No Development without Interaction
Oil –as much as it’s an economic issue- is related to law and politics. Oil has become one of our big problems today in Iran. On the one hand, we own a natural wealth and on the other hand, we complain about its undesirable impacts. Now and then development experts state that possessing rich sources of energy such as oil and gas are the culprits to our underdevelopment, but it seems that the missing link is somewhere else and oil has become the scapegoat because of our fragmentary outlook.
We have discussed oil’s relation to law and democracy with Dr. Mahmoud Sariolghalam, Iranian intellectual and university professor. Sariolghalam defended economic liberalism and rationality in exploitation of resources and explained about wealth accumulation in social domains.
Sariolghalam believes in a development-oriented approach that also guarantees independence. This, according to Sariolghalam, depends on a rational, moderate perception of ’independence’.
Mr. Sariolghalam, you are known as a political theoretician who specializes in development. To talk on oil and development, let’s start from your view on the relation between law, development and politics.
Law, regulation, constitution and similar concepts have been a matter for debate in our country for more than a hundred years and they have even gained more currency after the revolution due to global circumstances. But in essence, we Iranians have not become so accustomed to law unlike industrial countries like Japan or even newly developed countries such as South Korea and Malaysia. Of course, millions graduate from universities in our country every year and this naturally turns them into tactful and law-bound individuals, but it seems that the public atmosphere in Iran is still shaped by people’s preference rather than rigid frameworks and structures.
Even an educated person becomes assimilated inside such an atmosphere and gradually tends to resort to personal opinions. Because of this historically structured culture people’s role is more decisive that structures and regulations. Development heavily relies upon regulations and structures, since these make the relations predictable. So there’s a fundamental relation between law and development and a country progressed in terms of law and regulations, has laid the groundwork for development.
About development in Iran, some believe that oil is the root of all our problems. They even say that having oil resources is our great misfortune. Others acknowledge its problematic role, but believe it is not the only culprit. What is your opinion?
I don’t think the problem is our oil and gas resources. These can’t be the problem per se but they are indeed our invaluable national assets. It’s like saying somebody’s got problems because of knowing three languages or because he owns a 100-acre land. I think the problem goes back to our capital management and the rationality we implement in using resources and capitals, or I would rather say the problem is lack of a framework for rational use of these resources. Finland and Kuwait have exploited their resources more effectively. In fact, the problem is that we haven’t had a sustained legal structure for oil use.
Political turmoil has also quelled legal stability. Our oil and gas industry will become profitable when the majority of Iranians earn their income through the private sector. If industry, art, science, university, banks and services become private, oil and gas revenues will be used for more important goals.
With this helpful explanation, how do you see the relation between an oil-dependent state economy with democracy and development?
I explained this to some extent in the last question. If we want to talk academically and based on objective experiences, democracy is a product of economic privatization. Whether in West or Asia, the driving force of political development and democracy has been privatization and rise of the middle class.
The government should merely supervise enforcement of law and establishment of security. Civil liberties are restricted as soon as government holds control of national economy and becomes in charge of economic management and wealth creation.
Of course democracy develops in certain social, cultural and economic contexts. Not every society can become democratic. Economic liberalism is the precondition for democracy. [In this regard] I can tell you that I have always believed Islamic worldview is incompatible with liberalism and democracy.
Islam and liberalism have two substantially different sources and what their share is less than ten per cent. Those who try to compromise these schools of thought actually want to soften the tense atmosphere between West and Muslims. At least from an academic basis and historical experience, there is incompatibility between these two.
How do you view nationalization of oil industry? How much did it contribute to the process of development?
Clearly every country wants to have its national sovereignty. Nationalization of oil industry has been beneficial for our national interests, national sovereignty and the good of Iranians.
This is where we depart! I agree with you that there was good will behind nationalization. But it seems that the whole process actually strengthened state-run economy. Here we face two paradigms; one that inclines towards independence, Dr. Mosaddeq its symbol, and one that seeks development. Which of these two paradigms show more respect for ’rights’? Which one do you prioritize?
First we must have a clear definition of each concept, since they have been defined differently by philosophical viewpoints. If what we perceive of independence is frowning to the world, setting conditions for interactions and becoming an isolated political unit, the natural result is that we can’t benefit from the huge resources of science, technology and global facilities. Development has direct relation with broad global communication.
Countries can’t increase their wealth unless having interactions with the world. Like many other concepts, ’wealth’ has lost its true meaning in our country in public circulation. Wealth doesn’t mean money nowadays. You have wealth if you speak three languages. Iran and the Iranians are wealthy if they have a six-lane expressway from Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf and cover this distance in 10 hours.
Iranians are wealthy if 90 per cent of their MPs be lawyers; they’re wealthy if Iranian cars can compete with Japanese cars. These and thousands of similar examples are signs of development. In brief, development means constructing a structure in which citizens can cultivate their talents in commerce, industry, science, art and politics. Unfortunately incorrect Communistic interpretations are dominant in our country which has led to indiscriminate use of terms by public.
We need to interact with the world if we want to develop.. If our perception of independence is that country’s officials should make the decisions independently it’s definitely good, but if by independence we mean isolation that’s harmful. Is there any MP, academician, artists, politician or citizen who can say he’s absolutely independent in his life and decisions?
Unfortunately these concepts aren’t put to discussion in our society by the media. Some people have a sense of being polyhistor and assert the right to talk about everything. There is no such thing as absolute independence. Countries are influenced by each other and they think, decide and act in an interactional atmosphere.
Of course interactions are more prevalent in economic and academic areas than foreign policy and national security. So independence and development are two faces of a coin, both are needed and both move together. A country has both to develop and define the borders of its developments independently. Paradigms of independence and development are not contradictory; they can be managed within a rational framework.
Let me also say that independence depends on economic power, powerful political institutions and a transparent, recorded, predictable and enforceable legal system. Independence is not an abstract phenomenon; it needs social, cultural, political and economic institutions. Countries that cultivate their society become immune against vulnerabilities and foreign intervention. Both independence and development need institutions that guarantee their continuance. We have to run intellectual discussions on legal and institutional aspects of these terms, so that we make reach a consensus and actualize these ideals.
To what extent do you think the current privatization strategy will lead to development?
It is good news that supreme officials of the country support privatization. But according to statistics we know the government still has a decisive role in production, distribution and management processes in economy and we have a long way to go to reach a private economy. An appropriate solution is that every government confers 10-20 percent of state-run economy to the private sector. Of course consensus among political elite is the precondition to enactment of this process.