Sattarism

Sattarist-Renovationism Sattarism
Founder	Mahrdad Ali Sattari
Ideology	Zorasani nationalism Zorasani militarism State capitalism Totalitarianism Political Irfan Anti-Imperialism Socialism (historically)

Renovationism (Pasdani: تجددسم; Tajaddodizm; Rahelian: تاجدية; Tajdīdiyya) also known as Sattarist-Renovationism (ستاریسم-تجددسم; Sattārist-Tajaddodizm; الستارية التجدية; Sattariyy-Tajdīdiyya) or Sattarism (ستاریسم; Sattārizm; سطارية; Sattariyya) is a Zorasani nationalist ideology and the current state ideology since the founding of the Union of Zorasani Irfanic Republics in 1980. From 1952 to 1980, it was the state ideology of the Union of Khazestan and Pardaran and was the primary driver of Zorasani Unification. Historically promoted the development and creation of a reunified Zorasani state through the leadership of a civil-military vanguard party through a revolutionary government. Today, it promotes a politically homogenous society free of social divisions, through the adoption of Political Irfan, collectivism, an authoritarian state which embraces modernity, science, industrialisation and militarism. Sattarism condemns individualism, liberal democracy, secularism, aspects of traditionalism and mulit-culturalism. It was devised primarily by Mahrdad Ali Sattari in the 1920s with considerable influence drawn from the Xiaodongese Lu Keqian.

The ideology has undergone a series of transformations and reinterpretations since its adoption by the Union of Khazestan and Pardaran in 1953. During the 1970s, Neo-Sattarism emerged as the dominant strain with the adoption of Political Irfan and the abandonment of socialism, as a result the role of religion and militarism expanded. It promotes a form of capitalism known as Patriotic Capitalism, which commenators have described as neomercantilism state capitalism, with a minimal embrace of private property.

Principles

Modernism

Modernism or Modernity is what Sattari described as the “central pillar of the great process.” It is an all-encompassing term that covers the rollback and destruction of traditionalism, certain cultural and social norms and what Sattari further described as “reactionary sentimentalities.” Sattarists believe that traditions and antiquated thought undermined the Gorsanid attempts at modernisation and northernisation during the 19th and 18th centuries, ultimately resulting its collapse and the partition of the empire between Euclean colonial powers. In order to ensure the continued survival of a reunified Zorasan, it must adopt the ideals of “modernity”, science, innovation, industrialisation and urbanism.

The pursuit of Modernity according to Sattarism should come at any cost, including the destruction of cultures, traditions, norms, the environment and even social harmony if it leads to the emergence of a modern, dynamic and industrial Zorasan. This was the primary justification for the Modernisation and Harmony Campaign during Zorasani Unification. The specific targeting of nomadic ethnic minorities or communities and forcing them into sedentary urban living is one such example. Sattarism also notes that traditions and sentimentalities lead to the fossilisation of society and ultimately moral and social decay, decadence and immobility. The only traditions to be upheld are those of the political, artistic, musical and poetic varieties. This also requires the repeated elimination of “old thinking” so that the “nation may forever be in lockstep with the innovations of the day.” In 1928, Sattari wrote, “either we proceed from this day in mind of science, innovation, technology and industry, or we shall forever languish in feudalistic farms under the boot and banner of the Euclean.”

Collectivism and Ettehâd

Main article: Ettehâd

Sattarism embraces and advocates a totalitarian state in order to foster what Sattari termed Ettehâd (meaning unity and or union) and to fully mobilise the potential for achieving modernity. Ettehâd as a concept also embraced the ideal of a “new Zorasani society and citizen”, in which the nascent ethno-cultural identities established during the colonial period and during Zorasani Unification would be repressed and abolished, and in their place would be a shared citizenship and national identity. Sattarists therefore reject the existence of Rahelia, Togotistan or any historic homeland of its constituent peoples, rather there has only ever been Zorasan and to say otherwise, is to promote “society dividing Eucleanisms.”

Sattarism denounces individualism and self-interest and advocates through Ettehâd, the establishment of a harmonious and singular society bound together by the state within the boundaries of the state. This collectivism is justified through the belief that unquestionable loyalty to one another and to the state, would best permit Zorasan to mobilise its population into pursuing modernity and protecting itself from a possible return of Euclean domination. Ettehâd posits that the state exists beyond the physical realm and reaches into the “emotional, psychological and spiritual realms of human existence” and that any group, action or individual outside the state is “worthless and a threat to the whole.” Erkin Dostum a prominent author of Sattarism said, “the new citizen of the Union must think the Union, live the Union and feel the Union, there can be no instance where his existence does not interact with the boundaries of the Union.”

