The Absent Leader's New Clothes

The Absent Leader's New Clothes

How much sacrifice can one demand of the people while remaining absent from their sight?

If Mojtaba Khamenei is alive, well and capable of making decisions, how long can security needs be used to explain his absence? If the present attrition continues, with neither an end to war nor the arrival of peace, must people obey orders announced by others in his name, without being able to establish his actual capacity and authority?

This question must be asked even if we accept the Islamic Republic's officials' account of his health and activities. The issue is more than whether one person is alive. Someone who has accepted the titles of leader and commander-in-chief bears responsibility for a country's fate. People have the right to know how, and by whom, decisions that change their lives, security and future are made.

IranWire's report of 5 October described nearly seven months of Mojtaba Khamenei's absence from public view and the publication of more than twenty-five written messages in his name. By contrast, in an interview reported by the Associated Press in late September, Pezeshkian spoke of a meeting with him lasting more than seven hours and said he was physically well. Placed side by side, these accounts sharpen the question: if he has such capacity and presence in private meetings, why must the public still experience contact with the country's highest official through intermediaries?

Protecting political leaders' lives when they are threatened is understandable. No one is obliged to expose themselves defencelessly to attack to prove their courage. But keeping a residence secret is different from a prolonged absence of direct communication with society. Nor does the public necessarily demand an appearance in the street or disclosure of where he lives. It wants to hear clear, verifiable words from the person who expects obedience over war, peace and the burdens people must bear.

In such circumstances, satire can reveal a contradiction that official language seeks to conceal. The expression ‘cardboard leader’ has even entered media reporting. Its existence does not establish what all citizens or government supporters think. But it does show that, for at least some audiences, the leader's absence has become a subject of mockery. What propaganda seeks to present through images and titles may come to signify absence in the audience's eyes.

This recalls ‘The Emperor's New Clothes’. In Andersen's tale, two swindlers claim they can weave clothes invisible to anyone foolish or unfit for office. The emperor and his courtiers see nothing, yet praise the nonexistent clothes for fear of disgrace. At last a child cries, ‘The emperor has no clothes!’ The bitter point comes at the end: even after hearing the truth, the emperor continues on his way, while the courtiers keep carrying the train of a garment that does not exist.

The resemblance to today's problem is not evidence that Mojtaba is absent or incapacitated. It is a parable for examining the behaviour of those who ask others to accept something they cannot investigate. When officials speak of an absent leader's authority, judgement and decisions, society is entitled to ask for evidence. Citizens should not have to give up asking questions to prove their loyalty or political understanding.

Leadership in hiding has precedents. Bin Laden issued messages while concealed; Baghdadi went years without appearing on camera; and the Taliban concealed Mullah Omar's death for more than two years. These examples establish nothing about Mojtaba's condition. They do, however, show how a leader's name can remain an instrument of cohesion and command in his absence. Mullah Omar's case raises a particularly serious question: what guarantees that a message attributed to a leader expresses his own will?

Yet governing Iran cannot be equated with running a clandestine organisation. Government decisions affect millions of lives, from a soldier ordered to carry them out to a family bearing the cost of insecurity and disruption. If people are called upon to resist and make sacrifices, they have the right to question their commander's responsibility and conduct. Protecting the leader's life does not remove his responsibility for the lives of others.

A continuing state of neither war nor peace may widen this distance. A security explanation may be accepted for a time, but an indefinite threat cannot provide a permanent answer to demands for presence and accountability. Some supporters may continue to see the absence as caution; others may interpret it as fear or incapacity. No one can fix a date for this change in perception, but the government cannot assume that the leader's standing will remain forever immune to the consequences of his absence.

Meanwhile, intermediaries become more important: those who say they have seen him, heard his views, and conveyed his orders. The less scope there is for independent scrutiny, the more powerful this circle becomes, and the less clear its responsibility. The question then is no longer simply where the leader is. It is who makes decisions in his name, and who answers for their consequences.

Remaining hidden may prolong an individual's life; it does not follow that it preserves his standing or fitness to lead. Leading a country requires more than a title, an image and a statement. The public must be able to recognise the capacity to manage a crisis and accept responsibility. If the people's share is to endure danger and pay the price, while the leader's is absence and messages delivered through others, how long can they be expected to carry the train of these invisible clothes?