Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Iran Democracy/elections Superior To Us/uk

Rate this topic


MajiC

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

For all the nonsense spewed by the western propaganda machine and its army of pseudo-pundits, hit-men and mercenaries who work its rusty cogs and the unsuspecting minions in the millions who are brainwashed as a result, a little introspection is useful and would reveal the stark reality: 

 

 

"Six candidates had free and equal access to Iranian media to present their manifestos, and the people then decided; as it turns out they decided for a surprise winner.

 

Contrast that vibrant and free exercise in people power with the lassitude of many Western states, where voter turnout is often as low as 50 percent; and where the electorate is presented with an empty “choice” between two candidates or parties, all controlled and vetted by the corporate ruling elite. The United States of America is perhaps the most salient exponent of this moribund and oxymoronic state of Western so-called democracy.

 

In the US, no-one can run for election unless they are bankrolled by billions of dollars. The top one percent of corporate and financial rulers makes the shortlist of presidential candidates from which the electorate is permitted to “choose”. The US system is the antithesis of democracy and that’s why almost half of the electorate - more than 100 million people - don’t even bother going to the polling stations. They know it is a waste of time and vote - because the result is pre-determined by the ruling elite; and that’s why there is never any change in America’s plundering, criminal policies at home and abroad."

 

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/16/309323/irans-stunning-victory-against-west/

Edited by MajiC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

A while ago I had written a reply on this forum with these phrases .. and I cant find it

 

iran is perhaps the only democracy in the middle east that is also not an apartheid state.

 

can any kind soul help me find it, I tried searching many times myself without success

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

A while ago I had written a reply on this forum with these phrases .. and I cant find it

 

can any kind soul help me find it, I tried searching many times myself without success

 

You could try the following, which have helped me in the past

 

1) click on your profile and search your posts which are listed by date, or

2) search shiachat through google. In the search field put your name and some key words you recall from a specific post

 

iran is perhaps the only democracy in the middle east that is also not an apartheid state.

 

I have to disagree with your context here. I am always disappointed and double face-palmed when I hear some pundits and others refer to Iran as "perhaps the best democracy in the Middle East" when there are really no other - at least functioning - democracies in the middle east to speak of. This region stuck in a backward and pre-historic phase. Consequentially, to limit the praise of Iran's democracy to this context is insulting.  It's like telling a seagull among fat chickens "congratulations birdie you demonstrate the most exemplary flying skills in this pack", when the chickens inherently lack the skills to compete. Rubbish. Iran's democracy competes with and is worthy of appraisal against the self-proclaimed bastions of democracy themselves., viz. US et al. This is what the OP is getting at.

 

To pre-empt the anti-Iran minions on this forum, yes Iran's democracy cosmetically differs from that of the West but the crux of democracy is the 'the peoples mandate' and if Iranians choose a rich flavour of democracy which enshrines their cultural and religious values then who the hell are you to define what 'democracy' should be for them? 

Edited by MajiC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You could try the following, which have helped me in the past

 

1) click on your profile and search your posts which are listed by date, or

2) search shiachat through google. In the search field put your name and some key words you recall from a specific post

 

 

I have to disagree with your context here. I am always disappointed and double face-palmed when I hear some pundits and others refer to Iran as "perhaps the best democracy in the Middle East" when there are really no other - at least functioning - democracies in the middle east to speak of. This region stuck in a backward and pre-historic phase. Consequentially, to limit the praise of Iran's democracy to this context is insulting.  It's like telling a seagull among fat chickens "congratulations birdie you demonstrate the most exemplary flying skills in this pack", when the chickens inherently lack the skills to compete. Rubbish. Iran's democracy competes with and is worthy of appraisal against the self-proclaimed bastions of democracy themselves., viz. US et al. This is what the OP is getting at.

 

To pre-empt the anti-Iran minions on this forum, yes Iran's democracy cosmetically differs from that of the West but the crux of democracy is the 'the peoples mandate' and if Iranians choose a rich flavour of democracy which enshrines their cultural and religious values then who the hell are you to define what 'democracy' should be for them? 

