Bassidji

I just saw a most interesting documentary, ”Bassidji”, directed by Mehran Tamadon. The documentary is a co-production of Iran, France and Switzerland and is an exploration of (as I understand it) the Iranian religiously motivated police force calling themselves Bassidji. The Bassidji are now part of almost every aspect of public service, and life in Iran, and seem to exert constant influence on Irani life and thinking.

The Bassidji have come into existence after the Irak-Iran war in 1980 – 1988 during which about half  a million of Irani and Iraqui soldiers were killed. The Bassidji came to exist to defend ”pure Islam” (I would call it, risking to be incorrect and  improper because I am not an expert in these matters!) which according to them has been agressed throughout the centuries and most recently during the Irak-Iran war. 

The film is both insightful and humorous … in ways it does not necessarily intend to be so. It just happens which is why it is quite ingenious. It brings forward paradoxes and asks questions which, apparently, can not be answered within the realms of certain discourses, i.e., religious and other discourses happening in Iran.

It is interesting that I feel like I understand the essence of the Bassidji quite well, perhaps, and haven’t got much mental itches trying to make it out. Finding a language in which to explain it though is difficult, at least because the nature of farsi (not that I speak any) is different from that of English. In any case, books can be written analysing the movie. It opens a Pandora’s Box on the Iranian society (some aspects of it, at least).

A few thoughts came to me as I watching the documentary:

- The Bassidjis are fascinated by ”martyrdom”. To them, the Irani soldiers who died in the Iran-Iraq war sacrificed themselves for the Islam religion and for Iran. In other words, martyrdom is a good thing to do. (Uf, no.) But, there is another dimension to this though. The Bassidji also think these solders died because they’ve been able to come close to ”God” and so then dissolved themselves in it. Some Bassidji, quite young, are totally dedicated to the idea. Off course, they are all men (!! and ??).
The idea of dissolving oneself into something is actually good, and valid. It happens with many things, if something is your passion and you are doing it, then you dissolve yourself in it and this is how you become part of that flow of thought and activity. It is a beautiful thing actually, and is perhaps what the Chinese would call ‘wisdom’.
In the above context though, dissolving oneself in ”it” has some important implications. First, you die – is this what you wanted? Second, they say you’ve dissolved yourself in ”it”, but is this true? Third, are you sure you’ve died for your cause, or the cause of somebody else? … Anyhow, you tell me. Perhaps the wise way of dissolving oneself into something is not exactly the wise way. …
And so, there seems to be some fascination on behalf of the Bassidji with dying for a ”holy” cause as well as a strong tendency to in my opinion … live in the past. …

- Perhaps as it would be expected, there were few women being interviewed in the film. Apparently, this was because it had been difficult approaching them and talking to them, and because women would not be necessarily spoken to (!! how could then a society be legitimate?). Because women were mostly not there, I could not help questioning the thruthfulness of what was being said by those who spoke, expressing their reflections. Unless different gender view points are well balanced and integrated, how could it be true …?

- At one point, the question of men never ever looking women into the eyes came up. A woman said she found this very difficult as a society to live in. She challenged such a custom. She could not understand how it could help with anything but hold a society back. She felt this was minimizing her role and potential in a society. I guess she also felt she lived in a society crippled by fear.
This was a particularly interesting point in the documentary. Then, a few Bassidji and an imam tried to explain the importance of never ever looking a woman in the eyes. The Bassidji were semi-laughing through their explanations, as if the question was a tough one to address and they could not express a convincing answer because they beleived in it. 
The imam though gave some very ardent, passionate answers. According to him, men do not look women into the eyes because women, by turning their eyes in such and such a way and/or looking at men in such and such a way and/or fluttering their lashes in such and such a way (the observations the imam shared were very detailed)… would give men thoughts of wanting that paprticular woman. Well, yes, that is life man, face up to it.  Also, if this is what one (a man) is thinking then that is what it shall be … Their thoughts would be creating their reality. Is this good? No. And by changing the thoughts it can all change … Think change.

- Finally, the film ended rather abruptly. It ended with a question concerning whether the Bassidji and the current religious situation in Iran are not in fact purposed to serve the Iranian government. … This was an interesting moment. Suddenly, the Bassidji that was being spoken to could not talk about the issue. Without it being fully articulated, he said such an issue does not exist. It seemed like such a thing is unheard of and can not be talked about, ever. And so the film left it at that. …

On the overall, the film did not bring too many surpises but it did make some aspects of Iranian reality more clear to me, also and most importantly aspects that I think should change.

Performance Measurement as a Critical Leverage Point for Improving International Development Impact

I just read a very interesting post on IO effectiveness and efficiency on the blog of Fraser Hore.