As Sattarism views the world and human existence through the prism of “eternal struggle”, it also seeks a politically homogenous and harmonious society to ease the “prosecution of the Union’s struggles against the rest.” As such, Sattarism continues to advocate to this day, a society bound by Ettehâd structured like an armed force; hierarchical, ranked in which command and obey permeate throughout. This lends into Ettehâd’s description of society as comprised of three parts, the “worker, cleric and soldier”, with the soldier at the top commanding those below. Just as in the army, in society there would be no class conflict, nor selfish individualism or desires, no one’s individual contributions are greater than any other as everyone is but a singular piece of a greater machine. As such, Sattarism aims to balance competition between individuals and group solidarity, to a degree that individual success is seen as the benefit to all and the state.

Militarism and the Eternal Struggle

Main article: Peykâr-e Jâvid

As stated above, Sattarists view the world as a “eternal struggle between peoples and nations”, ostensibly viewing the period of Euclean imperialism and colonialism as the “age of defeat for one half of humanity and victory for the other.” While this worldview justifies the establishment of a collectivist society, it also justifies the embrace of militarism. According to Sattarism, the military is the “manifestation of nation’s soul and capacity for violent struggle.” The military is furthermore, the embodiment of Ettehâd, as it abolishes class, ethnicity or culture. Inherent to Sattarist militarism is a Machismo, a veneration of the male as the “martial, strong and fearless soul, who’d prefer martyrdom over defeat, martyrdom over the death of his nation.” The embrace of militarism is also rooted in the origins of the ideology. It was developed concurrent to the establishment of the Pardarian Revolutionary Resistance Command, an armed insurgent group that sought to expel the Etrurians from Pardaran during the Great War and Solarian War and is intrinsically rooted within that group’s ethos.

The role of the Eternal Struggle (Peykâr-e Jâvid) according to Samir Shafawi is key to understanding the unbridled militarism of Zorasani society and state, according to him, "the simplicity of Peykâr-e Jâvid in reducing the entire universe to good versus evil, a near incessant struggle for air by human beings and nations and the apocolyptic belief in a final battle against perceived enemies permeates every strata and ediface of Zorasani life. It justifies all, from totalitarian control, statism in the extreme and the adoration of the military and all things martial to the point of cult-like supplication.

As Sattari stated in a speech in 1952, “we must strive to become the apex predator of this continent. We must strive to build a state of the military and by the military so that never again do Euclean boots step on our blessed land.” This call for a “military with a state attached” was eventually enforced in the Union and Khazestan and Pardaran and later, Zorasan following unification. In practice, this militarism takes a different form in which society as a whole is expected to show deference, loyalty and obedience to the military, which “by virtue of its success in achieving unification lays claim to greater power and influence than any other institution.” The military is the ultimate political authority and arbiter of the state in Zorasan today.

Today, Zorasani militarism maintains its view of every dispute through a militaristic lens, in which every dispute must be met with “bastions”, “barricades”, “trenches” and “mass mobilisation.” The military is deified as bother protector and leader of the nation.

Liberty

Sattarism holds a distinctively statist and authoritarian view of liberty, insofar that liberty is only enjoyed and exercised by a collective whole (a society or nation), rather than the individual. The statist view was encapsulated by the Sattarist belief that nations required liberty before their citizens, which Sattari described as a "freedom from foreign control, domination and exploitation." If a nation is free from external control, liberty for its citizens would be guaranteed. By conflating liberty with national sovereignty, the Sattarist view subtracts the accompanying liberal democratic provisions of personal liberty and freedom. The authoritarian and collectivist approach to liberty is defined by the Sattarist rejection of individual liberty in relation to the concept of the eternal struggle of human existence.

What is liberty for individual outside the state? It is non-existent, for the individual will fall victim to the eternal struggles alone and embued with a selfishness that will see them no different from prey upon the plains, surrounded by predators. Liberty is only enjoyed within the state and part of the state.

Mahrdad Ali Sattari, 1950

The authoritarian basis is rooted in the Sattarist view that liberty would be guaranteed "post-national liberty" by the vanguard party (Revolutionary Masses Party and later the National Renovation Front) which would not be elected by the populace because the party would have at its heart the common good, collective interest and be the embodiment of the people. Sattari further viewed the Party as the manifestation of the state, therefore, the Party's binding of the populace into a singular harmonious united society (Ettehâd) would in of itself, constitute the guarantee of liberty.