 

What do you do of Turkey, Israel, and Lebanon? They are democracies, even if their systems are cr@ppy, they aren't dictatorships.

Edited by Robin Hood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What do you do of Turkey, Israel, and Lebanon? They are democracies, even if their systems are cr@ppy, they aren't dictatorships.

 

 

Perhaps with the exception of Turkey, other so-called democracies in the middle-east have much to be desired and are either dysfunctional or actually fascist for all intents and purposes but passing off as democracies (a la Israel).  In an case, the point to be made here is that the appraisal of Iran’s democracy should therefore not be limited to this context and the OP suggests this point quite well.

Edited by MajiC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

686 people were submitted and only 6 were allowed to run by the Guardian Council.  That sounds a lot like a few elites deciding who can run.

 

At least in the US anyone can get on the ballot if you have a few hundred dollars or a few thousand signatures.  Plus, your average Joe isn't going to become president overnight.  You usually start out representing your local district in your state's congress, then move to the national congress, and by then you've established a name for yourself and can start fundraising to the nation at large with your message.

 

Let's not forget the fact that we (in the US) have yet to have an instance of a president refuse to give up his power after losing an election, and subsequently killing protesters in the streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

686 people were submitted and only 6 were allowed to run by the Guardian Council.  That sounds a lot like a few elites deciding who can run.

 

At least in the US anyone can get on the ballot if you have a few hundred dollars or a few thousand signatures.  Plus, your average Joe isn't going to become president overnight.  You usually start out representing your local district in your state's congress, then move to the national congress, and by then you've established a name for yourself and can start fundraising to the nation at large with your message.

 

Let's not forget the fact that we (in the US) have yet to have an instance of a president refuse to give up his power after losing an election, and subsequently killing protesters in the streets.

Which president in Iran has done that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

686 people were submitted and only 6 were allowed to run by the Guardian Council.  That sounds a lot like a few elites deciding who can run.

 

At least in the US anyone can get on the ballot if you have a few hundred dollars or a few thousand signatures.  Plus, your average Joe isn't going to become president overnight.  You usually start out representing your local district in your state's congress, then move to the national congress, and by then you've established a name for yourself and can start fundraising to the nation at large with your message.

 

Let's not forget the fact that we (in the US) have yet to have an instance of a president refuse to give up his power after losing an election, and subsequently killing protesters in the streets.

lol everything is predetermined in the U.S.

 

Why did George W's brother fix the Florida campaign?

 

And nobody was killed in Iran. I'm not understanding where you're trying to get at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

There are protests in every country. I don't understand why when there is a protest in Iran, the leader is told to step down. when millions protested in 2003 and the occupy protests happened, the American president was not told to step down by armchair protectors of democracy like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

True, there are protests in every country.  The occupy protestors were primarily complaining because they wanted the government to forgive their student loans for useless degrees like art history, and they wanted all kinds of other stuff for free.  But regardless, I'd say the protests in Iran were very interesting because not only were they quelled with an iron fist, leaving many dead and many more injured, but I don't think the voting irregularities were ever addressed.  Were they?  I mean I think the Guardian Council itself said there were more votes cast than eligible voters in multiple areas.  What's up with that?

 

In all fairness though, I do believe Ahmadenijad won, or would have won regardless of whether or not there was any rigging of the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

True, there are protests in every country.  The occupy protestors were primarily complaining because they wanted the government to forgive their student loans for useless degrees like art history, and they wanted all kinds of other stuff for free.  But regardless, I'd say the protests in Iran were very interesting because not only were they quelled with an iron fist, leaving many dead and many more injured, but I don't think the voting irregularities were ever addressed.  Were they?  I mean I think the Guardian Council itself said there were more votes cast than eligible voters in multiple areas.  What's up with that?

 

In all fairness though, I do believe Ahmadenijad won, or would have won regardless of whether or not there was any rigging of the election.

