (1982). The Women’s Rights Movement in Iran, Harvard University Press

Shonk, K. (2019). Women and Negotiation: Narrowing the Gender Gap in Negotiation, in Daily Blog, www.pen.harvard.edu/daily/blog

Stanford Encyclopedia (1996). Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/

Tili, C. & McAdam, D. & Tarrow, S. (2001). Dynamics of Contention, Cambridge University Press

United Nations (2008). Women’s participation and a Better Understanding of Political, www.wps.unwomen.org/participation