Iran executes protesters amid systemic repression: judicial violence as state control tactic in post-revolutionary governance

Indigenous justice systems, such as those practiced by the Navajo or Māori, prioritize restorative justice over punitive measures like executions. These systems emphasize communal healing and reconciliation, contrasting sharply with Iran's state-centric approach. The absence of indigenous perspectives in the discourse highlights a systemic bias toward Western legal frameworks that equate justice with punishment rather than restoration. Indigenous knowledge could offer alternatives to state violence, but it is systematically excluded from mainstream narratives.

Iran's use of executions as a tool of state control has deep historical roots, particularly in the post-revolutionary era. The 1988 mass executions of political prisoners, authorized by Ayatollah Khomeini, set a precedent for using judicial violence to eliminate dissent. This historical pattern reveals a systemic reliance on executions as a mechanism of governance, rather than an aberration. Comparing Iran's approach to other revolutionary states, such as France during its Reign of Terror, underscores how executions are often used to consolidate power in times of perceived crisis.

Cross-culturally, executions are often employed as tools of social control in authoritarian regimes, from Saudi Arabia to North Korea. In these contexts, executions serve as performative acts to demonstrate state power and deter collective action. However, non-Western societies also offer alternatives, such as restorative justice systems in Rwanda post-genocide or South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. These examples highlight how justice can be reimagined beyond punitive measures, challenging the normalization of state-led executions.

From a scientific perspective, executions as a tool of social control can be analyzed through the lens of deterrence theory, which posits that severe punishments reduce crime. However, empirical evidence from criminology and political science suggests that executions often fail to deter dissent and may instead fuel cycles of violence. Studies on authoritarian regimes indicate that repression can exacerbate grievances, leading to increased rather than decreased protest activity. This scientific lens challenges the efficacy of executions as a governance strategy.

Artistic and spiritual traditions often frame executions as violations of sacred life, challenging state narratives of justice. For example, in Shia Islam, the martyrdom of Imam Hussein is commemorated as a symbol of resistance against tyranny, offering a spiritual counterpoint to state violence. Similarly, in Persian poetry, themes of injustice and resistance are central, as seen in the works of Hafez and Rumi. These artistic and spiritual perspectives critique the dehumanization inherent in executions, emphasizing the sanctity of life over state power.

Future scenarios suggest that Iran's reliance on executions as a governance tool may ultimately prove counterproductive, fueling cycles of protest and repression. Alternative futures could involve the adoption of restorative justice models, as seen in post-apartheid South Africa, or the gradual liberalization of political freedoms in response to economic and social pressures. However, the persistence of state violence indicates a high risk of continued repression, particularly in the absence of international pressure or internal reform. Scenario planning must account for the potential escalation of state violence in response to dissent.

Marginalized voices, including women, ethnic minorities, and labor activists, are disproportionately targeted in Iran's protest movements and subsequent repression. For instance, Kurdish and Baloch communities have faced heightened state violence, reflecting systemic discrimination. The executions of protesters like Mohammad Mehdi Karami and Seyyed Mohammad Hosseini, who were from marginalized backgrounds, highlight the intersectional nature of state repression. Their stories are often erased in mainstream narratives, which focus on political dissidents rather than the broader social fabric of dissent.