Occupy protests didn't occur because students were getting "useless" degrees such as Art history. There were many young protesters who had degrees in fields such as Computer Science, Psychology, and Engineering. The occupy protesters were also forced out of their tents, most of them were arrested, but with all the outsourcing happening, it is hard to find a job. This widens the economic gap. The 1% acually benefitted from the 2008 crisis while the 99% were worse off

Edited by Abu_Muslim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there wasn't a case to begin with, to be 'addressed'. 

 

You can vote in any region you like in Iran, and so some regions reporting more voters than their populations and others reporting lower is very normal. 

 

If Ahmadinejad would have won in any case, why would they rig the election? You're not making sense. 

 

(it's as if coldcow and Abu_Muslim have exchanged their opinions... I seem to only agree with the latter (except on Syria) and only disagree with coldcow lately for some reason) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

 

If Ahmadinejad would have won in any case, why would they rig the election? You're not making sense. 

 

 

They didn't know that going into the election.  

 

I also wasn't aware that you could vote wherever you wanted to.  Nevertheless, I think it was very poorly handled by the Irani government.

Occupy protests didn't occur because students were getting "useless" degrees such as Art history. There were many young protesters who had degrees in fields such as Computer Science, Psychology, and Engineering. The occupy protesters were also forced out of their tents, most of them were arrested, but with all the outsourcing happening, it is hard to find a job. This widens the economic gap. The 1% acually benefitted from the 2008 crisis while the 99% were worse off

They claimed they didn't have jobs and were in debt up to their ears, yet they had $2,000 laptops and $500 iphones they were using to blog everything while they were there.  Then they frequented local stores to use the bathroom but didn't buy anything.  And instead of finding some a manual labor or minimum wage job, or joining something like Teach for America or the Peace Corps, they decided to be lazy bums and camp out in places where it was illegal to camp.  Case and point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc

 

I'm totally in favor of organized and peaceful protests, but when people are stupid, they deserve what they get.

For example, I was initially outraged by this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4

 

But this video allows me to see the whole thing and cracks me up and makes me realize the protesters got what they deserved:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y

And yes, I do realize on the one hand I'm condoning violence by the police against protesters yet condemning it on the other.  But just watch the videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't know that going into the election.  

 

I also wasn't aware that you could vote wherever you wanted to.  Nevertheless, I think it was very poorly handled by the Irani government.

 

The allegations are addressed in depth here for reference: http://brill-law.com/iran-2009-election---100710.html%C2'>

 

The election results turned out virtually the same split between Ahmadinejad and Musawi as polls of Iranians showed beforehand, there's hardly any gap to claim there was any rigging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

There's no evidence who shot Neda Agha Soltan. Posting a random link without any empirical evidence amounts to nothing.

Ok, she and the 30 others that died were killed by the protesters then.

 

Eitherway, I found more videos that make me laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWfGKt0aZLI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhvPFanEvGo

 

And weren't you the one posting that George Bush's brother fixed the election in Flrodia without providing evidence?  I guess evidence only matters when someone is making accusation against your points, huh?

Edited by coldcow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Ok, she and the 30 others that died were killed by the protesters then.

 

Eitherway, I found more videos that make me laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWfGKt0aZLI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhvPFanEvGo

 

And weren't you the one posting that George Bush's brother fixed the election in Flrodia without providing evidence?  I guess evidence only matters when someone is making accusation against your points, huh?

Laugh at this. The camera angle, timing, and video shot was immaculate. We don't even have such technology nor qualified photographers as the one in that particular video. Cousin of mine knows some big guys in the photography field working for IRIB, PressTV, and even they couldn't pull off anything close to that effort.  That kind of shot is noteworthy of an international prize. Why is it that the photographer has refused to identify himself?

Edited by ShiaBen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The allegations are addressed in depth here for reference:

 

The election results turned out virtually the same split between Ahmadinejad and Musawi as polls of Iranians showed beforehand, there's hardly any gap to claim there was any rigging. 

