watch original V-Blog in Persian

South Africa is busy launching a charter of religious rights and freedoms. It’s amazing, really, what this country does in terms of innovations on human rights and concepts of mutualism. Try and sit down a bunch of religious heads anywhere in the world and have them work out what they agree on! South Africa manages it! Incredible.

As someone who focuses on Iranian society and transformation, it makes me chuckle. I know that a lot of Iranians have superiority feelings towards other cultures and for them to see an African country beat them to it when it comes to progressive paradigms and systems must be quite a blow. Let us not forget that despite all political love affairs there still exists a considerable amount of racism for Africans and black people in Iran.

But Iran could do better. It’s the birth-place not only of Cyrus the Great and the first human rights charter, it’s the cradle of a very recent philosophy that originated in 1844 and proposes the equality of women and men, the harmony of science and religion, the eradication of extremes of wealth and poverty, universal education, the unity of religions and the oneness of humanity; a philosophy that provides the blue-print for a mutualistic democracy that safeguards the interests and affairs of all peoples of the world, not just a privileged few. But this philosophy, born in Shiraz and nurtured by a Persian Siyyid was quickly banished out of Iran and into Palestine, which is now Israel. And now Iranians call it a British invention! Which can only flatter the British.

So according to some people's bookkeeping:

Equality of women and men, universal education, progressive revelation, oneness of humanity, mutualistic democracy, human rights = British invention

Suppression of woman, suppression and persecution of minorities and majorities, the inherent division of humanity into good and bad, human rights abuses = Iranian

Hmmm…I guess at the end of the day you have to make up your own mind. But let it not be said that there is no choice. You don’t have to be a Baha’i to be proud of the fact that this movement originated on your soil. Why is it so hard to just celebrate the awesomeness of this rich philosophy and take ownership of it? And of Kurds, and of Sunnis, Jews, Christians and of atheists and of Shi’ih majorities who want to lovingly build a great society and blog about it?

*

The day Iran produces and owns a charter of religious rights and freedoms like the one in South Africa – that’s the day I’ll be buying my ticket to go home.

watch original V-Blog in Persian

In my son’s children’s prayer book, there is a sentence that has always baffled me: “…bestow Thou freedom while in a state of childhood…”

I thought he was already pretty “free”: free to get naked and play in the dirt; free to eat rice with his hands and then throw half of it on the floor; free to roll around in the grass without a worry…

In an incredibly inspiring and unlikely speech at Harvard University, author JK Rowling recently shed some light on the subject for me, as she spoke about the value of crisis or the “fringe benefits of failure” as she put it. She described that when she hit rock bottom in her life; when all her fears of poverty and failure had come true, there was nowhere else for her to hide. It was in her absolute outer poverty that she discovered the true nobility of who she really was. There were no more material or worldly possessions, titles or “hype” to hide behind. She was “free” to be who she really was and rock bottom provided a solid foundation for her to build and meet her highest destiny.

So on one level freedom is a state of mind and means to be free from “earthly things”. It can also mean detachment from societal or cultural expectations, from material belongings, ego and idle fancy. And curiously, it is often in a state of outer “poverty” and “restriction” that we can find our true inner freedom.

In the “West” we often think of ourselves as already being free. We look at places such as Iran and think because freedom of speech is restricted, basic human rights are abused, the internet is censored and satellite programs are intercepted, we can call ourselves free and that this freedom is something worth “bringing” to places like Iran. Sure it is. But in the process of pushing these valuable societal freedoms, we often forget to humble ourselves before the “inner freedoms” that so many people in places like Iran have already achieved.

It isn’t our societal freedoms, but what we do with our societal freedoms that often points to our deep, underlying enslavement to self and ego. Those whose voices are silenced and who perish in the prisons of the Middle-East and elsewhere are often far more “liberated” than we are!

Inner freedom can be absolute, societal freedom can only ever be relative. Because if I infringe on your freedom by expressing my own, I am hurting not only you, but the greater organism of life that encompasses me. Indulge me for a second and visualize this organism as a piano: In parts of the Middle East, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are so bad that there are only three or four notes that are allowed to be played. The rest are silenced and muted. The tunes that emerge from this piano are dull and depressing. The piano as a whole is deprived.

In the “West”, every note is “free” - free to play and bang and sound whenever it wants. As a result it sounds like my one-year old, when he bangs on his keyboard. It’s a cacophony of brutal notes, each trying to sound louder than the other and each trying to win ascendancy over the other. It is equally dull and depressing and equally deprived of meeting its highest potential.

