It is typical of the cult leaders to use rhetoric to demarcate the boundary for the critics, especially those who demonstrate signs of siding with the adversaries. Rajavi is not an exception at all. For him, as he has recently expressed in his message, the true critics are those who in no way take any side with the Iranian regime as the organization’s foe to be overthrown. As seen in his recent message, he once more focuses on this point saying:
We declare that everyone has the right to oppose NCRI or MKO and express its criticisms freely. But if it is manipulated as a means to overstep the demarcated line between MKO and the regime or to recognizing the legitimacy of some internal parties, we consider it a betrayal of the interests of the nation.
In simple words, Rajavi makes a new attempt to legitimize his critics and opponents just when they denounce the Iranian regime and maintain their siding with the organization. But it is a claim hard to believe since Rajavi, at least in his past 30-year long struggle against the Iranian regime, has never treated his critics with the least courtesy let alone to recognize them and their deed. However, his newly set criterion is founded on a mutual concordance, the prerequisite for which is recognition of Mojahedin’s rightful resistance and further distancing from the Iranian regime because, as he puts into words, “contravening this rightful resistance, under any subterfuge, results in nothing but the survival of the regime”.
Rajavi is well aware that he is talking nonsense for a critic cannot possibly take sides with the Iranian regime as well as Mojahedin at the same time. Besides, he has never welcomed the opponents of the regime who have also taken a different side with his organization. Clearly enough, those who have ever recognized the legitimacy of MKO and have submitted to the authenticity of its leadership fail to be true critics even if they have dared to say or write to question anything. In other words, any individual, regardless of the high or low political status he occupies, failing to be totally devoted to Rajavi is labeled an agent of the Iranian regime despite his opposition to the regime and he has to even pay costs for defending political rights of Rajavi. Here is an example.
It was revealed in early days after the Islamic revolution that Mehdi Bazargan, the late Provisional Government’s Primer, and Rajavi had frequent contacts. In spite of their disputes, Bazargan is said to have tried to convince Rajavi to support his government. However, the main point is that Rajavi does approve antagonizing Bazargan as the man of authority who once defended him as the nominee in the course of the parliament elections at the time:
Although we openly declared disputes with Bazargan in 1979-80, he supported me plainly in the second round of elections and made many troubles for himself while he was under many pressures after his dismissal as the Prime Minister.
Of course, this is not an assertion for appreciating the late Bazargan but further to state he had betrayed him and his organization by refusing the invitation to join the organization to fight in the same front against the regime. His hostility against Bazargan who had made full support of Rajavi in the early years of revolution while the organization had created many problems for his government is a good indication of the fact that Rajavi denounces whoever would decry his leadership authenticity. Consider that Rajavi claims Bazargan’s support was due to the principles of freedom and ethical considerations, then, has he to be blamed for rejecting Mojahedin’s invitation for the very same causes? It has to be pointed out that Bazargan never criticized the organization in his life; on the contrary, he supported them during 1980s and sometimes advised them from the stance of an experienced politician.
We are not concerned with Bazargan and his position in this discussion; here the aim is to prove that the slogans of Rajavi on being open to criticism and siding with the regime’s opponents are absurd and nonsense and sheer lip service. If he has any objection, he is invited to present just one example to have recognized critics who have made mild or sever criticism against Mojahedin’s leadership.
It is not the first time that MKO, and its leader in particular, falsely claims to have provided an open window for dissident members, critics, and even infiltrators to express their views and is showing the highest degree of tolerance compared with other revolutionary organizations. On the contrary, most former MKO members report instances of the organization’s duality in dealing with its critics. They acknowledge the fact that Mojahedin suppress dissident members by means of intimidation, torture, false accusations, contempt and other psychological pressures as well as being branded as the agents and traitors. None of the Rajavi’s plotted scenarios to pose a pro-democratic seem to be working especially when he tries to proselytize hostile attitudes towards critics.