As a result, Sattarist liberty is seen as reductivist and an extreme reaction to Euclean colonialisation and imperialism, by both conflating and limiting liberty to national sovereignty, it purposefully abandons and rejects individual liberty and freedom. The justification of a police state was anchored by Sattari in his vision of liberty by saying, "liberty within the realms of the eternal struggle requires a perpetual mobilisation of the masses, such a demand of the state will forever require a merciless approach to security. Security against the eternal enemy and their agents within the Union is the paramount duty of the state in defence of its own liberty."

Totalitarianism

Under Sattarism, the concept of individualism is denounced and rejected as the "degredation of human nature and the manner in which we were created by God." Sattarism argues that while humans were created to be naturally social and communal creatures, centuries of Euclean falsehoods and heresies of nature had fostered a culture of limitless selfishness and the adoration of self-interest over the community and nation. Just as see with Ettehâd, Sattarism seeks to abolish any limit to the state's involvement or control over the lives of its citizens and to foster a sense of communalistic "oneness." Sattari saw the establishment of Ettehâd within society as the key to a successful totalitarian state, while rejecting criticisms of such following the Great War and Solarian War. Sattari argued for a totalitarian state on the basis that only a "complete state" (Dowlāt-e Basānd) could create a new Zorasani man, society, nation and guarantee the liberty of the nation.

There can be no realm, no action, behaviour or activity that is not conducted within the guidelines or boundaries of the state. There can be no space within which a Zorasani man or woman is one unto themselves, for this space shall become a breeding ground for the ideals, sentimentalities and ways of thinking that unleahsed upon our people, the tyranny and violations of the Euclean colonial.

Mahrdad Ali Sattari, 1930

As the pursuit of a reunified Zorasani state within Sattarism did not constitute the physical reconstruction of historic borders, it also required the creation of a new society post-unification. While the New Zorasani Society (Tâze Jâme'e Zorasāni) concept was not utopian, it was viewed as a "rebirth into a state of harmony, peace and tranquility." To achieve the establishment of a new society, the state would be required to regulate and be present in all aspects of life. This meant the regulation of culture, art, music, poetry, sport and social interaction toward a new normal, the ever presence of a watchful state through mass surveillance and data gathering to ensure cooperation of citizens in embracing this new society. While such demands would naturally lead to a police state, this would also be necessary in view of the wider eternal struggle between Zorasan and the nations of the world. While Sattarist totalitarianism lacks the notion of a "leader", a singular individual in which the state and populace or dedicated to in executing their will, Sattarist totalitarianism supplants the "leader" with the collective state, in which even the individuals who hold the levers of power are subject to the same notion of subordination to the state which they operate.

Mass events such as Solidarity Day serve the Sattarist call for "perpetual mass mobilisation."

An integral element of Sattarist totalitarianism is the notion of "perpetual mass mobilisation", mostly through the use of Government-organized demonstrations and rallies. The Zorasani public holiday calendar is marked by numerous events dedicated to celebrating labour, motherhood, ingenuitiy, scientific innovation and national unity. The Zorasani state controls every means of mass media in the country, which is mostly geared toward perpetuating the notion of national unity and harmony and the achievments, real or imagined, of the Zorasani nation, including its predecessors as far back as antiquity. Samir Shafawi wrote in 1999, "Zorasani totalitarianism differs in many ways to historic examples, Functionalist Gaullica, the Greater Solarian Republic, or perhaps even the Soravian Second Republic, it lacks a singular charismatic figurehead who wealds untold power and authority, but instead coalesces the populace around a near mythical-collective government, which is comprised of the most talented and loyal revolutionaries, it seeks to coalesce through mass mobilisation, endless provocation and incitement and an esoteric vision of unity that consumes any notion of individualistic life."

According to Hans Daluege, the apparent success (by longevity) of Sattarist totalitarianism (with its subsequent mobilisation of the national population) resides within its construction as a means to helping society overcome the cognitive dissonance and emotional trauma stemming from Euclean imperialism and its corresponding physical, economic and material suffering. Its allure in providing a clear socio-cultural-political route from a humilitating past to a near utopian future defined by economic, technological and cultural successes by fostering a togetherness and "solidarity in achievement" results in verifiable support of the populace. Sattarist totalitarianism, according to Daluege further detracts from historic cases of total power and control for one individual, to the benefit of a totalitarianism that seemingly seeks to maintain the fantasy of this bountiful, harmonious future, while also seizing upon the inherent collectivist nature of Irfan.