Iran - Foward to the Past?

mike65

So then the least likely candidate (for most observers) wins by a big margin as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeats Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Is this a return to full control by the clerics or might the new man be best placed to seperate the day to day running of Iran from the religious?

He won by appealing to the massed poor so they'll be expecting to see economic reform and if his words about creating a "modern, advanced and Islamic" Iran can be trusted he may well find to two former conditions can't be achived without ditching the latter at a formal state level.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4621249.stm

Mike.

murphaph

Hmmm,
Methinks the 'democracy' the western (including China and India!!) governmented fronted capitalists want to see in Iran is just more capitalism (trade) than exists at present. They are afraid of regimes that don't play the 'international' game because they can't control their citizens through average paying jobs and 300k mortgages round their necks.

It used to be communism, now that's been broken the only bastion of globalisation freedom is in some of the insular Islamic states and a few commies left over in North Korea.

I'm glad the Iranians got what they want. They want this guy who doesn't want to play the game? fine. Good for them-they're clever folks.

Give it 200 years and the ordinary plebs will start revolting again. The power brokers won't be able to balance the world's scales and it's all kick off with the ever improving communications we're witnessing.

mike65

murphaph wrote:

Hmmm,
Give it 200 years and the ordinary plebs will start revolting again. The power brokers won't be able to balance the world's scales and it's all kick off with the ever improving communications we're witnessing.

Funny you should mention that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4123788.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3677984.stm

Mike.

AmenToThat

What Iv found funny about some of the debate in recent days is that America has declared that the elections were a sham. But yet seem to think that the elections in Iraq were free and fair.
Its my opinion that neither were, then again most seem to think that the elections that first brought GWB to power werent fair either!
There have also been claims within some the American press core and on Capital Hill that large sections of the population boycotted the elections as a protest yet there was a 10% higher turnout than last years American presidential elections which were viewed as the most important in a generation.

mike65

The turn out was higher.

What did changed in Iran from the first round is the type of voter, many of the liberals/reformers went missing as they could'nt quite bring themselves to back Rafsanjani (who after all is hardly a progressive just the least worst option), while Ahmadinejad inspired those who normally don't bother voting.

Mike.

m1ke

Any election in Iran was purely superficial. Any future election there will also be a superficial sham as long as they remain a theocracy with a supreme leader along lines similar to the Vatican. People who identity elections in non-democratic countries such as Iran as providing a possibility of progress or a mode of peaceful reform have proven to be mistaken up until this point in time. In other words, non-democratic countries, from time to time, seem to the rest of the world that they're improving and reforming and slowly introducing democracy and eventually it gets to a point where everything is reversed. These systemic issues mean it is impossible for countries such as Iran to change without a) outside intervention b) 1789 like revolution. I'm fine with either one.

This pattern of liberalizing-returning to authoritarianism-liberalizing has been happening in many countries in the middle east for decades. This is really run-of-the-mill stuff, like the farcical elections in Saudi Arabia. The elections in Iraq were free and fair and judged to be so by the international community. Whether or not democracy will stand the test of time in Iraq is another question... of course circumstances can be improved to aid that transition but that is going off topic slightly.

Victor

I thought I had posted on this already.

---

What about the nearest theocracy to ourselves - the UK, when did they last have free elections to head of state?

Yes, Iran has a huge democratic deficit, however it is making at least some of the right noises, e.g. suggestions from on high that the religious police types shouldn't be so vigourous in their jobs and that police excesses shouldn't be tolerated.

Screwdriver

The whole of the islamic world is a mess but what do you expect when it's full of nutters!

Son_of_Belial

Screwdriver wrote:

The whole of the islamic world is a mess but what do you expect when it's full of nutters!

That's a bit of a generalisation. Have you ever been to the middle-East Screwdriver? They are in fact some of the most hospitable and generous people you could meet. That's tantamount to saying that all Irish people are violent terrorists in some form or another connected with the IRA or the INLA.

M1ke wrote:

Any election in Iran was purely superficial. Any future election there will also be a superficial sham as long as they remain a theocracy with a supreme leader along lines similar to the Vatican.

