A representative of the Azerbaijan Democracy and Development Party called on opposition groups to offer a credible vision of life after the Islamic Republic. “Political alliances are necessary, organisation is essential and the media matter,” he said. “But none can substitute for society’s confidence in the future.”
According to Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), Duman Radmehr made the remarks at the conference “Iran’s Human Rights Crisis: From Shared Principles to Joint Action”, held in Oslo on 25–26 September 2026. Bringing together representatives of political parties and organisations, it was the sixth conference in IHRNGO’s “Iran and the Transition from Authoritarianism” series.
Radmehr described the Woman, Life, Freedom movement and the Azerbaijani national movement as partly successful in changing social attitudes. Yet neither had secured lasting structural changes in the way the country was governed. He identified the Islamic Republic’s political system as the obstacle.
Disunity alone did not explain the opposition’s failures. “The central weakness has been our failure to offer a tangible picture of the future.” That picture needed to be understandable, achievable and clearly better than the present for the large, largely silent section of society.
He criticised a recurring pattern: political groups and personalities formed alliances around a charter, expecting wider circles of support eventually to draw in the public. Many had failed even to hold themselves together.
“People accept the costs of change when they believe that what they stand to gain is worth the price.” Even a united opposition could struggle to mobilise a society fearful of instability and civil war.
Radmehr argued that the experience of the 1979 revolution, alongside subsequent upheavals in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, had made Iranians cautious. Seductive promises would no longer suffice. Hope needed to acknowledge the difficulties while making a reasonable improvement in daily life believable.
He criticised promises of executions, calls to revive SAVAK, the glorification of violence, territorial claims and threats of internal conflict voiced by some advocates of political change. “This caution does not reflect satisfaction with the Islamic Republic. It reflects the statements, conduct and actions of some opposition forces.”
For many in Azerbaijan, he said, a fundamental question remained: “Is the opposition’s transition project intended to bring democracy and decentralisation to a future Iran, or to bypass Azerbaijan in the future political order?”
Radmehr also criticised what he regarded as inadequate media coverage of Azerbaijani activists, prisoners and cultural activity. Emphasising the movement’s opposition to violence and armed struggle, he said: “Azerbaijan is not the centre, but it opposes centralism.” Ignoring it, he argued, undermined confidence in the transition.
For much of society, political decisions began with everyday life and children’s immediate prospects. The challenge was therefore not simply to bring more groups around a table, but to establish whether their words and conduct inspired confidence.
“A political transition must not conjure up the collapse of security and public services. It must certainly not mean armed groups seizing power in the vacuum created by the transfer of authority.”
Society was already judging groups seeking power through privileged access and foreign backing, he said, including their potential for arbitrary action, violence and renewed authoritarianism when state institutions weakened.
People needed reassurance that political change would not disrupt essential supplies, collapse the banking system, undermine public safety or unleash urban disorder, ethnic tensions and communal conflict. “The transition is intended to overcome the regime’s political failures, not destroy the country’s vital institutions.”
Non-violence, restraint and the peaceful resolution of disputes could strengthen public trust, Radmehr concluded. The shared human rights document could mark a turning point, “provided we uphold its principles in practice” and convince society that Iran could be governed without civil war or chaos.
Translated from Farsi via machine translation and lightly edited for clarity.