Ok, I'll give y'all the benefit of the doubt on the elections not being rigged in any way.  May main reason in coming here was to argue what the OP said in that Irani democracy is superior to US/UK.  I won't concede that point.  As stated above anyone can enter public office, even idiots in our society (as evidenced by this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q).  We don't have any Guardian Council that filters the potential candidates. 

Laugh at this. The camera angle, timing, and video shot was immaculate. We don't even have such technology nor qualified photographers as the one in that particular video. Cousin of mine knows some big guys in the photography field working for IRIB, PressTV, and even they couldn't pull off anything close to that effort.  That kind of shot is noteworthy of an international prize. Why is it that the photographer has refused to identify himself?

I'm sure the government would love to know who uploaded that fake video for the world to see and make it appear as though they killed her.  But like I said she and the 30+ other folks were killed by other protestors.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American lobbies are their guardian council.

 

Even Ron Paul with all the grassroots support (and even after using the platform of one of the two parties; running third-party or independent is utterly useless) couldn't manage to get the nomination. No honest politician can run unless there's a revolution. You need several million dollars for a basic campaign, the kind of money only unlimited bribes ('campaign contributions') from large organizations can get you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Once Kennedy was assassinated and once Carter "betrayed" U.S. imperialists interests, the small opportunity for an open-minded politician to come to power has been rendered obsolete and the very thought of it is extinct as such individuals will have to think twice about running, Ron Paul is an excellent example of just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

686 people were submitted and only 6 were allowed to run by the Guardian Council.  That sounds a lot like a few elites deciding who can run.

 

According to Iran’s constitution the president must be from among religious and political personalities possessing certain other qualifications relating to competence.  These criteria are enshrined in Article 114 of the constitution which Iranians have themselves endorsed by 98.2%. Consequentially, it is the people who vet the candidates via the mechanism of the Guardian Council.  

 

 

 

At least in the US anyone can get on the ballot if you have a few hundred dollars or a few thousand signatures.

 

I’m sure you realise there’s much more to the process but perhaps you're lazy to think about it. Not “anyone” can become a presidential candidate that is unless they are “favoured” by their party; it’s a cutthroat and dog-eat dog “journey”. In Iran the only obstacle is Article 114 of the constitution which essentially stipulates ‘traits’ and ‘competences’.   

 

Furthermore, you can only compete with the backing of billions of dollars of campaign money. As Prof. Mohammed Mirandi says there is no ‘democracy of information’ and in the recent US elections Ron Paul was ignored by the media. Contrast this with Iranian elections where each of the 8 candidates was given equal and substantial media converge – free of charge. That is, you don’t have to have a dime to be president in Iran!

 

 

Plus, your average Joe isn't going to become president overnight. You usually start out representing your local district in your state's congress, then move to the national congress, and by then you've established a name for yourself and can start fundraising to the nation at large with your message.

 

Many of the electoral processes in the west are flawed in that the head of state is not elected by direct popular vote. Yes that's right. But I wonder how many people actually realise that?

 

For an example let’s take the US as a case study. It is no secret that the US president cannot be elected by popular vote. He must be approved by a group of electors known as the ‘Electoral College’. There are a myriad of flaws associated with the latter, foremost of which is the fact that voting power is unequal and depends on where you live! This means that there is no such thing as one-man one-vote in the world’s “greatest” democracy! You should find out more: http://www.fairvote.org/problems-with-the-electoral-college/

 

The flaws of US democracy were glaring and controversial when in 2000 the vice president Al Gore, who although had more national votes, lost to George Bush because he was favoured by the Electoral College. In some European countries the head of state is elected by parliament rather than popular vote.

 

Contrast this with Iran’s electoral process which is based on the constitution in which the people elect the president directly.

 

 

 

Let's not forget the fact that we (in the US) have yet to have an instance of a president refuse to give up his power after losing an election, and subsequently killing protesters in the streets.

 

Refer to the case of Al Gore mentioned above. If we define democracy as one man one vote then George Bush effectively refused to hand over power to the real winner by popular vote – Al Gore.

