After 17 years, the construction of the Keykhosravi building has finally reached completion. Appreciation was extended to those involved in the project, including myself. I felt it was important to clarify my position and express that my contributions pale in comparison to those of many others who have worked tirelessly on this project.
The primary reason my name was mentioned by the president of the association, and I was erroneously honored, relates to the role I played and also as an observer, throughout this 17-year journey. During those years, when association members decided to renovate their aging facilities, the belief was that modernizing and renting these newly constructed buildings would strengthen the association’s financial base, allowing it to better fulfill its charitable obligations.
As someone who cannot claim neutrality—having been a contractor for the association during those earlier years, when my interests were directly tied to its construction efforts—I must candidly state that the association’s decision at that time was as naive and disastrous as the misguided choice to eliminate sparrows to boost agricultural yields.
This reflects the nature of complex systems, which often thwart our ability to achieve desired outcomes. The construction economy within a charitable organization like the Zoroastrian Association is fundamentally different from that of a typical commercial entity. The construction economy (not construction itself) within such an organization follows a complicated pattern for several reasons.
Economic models are inherently complex, and no genius has successfully created a comprehensive and complete model to explain them. This ongoing challenge is one reason why some individuals continue to receive the Nobel Prize in Economics; if a complete model existed, there would be no need for such recognition. The most effective way to verify theories in complex systems, such as social or economic patterns, is through practical testing. For instance, Karl Marx’s economic model presented in his seminal work, Capital, sparked extensive theoretical debates for decades. However, after seventy years of real-world tests that led to significant destruction across much of the globe, few can now convincingly prove the validity of communism’s economic theories on paper.
It would be equally perplexing if those from the Zoroastrian era sought to defend the theory of demolition and renovation of the association’s properties, attempting to demonstrate its positive economic outcomes in theory. Over the course of these 17 years, a substantial portion of the association’s financial resources was consumed by construction costs, hindering its ability to meet its fundamental obligations.
Consequently, many children have emigrated from this land, never to witness Mehregan in Iran again. They have missed the opportunity to know our Gahanbar, and sadly, they will not be able to honor their human dignity as they deserve. They departed, holding onto the hope that the association would serve as their final refuge, but that hope was not fulfilled. Buildings were erected, yet those opportunities for connection and community will never return. The fact that the structures built during this period have also endured 17 years of wear and tear makes this narrative all the more sorrowful.
Over the past 17 years, all associations have aimed at providing the best possible services to their community, yet they often settled for minimal support and sometimes fell short, leaving them with a sense of shame. The dissatisfaction with the association during these years stands as evidence of this reality.
The charity association serves as a mediator between benefactor and society, meaning that the source of the association’s income is determined and provided by benefactor, not by the board of directors. Whenever a benefactor decides to donate a building or to demolish and renovate one for the association to enhance its income stream, the association is obligated to follow their wishes. If our benefactors choose not to pursue such actions, they likely have valid reasons for their decisions, and we, as association members, should not seek alternative funding sources for demolition and renovation costs. Our responsibility lies in fulfilling their benevolent intentions, advising them, and making requests on their behalf. However, if their final decision does not involve demolishing or renovating any of the association’s properties, we have no right to proceed with such actions on our own. Should a building become unusable and no charitable organization steps forward to assist, we must either close it or wait until a charity volunteers for renovation or the general assembly votes to sell it.
I write this for those who will hold positions in the association after us. I am documenting this for my son and for your children as well. It is not permissible to exploit these circumstances.
Don’t examine who had pass the test before
Babak Shahriari – Aban 1403 (October 2024)
