Interview with Nasser Fakouhi on the Book “Nasser Fakouhi’s Narrative of Development” – Part Three

Actually there is no contradiction in your statements, and you are speaking within your own intellectual framework. You referred to short-term solutions. In my opinion, regarding long-term solutions, we should return to the concepts of “developability” and “development” that you have used. This developability requires a long-term foundation. Please explain what elements strategically enable developability and what characteristics they have?

In my opinion, you have one simple way and one difficult way. I am talking about the world of 2025, and based on this world, I say there is a simple path and a difficult path. The simple path is the authoritarian technological approach. That means abandoning democracy, accepting a hierarchical society with class differences, abandoning the idea that politics should choose the foundation, and handing politics over to a powerful economic oligarchy to cooperate with a powerful technological oligarchy. In this simple path, on one side you have Elon Musk, and on the other side, Xi Jinping. This is a formula that, without a doubt, will work very quickly in the medium term. Just look at how China has transformed. Compare China 30 years ago with China now. Instead of talking about democracy, China combined authoritarianism with high-level technology and high-level capital. China has become a global giant. This works in the medium term as well, but what will happen to China 20 or 50 years from now? Who can guarantee that after Mr. Xi leaves, the next person won’t undermine everything and cause China to face economic collapse? Anyone who pursues this model must also be prepared for this possibility. But what is the difficult path? The difficult path is that you do not give up democracy; because democracy has proven itself over several centuries. I don’t care that Churchill was a very flawed person, but at least his saying was right when he said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”, we have had so far. Democracy has passed its test over 200-250 years. Now the same America, which is almost on the edge of fascism, what still prevents it from falling into fascism? Freedom of the media. In my opinion, they will get past Trump, and there are signs of the fall of Trumpism.
Memdani’s victory in New York is one of these signs. Over the year since Trump’s election, in every election held in the U.S., even in strongly Republican states, this sign can be seen. Last year, Trump won with 22% more votes than Kamala Harris, and this year the difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates in the polls is 2%. Many say we might win. This shows that the system is collapsing. Some say there is no difference between the two parties in America and they are just two sides of the same coin. This is not true at all. It doesn’t make sense logically. Every person is different from another, and even in the worst system, this difference exists.
In the Soviet system, was Stalin the same as Khrushchev? Was Khrushchev the same as Brezhnev? Is Brezhnev the same as Putin? The aggressive, invasive wars and global occupations that have characterized U.S. foreign policy cannot continue. They themselves say that its continuation is automatically ruled out. As we have seen, Trump has avoided entering wars as much as possible, and although he talks a lot, he does not have the capacity to carry out such actions. The American people also do not accept it because they themselves are in a terrible economic situation and now have conflicts with Israel. In such circumstances, the difficult path I mentioned comes into play. I am not saying this path will be 100% successful, but its chance of success is greater. Right now, far-right governments might come to power in Europe for four or six years, as has happened in some countries, but then they fall and cannot continue.
Of course, as long as they have democracy. If they lose democracy, they will move toward fascism, which is another issue. But in my opinion, democracy is the guarantee that exists here. I want to give an example as evidence of why even those who oppose this idea are aware of this point. We know many wealthy people who are among the most hardline and Russophile, and are strong supporters of Russia and China. Some others in Iran support the West or say the West is better. I’m not saying the West is better—I have severe critiques of the West. I say there are two systems that should be criticized. But ask those who support China why they do not send their children to study in China? Or why don’t they buy property in China but buy property in England, the U.S., France, and Canada? Why are Russia and China good in international politics but when it comes to their money, the U.S., Canada, and France are better?
Did you know that America’s largest creditor is China? That means China’s own money is mostly in the U.S., and the majority of Russia’s money is also in Western systems. Why? Even Mr. Putin himself has more faith in democratic or semi-democratic systems—or systems that can maintain democracy—than in his own system. He takes his money to London and Paris, not because these places are beautiful, but because there has been 250 years of democracy there. I am one of the most anti-American, anti-imperialist, and critical people toward colonialism. My new collection of essays, which is being published, is about colonialism and how colonialism has brought the world to its current state. But that does not mean I say the communist totalitarian system was good just because it helps us now.
Military alliances and temporary treaties are not really my area of expertise. But it’s clear that when a country is attacked by the West, it tends to turn to the other side. Iran is not the only one doing this; Saudi Arabia is also doing it. Currently, Saudi Arabia has entered negotiations with China and Russia. I have no problem with this, but based on my understanding of Iranian society and our culture, I believe authoritarian systems absolutely do not work. Because they require internal discipline, and that discipline requires uniformity. Everyone talks about how China is governed, but do you know what percentage of China’s population belongs to its main ethnic group? For example, if we consider the main ethnicity or language in Iran, it is Persian. What percentage of us are Persian speakers? We can understand this from the provinces. Isfahan, Shiraz, Khorasan, and a few other provinces are Persian-speaking, and at best, between 50 to 60 percent of the population speak Persian as their mother tongue. But in China, 92 percent of the people belong to one ethnicity and speak one language. That is why an authoritarian system can be established there. In India, this is not possible because India has 13 official languages and is governed as a federal system, so an authoritarian system is impossible there. An authoritarian system requires discipline, and discipline requires uniformity. In systems that are divided or have multiple ethnicities and languages without complete uniformity, it is possible to have unity—as it has always existed in Iran—but establishing such a system is not possible.