 

You assertion that Ahmadinejad lost the 2009 election is ridiculous and was never actually proven. No credible poll ever showed Mousavi to be ahead of Ahmadinejad, even if Mousavi claimed to have "information" that he won even before the actual voting occurred! This is while I can give you details of 6 independent western polls which showed that the incumbent president was generally ahead on a 2:1 basis.

 

While there was regrettable violence between police and protesters there is no credible proof to my knowledge for some of the claims, especially those about Neda’s death.

Edited by MajiC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

According to Iran’s constitution the president must be from among religious and political personalities possessing certain other qualifications relating to competence.  These criteria are enshrined in Article 114 of the constitution which Iranians have themselves endorsed by 98.2%. Consequentially, it is the people who vet the candidates via the mechanism of the Guardian Council.  

Democracy doesn't work that way. You can't say "Well, since the constitution allows the Shah/Sultan/Guardian Council to select a few candidates for the President/Prime minister of Iran then that's a democracy because the people accepted the constitution/sultan 30/50 years ago".

 

The Guardian Council is actually a form of tyranny and is completely opposite to the whole concept of democracy because voting by 12 men should/can never be a replacement for 50 millions Iranian votes.

Edited by Gypsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democracy doesn't work that way. You can't say "Well, since the constitution allows the Shah/Sultan/Guardian Council to select a few candidates for the President/Prime minister of Iran then that's a democracy because the people accepted the constitution/sultan 30/50 years ago".

 

The Guardian Council is actually a form of tyranny and is completely opposite to the whole concept of democracy because voting by 12 men should/can never be a replacement for 50 millions Iranian votes.

 

You have to remember that Iran is an Islamic democracy. It is not just a democracy or just a theocracy. It allows democracy within the confines of Islam.

 

It is clearly designed to prevent 'tyranny of the majority' that other democracies suffer from (meaning that if the majority of a country decide that modest clothing of minorities should be banned, or that pedophilia should be allowed, or people of a certain race cannot use the roads that the rest of the country can, in simple democracies these unjust rules would proceed to become law and be implemented). The Islamic part of the Iranian government can intervene before such scandalous laws are implemented, and keep the country safe from the shifting morals of any particular time or generation. 

 

Democracies have constitutions that define the law, and once the people accept the constitution there's no requirement that you should go back to everyone every few years and check if they're still ok with the constitution. For instance, the same American constitution that was put to vote hundreds of years ago (in which women and black people didn't have a say) is still in place - they haven't recently removed the removed the constitution to replace it with something else. On the other hand, Iran's constitution is much newer, being approved by the Iranian people only 33 years ago and everyone got to vote on it. If any constitution is illegitimate, it's the American one approved by racist and sexist men only in the 1700s. 

 

Also, the guardian council is made of people who are elected by the people whom Iranians have elected. So it's actually a pretty democratic system, while still managing to preserve Islamic principles. Both the religious and non-religious part of the Iranian government is elected by the people. 

 

And finally, if you look into the rules from major democratic countries, they do have criteria based on which candidates are reviewed by a council or committee, and candidates can either be allowed or denied from running in the elections based on it. Having a set of criteria to filter candidates in itself is not undemocratic. The ones voting for the eligible candidates are the Iranian population, so the council is not actually replacing '50 million Iranian votes'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

You have to remember that Iran is an Islamic democracy. It is not just a democracy or just a theocracy. It allows democracy within the confines of Islam.

 

It is clearly designed to prevent 'tyranny of the majority' that other democracies suffer from (meaning that if the majority of a country decide that modest clothing of minorities should be banned, or that pedophilia should be allowed, or people of a certain race cannot use the roads that the rest of the country can, in simple democracies these unjust rules would proceed to become law and be implemented). The Islamic part of the Iranian government can intervene before such scandalous laws are implemented, and keep the country safe from the shifting morals of any particular time or generation. 

 

Most countries are not functioning democracies in the first place, and most do not suffer from 'tyranny of the majority' but tyranny of the minority.