Here is the post with my comments:

http://fraserhore.blogspot.com/2008/08/individuals-and-organizations-need-good.html

Brussels busts Bulgaria according to the Economist

I thought what the Economist published about Bulgaria last week is interesting … Have a look at this: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11751745&source=features_box3&mode=comment&intent=postTop

The Issue – Corruption in Bulgaria, and Other Countries

The Economist tells the story of Bulgaria who, together with Romania, became a member of the EU in January 2007. Despite this, the EU has just stopped some of the flow of EU money to Bulgaria because of repeated instances of corruption the Bulgarian government has failed to address. Such instances of corruption are said to go as far as controlling where EU money should go, in other words, directing it to where it should not necessarily go.

SAD. Why?  Because, as much as this shows poor governance on behalf of the Bulgarian government, it also does so on behalf of the EU. Why is this happening? Can EU engagement with and in member countries be only at the level of government administration? … And, what is corruption …?

As it happens, you can learn just as much, if not more, from the comments on the article (what a great way of using online media). These tell you that Greece has been having corruption ever since it joined the EU (in 1981!!), that Italy who is one of founding members of the EU is notorious for its high levels of corruption, institutional nepotism and crime (comment by ”panathatube”), that Romania has corruption too, but, apparently, not as much  … and seems like not going as far as meddling with EU money (and so, no sanctions …??).

What is Corruption …?

Corruption is not just people doing bad things. It goes very deep into relationships, values and corresponding behaviours, both at the level of governments and societies. For example, Del Monte and Papagni mention that corruption has sources that are, for sure, economic, but also cultural and political … It is an interplay of regulation, effectiveness of legal systems and social capital. The latter they define as:

”Social capital is embedded in primary social institutions which provide people with basic values, such as high levels of social trust, cohesion and participation.”

How Corruption Works – the Bulgaria Case

Based on my personal experience (I am Bulgarian), I know that corruption in Bulgaria is not JUST ABOUT the government doing bad things. No, it is also about Bulgarian society, in some ways, seeing this, and sometimes doing it, too. It is also about those who see it hating it, and not doing it, but not also not doing much to stop it, because they have no mechanisms and social support to do so!!

And so, this web of actions, thoughts, behaviours, and abuse, ends up being a tangle that Bulgaria, and Bulgarian society can not resolve by themselves, first and foremost because there is no good political leadership, as well as no such which would come from within society.

(In any case, this is why governance in Bulgaria is, for now, poor.)

The Importance of Leadership

Leadership would be very important to detangle the tight knots of corrupted practices and approaches in Bulgarian government and society.  This would be leadership that would see through the knots and have the vision for how these would be transformed. It would also be leadership that would find ways in which to combine soft methods, tools and approaches (soft system methodologies) with, so to say, ”harder approaches”, such as instituting regulation and legal mechanisms and systems. Such leadership would be about managing, and influencing, in a way that would gradually enable the country to drift away from corruption.

An approach integrating soft system methodologies could also enable the Bulgarian government to shift from more to less (and much less!!) corruption without there being any conditions for an opposition, or else, to resort to violence … such is the nature of soft system methodologies. As I understand them, these are focused on changing approaches, feelings and thoughts first – and only then changing behaviours. (rather than the other way round, which is quite oppressive … for anybody)

 … Such leadership could come from within the country … could also come from without.

… Such leadership could also come from those who have been entrusted to lead (and increasingly less doing it) … but could also come from those who have not been formally and institutionally entrusted to lead, but who have the power to do so.
It would emerge bottom-up from within the society, as participatory, or distributed leadership.

The EU and Leadership …?

I wonder whether the EU has ever looked at corruption, as a problem, in this way. They probably have, at least some of them. Bigger question is, though, have they ever also approached corruption in member countries in this way, and also tried to do something about it? They may have, then how …? Has there ever been capacity building in (new) member countries, i.e., seeking ways to engage with both (new) member countries’ governments and societies? Or, is it just about: we give you the money, you’d better do good things with it …

The ”we give you the money, you’d better do good things with it …” is an approach that is unfair and also implies inequality. It is, also, very immature. An administration, and a government, as high-level as the EU, should know better that they should engage with member countries and participate in how the EU money is used, and spent. They should also use opportunities along the way to enable changes, good changes, in governments and societies, by creating opportunities for local people to make those changes … Yep, this is very hard. So what? It is the right way to go. If you see it that way, you can also do it.

(This is why EU governance is poor, too.) 

Conclusion 

… To conclude, such reflections do not speak well on behalf of the EU … hopefully not so much so on behalf of Bulgaria. Participaroty leadership does not necessarily have to come from without the country, it can also come from within! So, brace yourself, Bulgaria, and start doing it, at last.