Why was ancient Iranian despotism different from the despotism that existed in Rome? It is not that the Achaemenids were democrats. That is a foolish claim and makes no sense because in a caste system, democracy cannot exist. It was due to the nature of the governance. The type of governance was not aimed at assimilation for domination. The Achaemenids never did that. After them, this also did not happen except in the late Sasanian period when, under the influence of Christianity and Rome, Iran changed its policy; otherwise, until roughly the 2nd century AD, even religion was free and there was no central religion. There was no central language either. It was multilingual, multi-religious, and completely diverse. Even now, Iran is much better in this regard than Europe. For example, if two people speak Turkish or Kurdish in a gathering in Iran, is there a problem? In Europe, they cannot tolerate this, and it is considered rude for two people to speak another language in a gathering. But why has this behavior been tolerated in Iran? Because this has a long historical background in Iran. Therefore, moving toward those kinds of systems is completely wrong, but this does not mean we should choose the West over the East; because neither the West nor the East is homogeneous. Fundamentally, we should not choose either. Before these places had cities, Iran already had a complex system of governance and empire. At that time, Greece did not have an empire but had cities and managed the cities, while Iran managed an empire.
We do not need anyone at all, but not needing someone does not mean we should not cooperate, interact, or participate in the international community. I am surprised by those who want to put Iran alongside North Korea. North Korea is not even a country. North Korea is a prison-country. I say it is not even a backyard, but more like a storage room for China. For China, which has a population of 1.4 billion, North Korea with 60 million people is not even a small part of China. North Korea can be managed like that. There, even people’s laughter and crying are regulated by orders. Iran has never been like this in the past. Now, in these hundred years, Iranians have become such that they cannot even maintain discipline. During the entire COVID period, martial law was declared everywhere in the world, but did they manage to clear the streets even for a day in Iran? Therefore, the long-term path must be chosen logically. When I say we must move toward democracy, I do not mean Western democracy. In 1941, when Reza Shah left Iran, a relatively democratic government came to power. Between 1941 and 1953, about 12 years, we had a democratic government. Although it eventually failed, we had this experience. 1941 was the time of World War II. At that time, European countries and the United States did not have extraordinary democracy. Now they have declined, but the peak of democracy in these countries was roughly between the 1970s and 1980, before it started to decline again. They are currently in a downward wave. But do not think that they had impressive In France, until 1958 when the Fifth Republic came to power, the situation was terrible and democracy as such did not really exist. I have always said that I was a supporter of Mosaddegh and the National Front. We say let’s continue on the same path that the National Front was following. I don’t mean that we should politically create an organization with that name, but I mean that we have a historical model in our country. This model was working and did not fall due to internal reasons. It is very important to understand that it was overthrown by an external coup. The US and UK admitted that they staged the coup, but over these years some neoliberals, who are even more Catholic than the Pope, claim Mosaddegh staged a coup; because they want to curry favor and imagine that they will hold positions in the next government, which will not happen..
Joking aside, I say we have a historical model. There was a 12-year period of democracy during which political parties existed, parties had disagreements, and even street fights happened without serious consequences. I’m not saying you should fight in the streets—I mean that back then there were debates, the harshest articles were written in newspapers, Dr. Mosaddegh was harshly criticized, and there was a lot of turmoil in the parliament. Did this model disappear on its own? Look at what our neoliberal gentlemen say who insist it was Mosaddegh’s fault. It’s funny that one of them says, “Imagine if Mosaddegh had gotten along with the US, what a golden future we would have had.” Is that what you are saying? All US foreign policy experts say the fundamental problem that created the situation between Iran and the US, including the hostage crisis, stems from the interference of the US in the 1953 coup in Iran. With the 1953 coup, they overthrew a democratic government to secure their own oil revenues.
This became the very foundation of the Middle East crisis, trapping everyone there today. To the extent that Israel, with a population of eight million, drags the United States, with 350 million people, along behind it. This is openly said on American television. Therefore, I believe the only immediate solution that can have an instant effect consists of two things: full social and civil liberties and the release of all political prisoners with broad amnesty; and secondly, the serious initiation of the democratization process. If the authorities want, they can do this—there is no difference between reformists and conservatives. They can organize elections with massive public participation and improve the situation by inviting expert managers to work. I myself have worked in government and in all institutions there are devoted, honest, and clean individuals. These people have usually become marginalized because they did not want to compromise themselves. They should be brought back to official positions and the media system should be reformed. Working on the media system does not only mean engaging in cyber warfare. Alongside those efforts, a budget should be allocated to improve Iran’s image in the world. If infiltrators are to be arrested, it should only be at high levels because they are dangerous; low-level infiltrators are of no real use except to broadcast from abroad on radio and television. Now, you might say we don’t care what they say, but these broadcasts on radio and television act as a factor in preparing for attacks against Iran. I’m not saying Iran cannot defend itself, but the people have to bear the cost of the damages out of their own pockets. Suppose Iran is attacked and responds tenfold. In the 12-day war, it really dealt Israel significant financial blows. But consider, does the Israeli lobby pay the $500 billion damage that Israel suffered, or do they force the U.S. to pay?
But have we so far been able to recover the damages from the Iraq war? Wasn’t Iraq’s damage to Iran about a thousand billion dollars in the currency of that time? As far as I know, it was discussed that if the war had ended sooner, we might have been able to claim compensation. The issue of ideology, or the pretense of ideology, has dealt the greatest blows to us in terms of financial corruption — both now and under the previous regime. Back then, the ideology was the monarchy. Nothing reached His Majesty’s ear. He spent all the money beautifying a few places while neglecting large parts of the country. This led to an increased gap between social classes. He didn’t understand that people who have money in their pockets want freedom, and if you don’t give freedom, the system falls apart. Then suddenly, he gave freedom and it fell apart again. When something is right, it should be done gradually.