 

 

Democracies have constitutions that define the law, and once the people accept the constitution there's no requirement that you should go back to everyone every few years and check if they're still ok with the constitution. For instance, the same American constitution that was put to vote hundreds of years ago (in which women and black people didn't have a say) is still in place - they haven't recently removed the removed the constitution to replace it with something else. On the other hand, Iran's constitution is much newer, being approved by the Iranian people only 33 years ago and everyone got to vote on it. If any constitution is illegitimate, it's the American one approved by racist and sexist men only in the 1700s. 

 

Constitutions can be helpful if that is what the people desire, but they have little to do with democracy. 

 

Also, the guardian council is made of people who are elected by the people whom Iranians have elected. So it's actually a pretty democratic system, while still managing to preserve Islamic principles. Both the religious and non-religious part of the Iranian government is elected by the people. 

 

How is it democratic?  Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the members of this council appointed by the supreme leader?  They can veto bills and disqualify candidates for presidency etc.  The assembly of experts and the presidents are voted in by the people, but again, the candidate list is virtually controlled by the guardian council.  That is like saying, 5 members in my family want to stand for elections, but you can only vote between the 3 of them I approve of, very democratic indeed.

 

And finally, if you look into the rules from major democratic countries, they do have criteria based on which candidates are reviewed by a council or committee, and candidates can either be allowed or denied from running in the elections based on it. Having a set of criteria to filter candidates in itself is not undemocratic. The ones voting for the eligible candidates are the Iranian population, so the council is not actually replacing '50 million Iranian votes'. 

 

It is undemocratic is the criteria is set by a handful of men with extensive powers.  In a democratic system the people themselves would determine who is eligible or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Most countries are not functioning democracies in the first place, and most do not suffer from 'tyranny of the majority' but tyranny of the minority.

 

2. Constitutions can be helpful if that is what the people desire, but they have little to do with democracy. 

 

3. How is it democratic?  Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the members of this council appointed by the supreme leader?  They can veto bills and disqualify candidates for presidency etc.  The assembly of experts and the presidents are voted in by the people, but again, the candidate list is virtually controlled by the guardian council.  That is like saying, 5 members in my family want to stand for elections, but you can only vote between the 3 of them I approve of, very democratic indeed.

 

4. It is undemocratic is the criteria is set by a handful of men with extensive powers.  In a democratic system the people themselves would determine who is eligible or not.

 

1. Yes, agreed, most countries are not democratic. 

 

2. Well it's the rule of law, versus rule of people. Wouldn't you say a characteristic of a democracy is written constitutions so that that nobody is above the law? 

 

3. Here's how: half of them are appointed by the Guide (that's a more accurate translation of 'Rahbar') who is in turn elected by people's representatives, and the other half is directly elected by the people's representatives. 

 

4. Umm, how would people select the eligible candidates out of all the applicants? Through another pre-election election? (for reference, in America one among the criteria for Presidential candidates is that you were born in America; are you against all such rules?) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

1. Yes, agreed, most countries are not democratic. 

 

2. Well it's the rule of law, versus rule of people. Wouldn't you say a characteristic of a democracy is written constitutions so that that nobody is above the law? 

 

3. Here's how: half of them are appointed by the Guide (that's a more accurate translation of 'Rahbar') who is in turn elected by people's representatives, and the other half is directly elected by the people's representatives. 

 

4. Umm, how would people select the eligible candidates out of all the applicants? Through another pre-election election? (for reference, in America one among the criteria for Presidential candidates is that you were born in America; are you against all such rules?) 

 

Law is ever evolving, through the democratic process, I do not see any reason why the constitution (whether there is a need for one in the first place) should not evolve overtime itself.

 

Rahbar is elected by the peoples representatives, I am assuming this is the assembly of experts? The assembly of experts themselves are elected through a council pre-approved list of candidates, so it all goes back to what I mentioned before, how is this democratic?

 

Yes I am against most such rules, what does being born in America have anything to do with ones ability to govern?  All kinds of candidates should be eligible to stand up for election, and the people will have the wisdom to determine who shall best represent them, American citizen or not.

