Baha’i Rants

The recent NSA elections in North America was in keeping with the well-known bias towards incumbency. All previous members were re-elected to their positions with no new members entering either NSA.

Jacqueline Left Hand Bull, Chair (standing at the podium), David F. Young (Vice-Chair), Juana C. Conrad (Deputy Secretary-General), Kenneth E. Bowers (Secretary-General), Erica Toussaint, Muin Afnani, Valerie Dana (Deputy Secretary-General), Robert C. Henderson, William L.H. Roberts (Treasurer).

Last year two members of the US NSA retired, allowing for two new members to enter the institution. I’m looking for historical data for the US NSA to verify how far this trend has been in effect but today it seems that the only way for a new member to enter the NSA is for an existing member to retire. Otherwise, forget about a chance to vote in any one new. This bias towards incumbency is not difficult to explain since it is baked into the very process of Baha’i elections and is not characteristic of just the US community.

You can clearly see this pattern in Canada as well. This year, the members of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of Canada are: Deloria Bighorn, Judy Filson, Karen McKye (Secretary), Gordon Naylor, Borna Noureddin, Enayat Rawhani (Treasurer), Todd Smith ( Vice-Chair), Susanne Tamas and Élizabeth Wright (Chair).

All 9 members were re-elected. In fact, the average consecutive years in office for the current Canadian NSA is 9 years. Think about that. This means that a member has been in office for an average of 9 years! Of course, since we had two retirements recently, there are also members who have only been on the institution for a short time. The relatively new member, Wright, is this year’s chairperson.

But there are also those who have been serving for much longer than the average. For example, Judy Filson and Enayat Rawhani tie for the longest duration of concurrent membership at 15 years.

There are many reasons why having zero or minimal change in membership is detrimental to the functioning of the institution and therefore the community at large. I’ll just briefly touch on a few negative consequences.

When you have the same people year after year elected to the NSA everyone gets to know everyone else very well. Being merely human, what happens is that cliques are formed and made more and more rigid after each year. Everyone’s views on different issues becomes well known to the point that even before you consult, you know exactly who will take what position and who will support whom.

As well, when the same people work with each other for a long time a natural air of casualness and collegiality develops. This informality removes the barrier that is there in a formal relationship where individuals are merely acquaintances. The consequence is that people are more and more likely to take things personally and for challenging issues to deteriorate into personality conflicts.

Finally, as a consequence of having zero or very few new members, the institution forgoes the benefit of a fresh new perspective and new mindsets. Since almost most, if not all, incumbents are re-elected, membership changes at a glacial pace. That is we have one, or at the most, two new members who join the majority who are incumbents. This majority as a consequence of multiple years of consecutive membership are already seeped in the culture that I outlined above. Quickly the new member(s) fall in line and join a clique and adopt the same paradigm as that held by the majority.

This means that it is basically impossible to change the direction, tenor and culture of the institution as it becomes more and more hardened. Actually this reminds me of the fable of the 5 monkeys:

You begin with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hangs a banana on a string and a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, an automatic spray will soak all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result, and all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon the monkeys will try to prevent any of them from approaching the banana.

Next, unbeknownst to the monkeys, the valve to the cold water is shut off. And then, one monkey is taken out of the cage and replaced with a new one. The new monkey of course sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, another of the original five monkeys is removed and replace with a new one monkey. The newcomer goes to the stair and is attacked. The previous newcomer even takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, a third monkey is replaced, then a fourth, then finally the fifth and last.

Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of their peer. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

And that is how organizational cultures are born.

On the off chance that an NSA does actually break out and try something new, they are quickly swatted down from a higher institution which has itself also fallen prey to the very same organizational illness. The clearest and most recent example is the fiasco surrounding the 2007 annual report from the US NSA.

Omid Djalili, the Iranian-born Baha’i comedian and actor stars in the new UK comedy “The Infidel”. In the film Djalili plays a Muslim man who discovers suddenly that he was adopted… from Jewish parents.

Here is the trailer:

They have also started a contest for the “funniest” religion. Here is Omid starting things off with a joke about Palestine:

Let’s hear your funniest joke about religion!

Below you’ll find the most recent Ridvan message from the Universal House of Justice. This has to be the most Ruhi-laden Ridvan message I’ve ever read from them. It seems that the House is doubling down on Ruhi. It is also a very long message at 11 pages.

Only time will tell if that is a wise decision. I haven’t seen any data that suggests that it is. For example, in the case of Columbia which is ground zero for Ruhi, after more than 40 years there has been no discernible growth in the Baha’i community. But for now, expect to see an even more intensification of Ruhi activities at the expense of anything and everything else.