But I should also say that the main element extensively discussed in the development theory in this book is not freedom alone. When everyone talks about freedom, they mean political freedom. I mostly do not refer to political freedom; I talk about social and civil freedom, the freedom of social life, the freedom of art. You can understand whether a country is underdeveloped primarily by looking at the state of its art. If art in a country is in a poor condition, censored, and creativity cannot express itself, be sure that freedom is absent there as well, and correspondingly, governance is weak. However, all of these are relative. Our friends, from both sides, have the problem of seeing everything in black and white. Nowadays, they say the current governance is zero and the next will be a hundred. Such a thing has never happened in Iran, the world, or at any time. Everything happens gradually.

Shargh Newspaper, 18 Azar 1404 (December 9, 2025)

Link to the article in Shargh

https://www.sharghdaily.com/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-100/1073114-%D9%86%D9%81%D9%88%D8%B0%DB%8C-%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%85-%DA%A9%D9%88%DA%86%D9%87-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%AF

The link to this conversation on YouTube

This conversation with Naser Fakouhi was published in Shargh newspaper on December 9, 2025 (18 Azar 1404 in the Iranian calendar) and has been translated into English by artificial intelligence. The original conversation is available on Naser Fakouhi’s website at the following address:

گفتگو با ناصر فکوهی درباره کتاب «روایت ناصر فکوهی از توسعه» / احمد غلامی / بخش سوم