What we need for our own limitless spiritual freedom to be realized is a situation where each note can find its own best expression and sound at precisely the right time, without infringing on another’s turn and without sacrificing its own beauty. None of us can ever be heard unless we find that balance of a beautiful symphony and come together in a dance of notes. That is true unity and freedom. It is only when we find that balance, that each of us will find his or her best expression and that diversity will reach its highest expression.

As we strive for greater societal freedoms in the “East” and for an understanding of our spiritual freedoms and responsibilities in the “West”, let us learn from each other to cultivate ultimate freedom for our ever-advancing civilization.

Please visit and support www.march18.org - a movement dedicated to releasing imprisoned bloggers and promoting freedom of speech in the Middle East.

watch original V-Blog in Persian

So this friend of a friend’s arrives from Iran. It’s his first time out of the country and from the moment he arrives he’s blown away by everything that is different to what he had imagined. First of all, he mentions the beauty and cleanliness of what is an incredible infrastructure. We call and book a hotel in advance and he wonders how it is possible for us to do this without having big-shot connections in the town we’re visiting. We visit the town and he comments again on the incredible beauty. We go to an art exhibition and it takes him half an hour to get over the fact that Black people are artists too. We go to the bank to draw money and he’s stunned that banks are privatized and that they give you credit! How on earth would they trust that you’d ever pay them back? And how on earth do you trust them with what’s yours?

In fact, the whole issue of honesty and trust is a huge revelation for him. He can’t believe we get through a day without bribing anyone or without being jipped. But the issue he comes back to again and again is how amazing our infrastructure is. The roads, the public places, the buildings. Everything is clean and nice. And people throw their garbage in the designated containers (most of the time).

So we’re sitting and enjoying our pasta in one of these marvelous places when the waiter brings the bill. Our friend looks at it and realizes there’s an item called “tax”.

“You’re not really going to pay that, are you?” he laughs? ….

Yes. This man had never made the connection between paying taxes and getting quality of life in return. Because in the society he lives in, nobody trusts anybody for anything – least of all the government.

It’s a complicated society, this Iranian society. People are marching for change, but it better be well thought out and carefully planned. Because democracy without a level of trust - or rather “faith” - in the system and in others will turn out dismal. And we in the “West” know all too well what it means to have a crisis of faith in politics. Because some of us will read all the above and say: you can’t trust banks, and people don’t throw their garbage in the bins; I paid a bribe to a cop just yesterday and to get the best hotel rooms you do need connections…!

But it’s all relative, isn’t it? Seeing our society through his eyes made me appreciate what we do have and the fact that we can voice our concerns and demand transparency. Doesn’t mean it’s perfect, but it’s the best thing we’ve experienced so far. For more thoughts on how we could “improve” the democratic notion, please watch our latest little film, Beyond King of the Mountain. I think that the ideas expressed are as exciting for the Iranians as they are for us or Haitians…!!!

watch original V-Blog in Persian

"Till Death Do Not Do Us Part" - That was the title of a little talk I gave the other night at a local university. We gathered in an informal venue at one of the residences and I opened with the question:

"Do you believe that once we work on and solve the issues we have in our relationships with one another, we can reach a state of unity?"

Most people thought about their girlfriends, boyfriends or spouses and said "Sure, once you solve the issues. But that's the challenge. Solving the issues...!"

I left it at that and then embarked on one of my infamous excursions into the (often unconscious) values and assumptions underlying our relationships whether they be interpersonal, institutional, political, sociological or ecological. Humanity does, after all, have a relationship with nature too – albeit a terrible one.

My deliberations concluded with the general proposition that, in a world that has literally become interdependent and one, we need to change the values and assumptions underlying our relationships and societal structures – and go from premising them on self-interest to learning how to premise them on mutualism, for lack of a better word in brevity.

And so we came back to my initial question:

"Do you believe that once we work on and solve the issues we have in our relationships with one another, we can reach a state of unity?" or:

"Do you believe that once we work on and solve the issues we have in our societies or in the world at large (such as poverty, inequality, exploitation, violence, crime etc), we can reach a state of unity and peace?"

Though hesitant this time round, most people gave me a half-hearted nod. They knew that what we had talk about probably suggested a different answer, but they didn't know what that would be, so I whipped out one of my favorite quotes of all times:

"The wellbeing of mankind, its peace and security are both unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established."

And the consequence of this statement is that we won't ever solve our issues, whether they be in our inter-personal relationships with each other (as couples, siblings, children, parents or friends) or in our bigger relationships with one another (as communities, nations or interest-groups) until we create unity. It flips the entire equation around. We will be ailing until we tackle the underlying disease, which is lack of unity.