Edited by Mutah_King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law is ever evolving, through the democratic process, I do not see any reason why the constitution (whether there is a need for one in the first place) should not evolve overtime itself.

 

Rahbar is elected by the peoples representatives, I am assuming this is the assembly of experts? The assembly of experts themselves are elected through a council pre-approved list of candidates, so it all goes back to what I mentioned before, how is this democratic?

 

Yes I am against most such rules, what does being born in America have anything to do with ones ability to govern?  All kinds of candidates should be eligible to stand up for election, and the people will have the wisdom to determine who shall best represent them, American citizen or not.

 

Well the countries known as 'democratic' follow similar practices as Iran - a constitution, elections, criteria for who can run, etc. Candidates are filtered in every country. Iran might not be a 100% perfect democracy but other countries have greater flaws.

 

Objectively, I think what makes the Iranian democracy superior to the US/UK systems is that the rules followed in Iran have the majority of the people's consent (unlike America where blacks and women didn't have a say, it was white men who made the rules). And that it was accepted by the people very recently, not hundreds of years ago. 

Edited by aliasghark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Well the countries known as 'democratic' follow similar practices as Iran - a constitution, elections, criteria for who can run, etc. Candidates are filtered in every country. Iran might not be a 100% perfect democracy but other countries have greater flaws.

 

Objectively, I think what makes the Iranian democracy superior to the US/UK systems is that the rules followed in Iran have the majority of the people's consent (unlike America where blacks and women didn't have a say, it was white men who made the rules). And that it was accepted by the people very recently, not hundreds of years ago. 

 

The criteria present in other countries is a bit more concrete and specific, when it comes to candidates for Iranian presidency or assembly of experts it seems a lot more subjective.  That is to say there is a lot higher potential for controversy and relatively more leverage for the guardian council when it comes to rejecting potential candidates.  In anycase, the American election is a farce and far from democratic, for all kinds of other reasons.  

 

Iranian system on paper might be more democratic than the American one in certain respects, the US is after all a plutocracy and not a democracy, but American democracy to the extent the society is democratic is because of developments and progress outside the formal political system.  Progress when it comes to civil rights legislation, women's rights, minority rights, freedom of speech etc has occurred as a result of public activism from below, this is also real democracy in action,  and the American society is far more democratic and free than Iran in certain crucial respects.  As far as formal politics is concerned, the US population is quite disenfranchised, and the US could learn a lot of lessons from countries like Brazil, Cuba, Iran and even Mexico.  As it remains, change almost always comes from outside formal political institutions, political systems generally are systematically designed as a counter balancing act to preserve elitist interests, not to represent the public interest.

 

I think there has been considerable debate in Iran about the kinds of authority and influence the guardian council has over Iranian affairs and its democratic legitimacy, I doubt it will remain as powerful as it has traditionally been as Iran moves forward.

Edited by Mutah_King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I agree with a lot of what you've said. About moving forward, I hope that people in Iran don't mistake copying America (and other such pseudo-democracies) with progress.

 

There may be plenty of things that America can teach Iran, and many things Iran can teach America, but in the end each country should be trying to do the right thing not whatever is convenient or fashionable. 

 

Because the Guardian Council helps protect the Islamic character of Iranian democracy, it would be sad to see it changed in any way. They are Judges and their job is to figure out who has violated the Islamic Republic's constitution and bar them from running. This kind of filter is good for democracies so that frauds (who have misled public opinion but don't stand scrutiny if brought to court) don't get the chance to be in power. If Iran was only a democracy without Islamic limits, the fatwa banning nuclear bombs for example wouldn't have had an effect and Iran would probably have tried to build one ages ago (and suffered the consequences, the country being bombed and/or further crippling sanctions from Israel/America and the west). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

This kind of filter is good for democracies so that frauds (who have misled public opinion but don't stand scrutiny if brought to court) don't get the chance to be in power. If Iran was only a democracy without Islamic limits, the fatwa banning nuclear bombs for example wouldn't have had an effect and Iran would probably have tried to build one ages ago (and suffered the consequences, the country being bombed and/or further crippling sanctions from Israel/America and the west). 