A few things jumped out at me. One, they attempt to remove the stigma of “door to door” teaching, which obviously bothers many Baha’is for obvious reasons:

To assign to their teaching efforts such labels as “door-to-door”, even though the first contact may involve calling upon the residents of a home without prior notice, would not do justice to a process that seeks to raise capacity within a population to take charge of its own spiritual, social and intellectual development.

This is rather humorous because simply removing a label or attaching a label to something doesn’t change the nature of it. If you are going and knocking on a door to invite the people to an event, then it is what it is. The intention may not be exactly as direct as teaching them the Baha’i Faith but instead inviting them to take part in a process of “spiritual, social and intellectual development” – that doesn’t really make any difference to those who have to answer the door with a stranger standing there or to the poor Baha’is who are being pressured to go door to door.

The other is this rather refreshing caution:

…we feel compelled to raise a warning: It will be important for all to recognize that the value of engaging in social action and public discourse is not to be judged by the ability to bring enrolments. Though endeavours in these two areas of activity may well effect an increase in the size of the Baha’i community, they are not undertaken for this purpose. Sincerity in this respect is imperative. Moreover, care should be exercise to avoid overstating the Baha’i experience or drawing undue attention to fledgling efforts, such as the junior youth spiritual empowerment programme, which are best left to mature at their own pace. The watchword in all cases is humility. While conveying enthusiasm about their beliefs, the friends should guard against projecting an air of triumphalism, hardly appropriate among themselves, much less in other circumstances.

This characteristic has already been pointed out by many – including as early as 30 years ago. For more see Denis MacEoin’s letter to the LA Study Class. Let me know if anything of interest stands out for you. The previous years Ridvan messages are here:

• 2009 Ridvan message
• 2008 Ridvan message

It is easy to forget that we are closing in on almost 2 years of incarceration for the 7 members of the national administrative body of the Baha’is of Iran. In Persian, the body is known as the Yaran (or Friends):

Since their arrest, they have been in legal limbo. The Iranian authorities are pressured on one side to present and argue a case so that they can be found guilty but on the other hand the international community and NGOs like Amnesty International are demanding a fair and open trial.

The result has been a bureaucratic gridlock that has produced and ignored countless trial dates. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the strategy adopted by the Iranian regime. After all, if the IRI can basically detain prisoners indefinitely without really bringing any charges or afford them the opportunity to defend themselves in a transparent court of law, they’ve more or less accomplished their goal.

Now it seems the strategy has shifted after almost two years. On April 12th the IRI finally went ahead with a trial. Here is an official update from the Baha’i International Community:

Two members of the legal team, Mrs. Mahnaz Parakand and Mr. Hadi Ismailzadeh, were able to be present at the session. Their two other colleagues, Mrs. Shirin Ebadi and Mr. Abolfattah Soltani, were unable to attend.

The hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:30 AM, yet notwithstanding that the lawyers were present at precisely the specified time, the session commenced only two and a half hours later. The families of the defendants were not permitted entry to the proceedings, which clearly signaled that the session was to be closed. However, numerous officials and interrogators from the Ministry of Intelligence were present, including a film crew whose cameras were positioned in the courtroom, which understandably gave rise to questions and concerns about the intentions behind the presence of such individuals in a closed hearing.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the prisoners, with the full agreement of their attorneys, indicated to the judge that they declined to be party to the proceedings. The judge then adjourned the session. No date was announced for the next hearing.

So the gridlock continues. But the IRI can now claim a victory on the grounds that they were ready to move forward but their attempt was rejected by the Baha’is.

I’m not sure why exactly the Baha’is decided to not to proceed. Having government officials (interrogators, intelligence, etc.) included in the proceedings is part and parcel for the IRI’s case so it is natural that they would be included.

As well, what is wrong with having a camera record the proceedings? It is actually a step in the right direction, isn’t it? And how else would you be able to record the proceedings unless you have staff manning the audio/visuals? And why do they believe that this was a closed hearing if there was no actual ruling on this?

I’m not an Iranian or international legal expert but simply excluding family members (who are unrelated to the case) isn’t necessarily out of order nor unheard of. As long as the defendants have proper representation and are able to call witnesses, present evidence, etc. why would having their families there and not being filmed be so crucial that they would “walk out”?

Maybe I’m missing something but the strategy of the Baha’is and their lawyers is baffling and ultimately may end up hurting them.