And we spent the last 10 minutes or more, as I now invite you to do with me, reflecting on just what this could mean in practice. What does it mean to build unity in a relationship and to solve our issues from the point of departure? What does it mean to be an institution, not two different people? What does it mean to be a rich, diversely made-up institution or entity and not a series of individuals with conflicting needs and wants? ...and finally - when will we get over our 'selves' and spend our days thinking less about 'me' and more about 'us'?

watch original V-Blog in Persian

Every word has a specific meaning to each one of us. For one person the word 'freedom' means security and community and for another it means breaking norms and societal restrictions. For some 'religion' is a dirty word and for others it is the essence of all things good. When I hear the word "Vietnam" I think of "Apocalypse Now", war veterans in old age homes and bloodshed. It will take a few more decades before "Vietnam" is washed of its connotations.

Words signify concepts that are somewhat different from person to person and particularly different from culture to culture. That's because every concept has a specific set of values underlying it. For example, in what we broadly call "the West", the concept of "love" is often romantic. Movies, soap-operas and novels suggest that for every person there is that one special someone out there. The young couple falls in love and wants to be together. They don't really investigate each other's characters or care if they have compatible personalities. Rather, they are swept off their feet and defy all odds. They rise up against their disapproving parents, society and any other obstacles in their path.

As a result, when we talk about love while sitting on the Champs-Elysees, sipping Espresso, the values underlying our concept of love will be very different to someone sitting in Karachi, at the local fabric shop. In much of the Middle East, the concept of "love" might have somewhat of a different connotation. Love is seen, perhaps, as a far more practical bond between two people who are building a life with each other. Money and education play a role, the consent from both sets of parents plays a role, and certainly, the lovers do not defy, but rather want to be an integral part of the society in which they live.

And while love is love no matter where in the world you are, there is always a different set of values and assumptions informing our understanding of it. Politics is another word that means different things to different people. While the word "democracy" often has a positive connotation, the term "politics" doesn't necessarily. With democracy, people think of "freedom, brotherhood and equality". With politics they think of "manipulation, self interest and competition". This is interesting, bearing in mind that politics in the West is, after all, primarily experienced through democracy.

I think that's because democracy is an "idea" or "ideal", which many people support. The reality of democracy on the other hand and its day-to-day workings are often thought of in terms of "politics", which conjures up images of "manipulation, dishonesty and cheating"! In our heads then, we seem to resolve the paradox nature of democracy by using different words to describe the "idea(l)" of democracy on the one hand and it's practical every day application on the other.

But in its original sense, democracy means nothing more than "rule by the people for the people". The "how" of it all, is left open. In today's world, democratic governance comes in many forms. But it seems to have developed an adversarial character where power is achieved and managed through competition. This might have to do with the fact that 400 years ago, when our current democratic models were being formed, philosophers and thinkers, like Thomas Hobbes, proposed that man's nature was that of a war of all against all and that people were naturally brutish. Our world was very different from the way it is today. Societies, their realities and economies were far more isolated than they are now.

Perhaps it was the somewhat disjointed reality of our world that made us assume competition would be the best way to organize our various different interests and affairs. And so our culture perpetuates this notion that for some to win and get ahead others have to lose. But in recent decades, we are experiencing some fundamental challenges with this application of the democratic notion. Our world has changed from the way it was when Thomas Hobbes was around. Nations, interest groups and people have gone from having relatively isolated realities to being very interdependent. Our lives have become tightly intermingled and the woman in the fabric store Karachi is directly affected by the couple sipping Espresso on the Champs-Elysees.

Maybe all of this has to do with why Baha'is are said to shy away from politics, something they are criticized for all the time. In a world that is ailing, people ask themselves how this community of 6 million can seemingly stand on the sidelines and not engage? The recent events in Iran are only one example where Baha'is were scrutinized for not marching, rallying or expressing their opinion in political terms. But it's not that Baha'is are not political – quite the contrary. It's the underlying assumptions, the notions, the values that our current political landscape is based on that we believe is not sustainable. So long as "politics" is based on a set of dog-eat-dog values that might have held true half a century ago, we're not political. Instead, Baha'is are trying to encourage others to join them in performing a system upgrade of sorts on "politics". Because – like any science – societal concepts need to evolve and embrace assumptions and values that speak to the needs of the age in which we live! If seen in that way, Baha'is are in the forefront POLITICAL! I'm just curious to see which word transforms first, "Vietnam" or "politics"...

watch original V-Blog in Persian

In 1979 my mother had to cross the border from Austria to Germany or Switzerland to place a long-distance call to her parents in Iran. A revolution had broken out and she wanted to know how and where they were. Things were going crazy. There was mayhem. And in my mother's stomach I lay, feeling the anxiety of an unsure future.