 

This is what the elite have always said though, that we need these filters (determined by and regulated by us, an elitist minority) to prevent the masses from self harm.  The American founding fathers and federalists, in fact leading liberals echoed similar sentiments, that you need a group of enlightened wise men, to guide the bewildered herd ( the masses of the population ) and prevent it from self harm, self harm really means tyranny of majority, which really means the powerful wouldn't be able to get away with the things they do.  Now whether this is the leading intellectuals in the west, clergy men in Argentina or Iran or military men in Pakistan, that's what it simply is, its a lack of faith in peoples ability to govern themselves, or of course, lets call it for what it really is, a lack of faith in people to remain passive and not challenge the privileged minority.

 

I don't think you can say with any certainty what position the Iranian people would have taken on the nuclear issue were they the principle decision maker on such issues.  This does not mean that you leave it out to some referendum tomorrow, I am referring to a democratic education and awareness.  If people are truly aware of the problems they are faced with, that is, they are allowed to educate themselves through democratic means, there is absolutely 0 evidence to suggests that their choices or policy would be detrimental as compared to when a handful of men are allowed to do it for them, common sense and history demonstrates the opposite.

 

With respects to the nuclear issue, Iran has every right to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and that is all it would have been, it wouldn't be obliterated just for possessing them, there is little evidence to suggest that Iran would be in a deeper hole economically speaking.  So you cannot say for certain whether pursuing nuclear weapons (If Iran is not doing so already) would have been a bad political strategy.  I personally doubt a fatwa has had a major influence on whether Iran pursues them or not, most people are of the opinion that Iran has seriously considered the weapons, if not pursued them already at a certain point, if they took fatwas all that seriously, they would not have even considered the option.

Edited by Mutah_King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what the elite have always said though, that we need these filters (determined by and regulated by us, an elitist minority) to prevent the masses from self harm.  The American founding fathers and federalists, in fact leading liberals echoed similar sentiments, that you need a group of enlightened wise men, to guide the bewildered herd ( the masses of the population ) and prevent it from self harm.  Now whether this is the leading intellectuals in the west, clergy men in Argentina or Iran, that's what it simply is, its a lack of faith in peoples ability to govern themselves.

 

I don't think you can say with any certainty what position the Iranian people would have taken on the nuclear issue where they the principle decision maker on such issues.  This does not mean that you leave it out to some referendum tomorrow, I am referring to a democratic education and awareness.  If people are truly aware of the problems they are faced with, that is, they are allowed to educate themselves through democratic means, there is absolutely 0 evidence to suggests that their choices or policy would be detrimental as compared to when a handful of men are allowed to do it for them, common sense and history demonstrates the opposite.

 

With respects to the nuclear issue, Iran has every right to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and that is all it would have been, it wouldn't be obliterated just for possessing them, there is little evidence to suggest that Iran would be in a deeper hole economically speaking.  So you cannot say for certain whether pursuing nuclear weapons (If Iran is not doing so already) would have been a bad political strategy.  I personally doubt a fatwa has had a major influence on whether Iran pursues them or not, most people are of the opinion that Iran has seriously considered the weapons, if not pursued them already at a certain point, if they took fatwas all that seriously, they would not have even considered the option.

 

Except that in Iran it's not a group of 'enlightened wise men', it's scholars the Iranian people have elected.

And so I don't see a lack of faith in people's ability to govern themselves. 

 

Every other country with the option has acquired nuclear weapons, why hasn't Iran? Apart from the guidance of the Islamic leadership in Iran, why else would Iran not go for it? 

On the one end you say Imam Khamenai has absolute power, and then you doubt his legal opinion has influence. 

Consider the fact that there's been no diversion (verified by IAEA) of nuclear raw materials towards weapons, yet all the sanctions so far just on suspicion -- do you honestly believe that had Iran tried to acquire a nuclear weapon, they would not taken the country apart? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...