ملت و سه جبهه

‫ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﺍﻯ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻮﺍﻧﻰ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻜﻰ ﺑﺮ‬ ‫ﺳــﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﺋﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻠﻤﻮﺱ ﻭ ﻣﺎﺩﻯ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺗﻐﺬﻳﻪ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺘــﻪ ﺍﻳــﻦ »ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ« ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻳــﻚ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺩﺳﺖﻧﺸــﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺍﻗﻤﺎﺭﻯ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ‬ ‫ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻯ ﺑﺎ »ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ« ﻛﻼﺳﻴﻚ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﭼﺮﺍ ﻛﻪ »ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻠﻤﻮﺱ‬ ‫ﻣﺎﺩﻯ« ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻳﻚ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺩﺳﺖﻧﺸﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﻧﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺯﻫﺎﻯ ﺟﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎﺋﻰ ﻛﺸﻮﺭ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺯﻫﺎﻯ »ﻣﻨﺎﻓﻊ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻰ« ﺩﻭﻟﺖﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﻴﮕﺎﻧﻪ ﺟﺴﺘﺠﻮ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ‬ ‫ﺑﺎ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ »ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻰ« ﺍﺯ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺖﺍﺵ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ »ﺑﺪﻩﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥﻫﺎﻯ« ﺗﻨﮕﺎﺗﻨﮓ ﺑﺎ ﺻﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﺤﻔﻞ ﺁﺷﻜﺎﺭ ﻭ‬ ‫ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻭ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻣﺮﺯﻫﺎﺳــﺖ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻧﮕﺮﺍ ﻭ ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻳﺨﻮﺍﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ؟‬ ‫ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﭼﻴﺰﻯ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻴﻜﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ »ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳﻰ« ﻣﻰﺭﺳﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﺠﺎﻯ ﺳﺨﻦ ﮔﻔﺘﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﺯ ﺩﻭﻟــﺖ ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻳﺨﻮﺍﻩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﻠﺲ »ﻣﺸــﺮﻭﻉ« ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﮕﺰﺍﺭﻯ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺑﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺎﺳــﻰ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭﺍﻯ »ﻣﺮﺩﻡ«‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪ ...‬ﻣﻰﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺎﻡ ﻧﺨﺴــﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﺋﻰ‬ ‫ﺑﭙﺮﺩﺍﺯﻳــﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻗــﺎﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻨــﺪ ﺑــﻮﺩ ﺍﺯ »ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ« ﺷــﻬﺮﻭﻧﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ‬ ‫ﺯﻳﺎﺩﻩﺧﻮﺍﻫﻰ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺳــﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﺳــﺘﺨﻮﺍﻧﻰ »ﺩﻓﺎﻉ« ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﺯ‬ ‫ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻨﺎﻓﻊ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺑﺎ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ‬ ‫ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖﻫﺎﻯ ﺳﺮﻛﻮﺑﮕﺮ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﺗﻌﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﺮﻏﻢ ﻫﻴﺎﻫﻮ ﻭ ﻏﻮﻏﺎﺋﻰ‬ ‫ﻛﻪ ﻣﺸﺘﻰ ﻗﻠﻢﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﻭ »ﺳﺨﻨﺮﺍﻥ« ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺯﻫﺎ ﭘﻴﺮﺍﻣﻮﻥ ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺍﻩ‬ ‫ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺧﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺣﺪﻯ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﻰﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺶ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﺋﻰ‪ ،‬ﺟﻬﺖ‬ ‫ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﺎﻓﻊ ﻣﻠﺖ ﺳــﺨﻨﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﺍﻣﻮﺵ ﻛﺮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫»ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ« ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻣﻠﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ!‬ ‫ﻣﻀﺤﻚ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻰ ﺍﺳــﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﺍﻳﻨــﺎﻥ ﻫﻤﭽﻮﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﮔﺬﺷــﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺧﻢ‬ ‫ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦﺑﺴــﺘﻰ ﻣﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﻛﻪ ﺳــﻪ ﺟﺒﻬﺔ »ﺩﻳﻨﻰ ـ ﺑﻮﻣﻰ ـ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻟﻴﻨﻴﺴﺖ«‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺧﻴﻤــﻪ ﺯﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺳــﺎﺩﻩﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻦ‬ ‫ﺷــﻴﻮﻩﺍﻯ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﭘﺎﻳﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻳﻚ »ﻗﺪﺭﺕ«‬ ‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳــﻰ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻟﺘﻰ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺳــﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻯ‪» ،‬ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ« ﺷﻬﺮﻭﻧﺪ ﻫﻢ »ﺗﺄﻣﻴﻦ« ﺷﻮﺩ!‬ ‫ﺑﻰ ﺭﻭﺩﺭﺑﺎﻳﺴــﺘﻰ ﺑﮕﻮﺋﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻫﺮ ﻛﺲ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ »ﻣﻐﻠﻄﻪﺍﻯ« ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ ﻛﻨﺪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻳﺎ ﻣﻐﺮﺽ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻳﺎ ﻧﺎﺩﺍﻥ! ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻯ ﺑﺎ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎﺕ ﻧﻤﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻰ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ؛ ﭼﺮﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻰ ﻣﻠﺖﻫﺎ‪» ،‬ﻗﺪﺭﺕﻣﺪﺍﺭ«‬ ‫ﻫﻴﭽــﮕﺎﻩ »ﻗﺪﺭﺕ« ﺭﺍ ﺗﻔﻮﻳﺾ ﻧﻜﺮﺩﻩ‪ .‬ﺷــﻌﺎﺭﻫﺎﺋﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻗﺒﻴﻞ ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳــﻰ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﺣﺘــﺮﺍﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺁﺭﺍء ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻰ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻈﻴــﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻄﺒﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺁﺯﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪ ...‬ﻫﺮ ﮔﺎﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬

‫ﻳﻚ ﺳﻴﺎﺳــﺘﻤﺪﺍﺭ ﺟﺎﺭﻯ ﺷــﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺪﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻭﻯ ﺩﺭ ﺻﺪﺩ ﺑﻬﺮﻩﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭﻯ‬ ‫ﺍﺯ ﺍﻟﻬﺎﻣــﺎﺕ ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻳﺨﻮﺍﻫﺎﻧﺔ ﻣﻠﺖ ﺍﺳــﺖ؛ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻯ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻠﺖ‬ ‫ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺣﺎﻓﻈﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯﻫﺎﻯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﻰﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﮔﺎﻡ ﮔﺮﻳﺒﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻛﻤﻴــﺖ ﺭﺍ ﮔﺮﻓﺘــﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ »ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺷــﻬﺮﻭﻧﺪ« ﻭﺍﺩﺍﺭﺵ ﻛﻨﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻋﻜــﺲ ﻗﻀﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨــﻰ ﺩﻭﻟﺘﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻣﻠﺖ »ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ ﺑﻴــﺎﻥ« ﺑﻪ ﺍﺭﻣﻐﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻣﻰﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺳﻄﻮﺭﻩ ﻭ ﺷﻌﺒﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ »ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻯ‪«.‬‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﻳﻚ ﺩﻣﻜﺮﺍﺳﻰ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﮓ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺑﺎ »ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ« ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭ‬ ‫ﻧﻬﺎﺩﻳﻨﻪ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ »ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ« ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺁﻏﺎﺯﻯ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ‬ ‫ﺩﻳﮕﺮ »ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯﻫﺎ‪ «.‬ﻣﺸــﻜﻞ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻰ ﻳﻚ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻮﺍﻧﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎ ﮔﺮﻳﺒﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﮔﻴﺮ ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻞ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺑﺪﻩﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥﻫﺎﺳﺖ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺑﻴﺎﻳﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻄﺮ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺧﺘﻦ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺖﺍﺵ ﺍﺯ »ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ« ﻣﻠﺖ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ‬ ‫ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﺑﮕﻮﺋﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻰ ﺗﺎﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﺪ‬ ‫ﺷﺪ!‬ ‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺤﺜﻰ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﻭ ﺷﺘﺎﺏﺯﺩﻩ ﭘﻴﺮﺍﻣﻮﻥ ﻧﻘﺶﻫﺎﺋﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﻭ ﻣﻠﺖ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ »ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ« ﺍﻳﻔﺎ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﺩﻋﺎﻯ ﺑﻠﻨﺪﮔﻮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻨﺪﻭ‬ ‫ﻧﻘﺶ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﻣﻜﻤﻞ« ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻨﺪ؛ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﻠﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﻛﺎﻓﻰ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﺯ »ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ«‬ ‫ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻬﺮﻩﻣﻨﺪ ﻧﻴﺴــﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﻰ ﻣﺎﺟﺮﺍﺟﻮ‬ ‫ﺑــﺎ »ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ« ﻭ »ﻛﻮﺩﺗــﺎ« ﻭ ﻏﻴﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺣﺘــﻰ ﺣﺮﻛﺖﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺡ‬ ‫»ﺁﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧــﻪ«‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺭﺍ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻛﻨﺘﺮﻝ ﺗﺤﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺶﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺎﻟﻰ ﻭ‬ ‫ﻣﺎﺩﻯ ﺧﻮﺩﺷﺎﻥ ﺑﺪﻫﻨﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻠﺖ! ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻴﻨﺠﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﺑﮕﻮﺋﻴﻢ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺁﻧﺎﻧﻜﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺮﻫﺎﺕﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻯ ﻭ »ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﻰ«‪ ،‬ﻣﻰﻛﻮﺷﻨﺪ »ﻓﻀﺎﻯ« ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻰ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳــﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺤﺚﻫــﺎﻯ ﺍﻧﺤﺮﺍﻓﻰ ﻭ ﻓﺎﻗﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﺒــﺎﺭ ﻋﻤﻠﻰ ﻭ ﻧﻈﺮﻯ‬ ‫ﺍﺷــﻐﺎﻝ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻰﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺷﻜﺴــﺖﻫﺎﻯ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﭘﺎﺳﺨﮕﻮ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪.‬‬