From Political Prisoner to Security Prisoner: A Game of Words H. Soleimani ۱۴۰۴/۰۵/۲۷ H. Soleimani examines how the Islamic Republic reshapes language to obscure political realities, from relabelling political prisoners as security prisoners to describing censorship as protection. The article explores the religious and political roots of this practice and lists examples of its euphemisms. H. Soleimani – Why do words have more power than reality in the Islamic Republic? Whenever the system finds itself under pressure, instead of answering for itself, it begins manipulating language. This is an organised practice: a political prisoner is called a “security prisoner”, house arrest becomes a “protective restriction”, and censorship becomes “safeguarding”. In this game, the truth is not concealed; only the words are changed, so that reality is distorted. Roots in jurisprudence and politics This approach has its roots in Shiite jurisprudence, where changing a designation can change a ruling. The same commodity that is “usury” can, through a new contract and a new term, be considered “mudaraba” (profit-sharing). This mindset, known as “secondary rulings”, has made its way into politics. In addition, teachings such as “taqiyya” (concealing the truth to avert harm) and “the interests of the system” (giving the preservation of the system priority over every other ruling) have also become a basis for this linguistic concealment. In the arena of political propaganda, this manipulation of words can be called “media framing”. Reality remains fixed, but changing the frame and the wording steers the audience’s mind in another direction. In democratic countries, this framing is usually corrected through criticism and exposure by free media and independent institutions. In Iran, however, because of the absence of a free press and independent oversight, this framing becomes the government’s official language. Definitions: political prisoner and security prisoner 1. Political prisoner International definition: A person detained because of their beliefs or political or civil activities, without having committed a violent crime. Their legal status is regarded as a “violation of civil liberties”, and their existence signals the presence of an opposition and the legitimacy of dissent. 2. Security prisoner Definition in the Islamic Republic: Someone detained on charges such as “assembly and collusion against national security”, “propaganda against the system” or “having ties with a foreign power”. Their case is heard in the Revolutionary Court, and their alleged offence is labelled a “threat to the country”. Instead of acknowledging the existence of opponents, this designation places them among criminals and security threats, thereby legitimising repression. A glossary of shifting meanings in the Islamic Republic Here are a few examples of changes in terminology used in the Islamic Republic to distort reality: * Political prisoner ← security prisoner: denying the existence of legitimate opponents. * House arrest ← protective restriction: justifying the prolonged confinement of the leaders of the Green Movement. * Protester ← rioter: justifying the suppression of popular protests. * Guidance Patrol ← Moral Security Police: changing the name for the same mission. * Internet filtering ← safeguarding users’ rights: restricting online freedoms in protective-sounding language. * Internet shutdown ← technical disruption or traffic management: concealing the complete shutdown of the internet in Aban 1398. * Execution ← qisas (retribution) or hudud (fixed punishments): disguising the nature of the death penalty in religious terminology. * Disqualification ← failure to meet the qualifications: a softer way of describing the removal of candidates, intended to reduce the political cost. * Unemployment ← informal employment or optimal management of the workforce: concealing the high unemployment figures. * Power cuts ← consumption management or grid-load management: justifying electricity cuts and the inability to provide energy. The Islamic Republic’s aims in making these changes 1. Denying the existence of ‘legitimate opposition’: If the existence of ‘political prisoners’ is acknowledged, this means admitting that there is an opposition and that political rights are being violated. By using the word ‘security’, the issue is shifted from the realm of ‘rights’ to that of ‘crime’. 2. Legitimising repression: When a ‘protester’ is turned into a ‘rioter’ or a ‘security offender’, repressing and punishing them becomes justifiable in the eyes of sections of society. 3. Managing international pressure: ‘Political prisoner’ is a term that draws particular attention in international reports. Changing it to ‘security prisoner’ provides an excuse for saying: ‘We don’t have any political prisoners at all!’ 4. Legal ambiguity: Vague terms such as ‘national security’ and ‘propaganda against the system’ are so elastic that any civic action can be criminalised under them. 5. Entrenching the official narrative: When these terms are repeated again and again, they become embedded in state media and even in the language of sections of society, and official language takes the place of reality. Why does the regime always deny reality? This denial has several roots: * The jurisprudential-political principle of ‘taqiyya and expediency’: In the ruling mindset, changing how reality is expressed in order to preserve the system is considered obligatory. * Fear of admitting the truth: Acknowledging the existence of ‘political prisoners’ means accepting that citizens’ rights have been violated, along with the serious domestic and international consequences of that admission. * A mindset of monopolising truth: The Islamic Republic regards itself as the sole legitimate arbiter of truth and calls any interpretation outside the official narrative ‘false’. How Iran differs from other countries In democracies, propaganda framing is challenged by free media and independent institutions. But in Iran, because of the absence of an independent press and transparency in data, official terms readily replace the truth. The result is structural denial: officials say, ‘We have no political prisoners’, while dozens of journalists, student activists and civic activists are in prison for precisely that reason. Conclusion ‘From Political Prisoner to Security Prisoner’ is emblematic of a governing logic: denying reality, criminalising dissent and legitimising repression. The roots of this behaviour lie in the jurisprudential tradition of changing labels and in the doctrines of ‘expediency’ and ‘taqiyya’. Through these coinages, the Islamic Republic seeks to ease domestic and international pressure, but the result is an erosion of public trust at home and a weakening of its credibility abroad. This play on words may conceal reality for a while, but in the people’s memory and in the eyes of the world, the truth can never remain hidden behind these words. Source: https://srouzbeh.com/en/posts/archive-0bc72967-f018-f536-b702-94f15f72be91 Please credit the author and link to this edition.