30 years later and my son is born. He is barely 6 months old and yet he has to share my attention with Twitter, Facebook and CNN because once again, a revolution is breaking out in Iran. In the short term, who knows what will come out of the commotion that was born on Saturday? In the long term, however, we all know that Iran will never be the same again.

The world is hearing a nation wailing for change. Whatever happened on Saturday, it opened a pandora's box of emotions and energy. But above and beyond the noise and the violence, I hope that Iranians will find the love and peace they seek. And my prayer is that they find it with as little bloodshed as possible. Sustainable change takes hard work, and a lot of love and patience.

Maybe my son, Jonah Caspian, can be a participant in that great nation's future.

watch original V-Blog in Persian

watch original V-Blog in German

Together with my husband, we're in the final stage of completing our documentary about the evolution of democratic governance. It's an exciting topic and I've enjoyed researching and understanding the subject, but have felt extremely challenged at the same time. How does one create a compelling documentary that captivates average viewers when the subject is quite brainy?

Well, some of the most successful "commercial" documentary filmmakers, such as Michael Moore, use techniques like telling stories of people, which give a face to subjects like the health care system. You find yourself on an emotional rollercoaster between shock and sadness, anger and compassion. His latest film, SICKO, is a great example of a great, persuasive piece of filmmaking.

As filmmakers who are trying to navigate by certain principles, however, we've found that we're exploring new terrain. For example, we've decided that we don't want to point fingers and put any individual politician, party or person on the spot. We don't want to 'expose' scandals, but rather take a positive approach that shows the achievements of our democracies and yet their systemic shortcomings in the face of an ever-changing world. We want to show what the next stage of evolution could be for this system of governance. Can we make a film that is captivating, yet without falling into the trappings of demonizing people and institutions?

It's very hard because people love the hype of popular culture. For example, with all due appreciation for the current US President, it is very hard right now to talk about the systemic challenges facing our democratic systems when people treat him like he's the messiah and all the problems in the world will now miraculously be solved. It's hard to make a film that shows how democracy, as we know it, is captive to market forces without pointing fingers at individual politicians the way some filmmakers do.

Now some will ask – why not point fingers? Moore, for example, would say that freedom of speech is what makes our societies stronger and pointing fingers is a healthy way of creating debate. But that stance is not unproblematic. On the one hand, freedom of speech is clearly valuable and sets us apart from other societies that restrict freedom. On the other hand, this freedom is so easily abused, causes schism and infringes on other people's freedom of expression. For example, a Canadian filmmaker made a documentary about Michael Moore called MANUFACTURING DISSENT, in which she exposes what she finds to be Michael Moore's dubious techniques, such as taking soundbites out of context and manipulating them to make his point. Or staging certain events or bending the truth. Whether you agree with the Canadian filmmaker or not, watching both Moore's documentaries and then hers, you start to realize that things are never as they seem and "truth" is nothing more than a fabrication of the filmmaker's intention.

And what is more, how can I point fingers and demonize individual people, when the real problem is systemic and requires collective action? We're all part of the problem (and the solution)! In other words, filmmakers often simplify the complexity of our societal challenges when they blame everything on one cause (such as the previous US president).

As filmmakers we all know how easy it is to make someone say something they didn't say. So when I give people release forms, the signing of which gives me the power to use their soundbites any which way I want, I have a huge responsibility not to abuse their trust. As we edit away on our next cut of this documentary we're constantly aware of the fact that we're presenting a subjective view (no documentary is objective), but we're also trying to do so "ethically."

watch original V-Blog in Persian

watch original V-Blog in German

I have a German video blog on Youtube that was suddenly featured as blog of the day for two consecutive days in the German-speaking world. As a result I got a lot of messages and comments. It was fascinating to see how people began discussing issues among themselves in discussions that branched out among the comments posted. That feedback was extremely fruitful for me, as it highlighted what concepts viewers were struggling with. I often think, Doubletake attracts predominantly like-minded people, whereas the audience on Youtube was completely random and very critical. So their feedback was more representative of what the world at large is thinking. Three major concepts emerged that people were really struggling with and that I'd love to address. These are basic assumptions we make about life - as a global society. Paradigms, that I'm suggesting, can be turned on their head.

Firstly, the concept of 'unity' (of humanity/ unity in politics/ culture/ religion) seemed to evoke fears of 'uniformity'. A lot of people felt that an international auxiliary language for example, which would help us communicate better as a human family, or the process of 'globalization' (a very loaded word) would ultimately undermine diversity and create a 'bland soup of uniformity' – to quote one of the viewers. But I'm suggesting this would not be case at all. On the contrary, our very diversity would become more vibrant.

