Can We Reach Democracy with a Laughing Emoji?! S. Rouzbeh ۱۴۰۵/۰۶/۲۳ Criticise, give reasons, and do not insult; democracy must be learned and lived. A reflection on political disagreement, public mockery and the responsibilities that come with fame. Criticise, give reasons, and do not insult; democracy must be learned and lived. “Does protesting and changing one’s mind mean having the right to insult, ridicule and push society to the margins?” And why should a famous figure changing their position also change the opinions and judgements of those who follow them? Years ago, my mother said something to me that has stayed in my mind: “If you have a problem or disagreement with someone, don’t say it in front of a crowd. Tell them privately, face to face and openly.” Years later, I saw that Saadi had expressed this simple experience in different words: “Speak between two enemies in such a way that, if they become friends, you will not be ashamed.” And then he gives this beautiful warning: “When war between two people burns like fire, the wretched tale-bearer is the one who carries the wood.” He goes on to say that the two may become friends again, leaving the wood-carrier embarrassed between them. Seven hundred years have passed, but it seems the fire is still the same; only the wood-carriers have multiplied. Today, a story, a barb or a sentence can reach thousands of mobile phones within hours. Everyone adds something to it: one person mocks, another replies, a third dredges up people’s past, and suddenly a disagreement that might have been clarified in a few sentences becomes a talking point for society for days. I do not mean that anyone should refrain from criticising or conceal their disagreements. Quite the opposite: if you have a criticism, write it. If you have a protest, state it clearly. If you make a claim, give reasons. If you have evidence, publish it—and take responsibility for what you say. Political criticism should be clear enough for you to defend it. But insult is not criticism. Mockery is not argument. Repeated barbs do not answer a political question either. No society has reached democracy through mockery and emojis. A footballer, actor, writer, doctor or politician has the right to hold political views. They have the right to support someone today and not to do so tomorrow. They even have the right to say, ‘I was wrong yesterday.’ If we want this right for ourselves, we cannot take it away from someone else. They are free to make their choice. But fame does not lessen responsibility; it increases it. When thousands or millions of people follow what a public figure says, every sentence they utter can create a wave. They are still a citizen, but they have a bigger megaphone at their disposal. So, just as they have the right to speak, they must understand how they speak and what their words set in motion in society. The bigger someone’s megaphone, the greater their responsibility in choosing their words should be—not that their fame exempts them from the rule of criticising without insulting. How precisely Nezami Ganjavi put it centuries ago: “Speak little, and speak with discernment, like a pearl” «So that your little may fill the world.» On the other hand, responsibility does not rest solely on the shoulders of public figures. We too should ask ourselves: why should our political beliefs change whenever people come and go? Whether a minister or an MP, a footballer or an actor, a writer or anyone else, in a democratic society each is a citizen with one vote. Fame does not generate several million extra votes. If yesterday we supported a person or movement because a footballer did, and today our own views change because theirs have changed, the problem is not just that footballer’s behaviour. Perhaps we need to question our own intellectual independence, and doubt whether we are simply following extremists or moderates without reason or conviction. I wrote about this very danger earlier in my article ‘Every Day a New Public Figure, Every Day a New Controversy: Who Is Stealing Our Time?’ on Gooya News. There I asked why a single remark by an actor, presenter, singer or political activist should occupy the minds of thousands of Iranians for days, and why the name of a public figure is sometimes shared more widely than the names of those who have died for freedom, political prisoners and plans for the transition period. The conclusion of that piece was simple: people come and go, offer support, oppose something or withdraw, but the goal must not change with them. Today we must take this a step further: controversy does not merely take up our time; if we are not careful, it can also change our language, behaviour, judgement and the way we think. Sometimes political behaviour on social media brings to mind a memory from my school days. One child was beaten by another and, because he could not or did not want to confront the person he was angry with, on his way home he would break a neighbour’s window and scratch people’s cars. His anger was real, but he had the wrong target. In politics, too, the protest may be real, the resentment genuine, and the criticism entirely justified. But when that protest turns into attacks on other people, sarcasm, mockery and the creation of fresh controversies, we must ask: what was the main issue, and where is it now? If we have a goal, we must take care not to let anger and controversy consume it. In popular culture we also say, ‘Silence is the answer to fools.’ I do not mean to call anyone a fool here. To me, the more important meaning of this proverb is that not every remark demands a response. Sometimes not replying is not weakness; it is a matter of recognising priorities. A person with a goal does not have to stop and answer every stone thrown in their path. There is also an instructive example from abroad. In 2023, the prominent American actor Susan Sarandon made a remark about American Jews at a pro-Palestinian rally, which prompted widespread criticism, and the talent agency UTA ended its relationship with her. She later openly acknowledged that the way she had expressed herself was ‘a huge mistake’ and apologised for it; however, she did not abandon her underlying political position in support of Palestinians. In September 2026, she also said that she continues to lose some work opportunities because of these views. This behaviour illustrates a simple point: a person can stand by their beliefs while also admitting that they were wrong in how they expressed or acted upon them. Admitting a mistake is not defeat. Just as changing one’s mind is not betrayal. Democracy is not just ballot boxes and elections. Democracy must be lived before we get to the ballot box: in the way we speak, in tolerating opposing views, in accepting the right to change one’s mind, in intellectual independence and even in the ability to say this simple sentence: ‘I was wrong about this.’ If we have criticism, let us criticise. If we have a protest, let us write about it. If we have evidence, let us publish it. If we disagree, let us give reasons. Sarcasm, emojis and making fun of others are not bravery; they reveal foolishness and a shallow level of thought and judgement—especially when the person doing it is a public figure. But let us not add fuel to the fire of division or create further splits. Because tomorrow, those who disagree with one another today may sit together again, but what remains of our words in society’s memory and on social media will not be so easily erased. If we do not live democracy from today onwards—in our language, conduct, intellectual independence and tolerance of those who disagree with us—what will Iran’s democratic tomorrow be like? S. Rouzbeh Source: https://srouzbeh.com/en/posts/archive-70cd4c6c-12f5-c0e5-f6bf-22d58010efc4 Please credit the author and link to this edition.