One of my favorite analogies highlights this very poignantly. When you take the keys of a piano, each and every one of them is unique and different. You wouldn't want them to be the same! But there are two ways that you can play a piano. You can randomly bang and hit the keys and create a loud, chaotic and painful cacophony of noise, or, you can play these keys with a measure of love and know-how and create a harmonious, melodic symphony that allows every single note to emerge at its most beautiful without compromising the diversity of the keys in any way!

The first scenario highlights how our world is functioning at present, and the second how it could be. Now a lot of people say that this second option is nothing but a 'dream', a 'desire', a futile 'utopic' image of what this world could be like. But I venture to argue the opposite. It is not a dream, it is a necessity of our day and age. The world used to function on a win-lose paradigm, where one nations'/ groups'/ factions' interest existed in isolation or opposition to that of others, but now we're living in a very interlinked, interdependent world, where our survival is no longer dependent on the fittest, but on the wellbeing of even the 'weakest' link - the entirety of the human race.

Besides, it is only the "can do" attitude that has achieved any of history's greatest feats: the abolishment of slavery, the discovery of electricity, aviation...anything! Of course it's possible! We must just want it!

And yes, globalisation is a loaded word, because people associate it with the materialism and self-interest that fuels it at present. But does it matter what fuels it? The end result is that we come together. I always say it doesn't matter whether you protect the environment for idealistic reasons or for selfish reasons (because you can no longer breathe the air around you and your life depends on you protecting the environment). The result is the same! The only draw-back is that the second options causes a lot more prolonged pain and suffering in the process, which is obviously what the world seems to want. We keep doing things the way we've always done them, until we are literally forced to do them differently. Oh mankind's stubborn clingings....

Secondly, a lot of people felt very strongly that it is in human nature to be aggressive and have conflict. It's something we've always done and we'll always do. I suggest it is not! It is in our culture, it's something we've learned to do, because our circumstances have required it so far. But those circumstances have changed. We live in a world where our survival depends on our reconciliation and on our unity in diversity. So as soon as we get through this pubescent phase, we can decide not to react impulsively and aggressively. If I park my car in my neighbors driveway, and he comes out and yells at me; hauls the worst insults at me, I still have a choice whether I submit to my own aggression and anger or whether I chose to control it. That's the beauty of the human soul! We have free will. We can decide. There are no more excuses. To say we've always waged wars and fought is a weak, weak attitude. Because it requires no change and no evolution on our part.

Lastly, after reading Michael Karlberg's "The Culture of Contest" I suggested that our western liberal democracy is being held back by the black and white party political system it subscribes to. I outlined how Baha'i elections are held internationally as an example of a system where you do not have interest/ lobby groups and parties, and where your constituency is the whole (community/ humanity). A lot of people felt that the elimination of parties or camps would, once again, compromise diversity and force people into a homogenous mind-frame where it's about conforming. They felt that we naturally have different interests and priorities. Yes we do – but they don't conflict! I (Karlberg) argue(s) that it is precisely partisan politics that compromises our diversity of thought and our various different interests. Because it arranges everything into right and wrong, left and right, black and white. You're either with us or against us! One party's victory is another's loss. Whereas reality or truth is multi-facetted. Our various perspectives should not be seen as oppositional but complementary! Our various points of view give us a more complete picture of issues.

A simple example demonstrates this. Take any object and have a few people sit around this object. You can have either of them describe what they see from their point of view and yell at each other to try and disprove the other and prove that their perspective is right. Or you can accept that each of these views is complementary and gives you a more complete idea of the reality of the object in its entirety! The oppositional paradigm is passé.

It might all sound so simple. But all the things I'm saying about unity in diversity has unbelievable consequences for politics, for economics, for the environment, for religion! Why do we insist that religions are to be seen as oppositional (we're going to heaven and you're going to hell) when they can be seen as complementary? They are all revealed by the same loving God and can be seen as the successive and complementary stages of one and the same unfolding revelation.

As long as we see each other as isolated entities with our own unique interests that conflict with those of other human beings and groups, we hold back the necessary process of turning our cacophony to a symphony. Judging by some of the fears and concerns of people responding to my video blogs, I have a feeling that people are very much in desperate need to make a change, but that this process is going to take a lot longer than I'd like to think...

Recommended Books:
Michael Karlberg: "Beyond the Culture of Contest"
An abridged version is also available titled How everyone can win.(Beyond the Culture of Contest: From Adversarialism to Mutualism in an Age of Interdependence)(Book Review): An article from: One Country

Greg Dahl: "One World, One People: How globalization is shaping our future"