There are other forms of government you know other than democracy, that work just as well in theory. Even good old Democracy isn't infallible. That's what I hate about the mentality in the west. Everything has to be done our way or the high way. By such a high turnout the Iranians have shown that Ahmedinejad is their choice of premier. It never ceases to amaze me how quick people are to start hurling accusations of gerrymandering and corruption at a country just because that country elected someone they don't like. AmentoThat has hit the nail squarely on the head. To be honest I don't blame the Iranians for electing Ahmedinejad, if I was an Iranian I'd probably vote for him too. He's prepared to extend the middle finger of each hand to growing US Imperialism and I say more power to him. If they want to have a nuclear program, let them. I'm much more concerned about the thought of GWB with a nuclear arsenal (come on, he can't even pronounce the word!) then Ahmedinejad to be honest. The US don't like people who don't agree with them to have the capability to stand up to them. We don't see them yelling at India or Pakistan because they have nuclear ordnance now do we? Mark my words, I will not be at all surprised if Bush finds some excuse to invade Iran in the next couple of years once Iraq is stabilised. Iraq and Afghanistan would be the perfect lauching platforms for a large-scale invasion. The first step would be the demonising of the Iranian regime. In fact, a bilateral US-Israeli attack on Iran appears to be in the pipeline as the linked article pretty conclusively (for me) outlines. The countdown seems to have already begun.

Kare Bear

Im not surprised that Ahmadinejad won.The other more liberal guy was way out of touch with wat hes people would vote for.

gandalf

Screwdriver wrote:

The whole of the islamic world is a mess but what do you expect when it's full of nutters!

Well thats a really useful contribution, how about you take a break and learn how not to make generalisations.

A weeks ban.

Gurgle

Son_of_Belial wrote:

Even good old Democracy isn't infallible.

Its been proven statistically that 50% of all voters in any given democracy are of below average intelligence.

bonkey

Actually, 50% are below the mean intelligence, but there isn't that big a difference

Sand

There are other forms of government you know other than democracy, that work just as well in theory. Even good old Democracy isn't infallible. That's what I hate about the mentality in the west. Everything has to be done our way or the high way.

I really hate the mentality that were helping people in the middle east by wishing repressive regimes upon them. I really hate the mentality that liberal democracy isnt the best thing going - somehow the West must labour on under the evils of freedom of exspression, religion, private property, equality before the law, one man one vote and a whole raft of rights and laws to protect them. God what a terrible system. Arent we such heros to survive with it?

Arent the Iranians so lucky they have man in charge whose concerned with forcing every male employee of the state to grow a beard, banning David Beckham posters - I mean seriously, he and Ashcroft have got to join up and think up more pointless gestures in the kulturkampf - and arresting students who dare to actually demand democracy.

Have you actually listened to what the Iranian reformers are saying? Theyre appalled at this guy running the show. Freedoms you take for granted are under threat from this fanatic. Actually, its not even those freedoms, its the prospect of those freedoms being attained. Its the equivalent of the Pope running Ireland - Homesexuality criminalised, divorce banned, abortion viewed as murder, political representives taking orders from the Clerics....the 1950s in Ireland werent some golden paradise you know!

Western liberal democracy is actually the best system of government in the whole world. If you disagree, thats your right. Treasure it because you dont have that right under any other system of government in the world.

if I was an Iranian I'd probably vote for him too. He's prepared to extend the middle finger of each hand to growing US Imperialism and I say more power to him.

Ah see - when it comes down to it your support is not based on what you feel is best for Iran, or even what youd be willing to accept as a government yourself - nah, the freedoms of Iranians - as pathetic as they currently are - are merely casualties of the hatred for George Bush. A hatred so irrational that youll support a guy who makes Bush look like Danny the Red to express it.

m1ke

There are other forms of government you know other than democracy, that work just as well in theory. Even good old Democracy isn't infallible. That's what I hate about the mentality in the west. Everything has to be done our way or the high way.

This is also simply not true. There are many successful bureaucratic authoritarian states particularly in the far east. While they're definitely not ideal, no one can deny that they aren't successful in that they materially provide enough resources and adequate security for their citizens. Also they don't blame us for their problems but instead choose to do business with us and coexist peacefully and even work together. I'm willing to put aside my dislike of some political systems such as these in recognition that they have a different way of doing business to us, they're peaceful and have strong work ethics.

However, Iran are fair game for invasion, regime change etc... They've brought it on themselves by their aggressiveness, rhetoric and dangerous nuclear plans. I know it's attractive to support Iran as the underdog and paint the US as the oppressor. It's a natural inclination for many people to want to teach those who they think are in power, a lesson, or to simplify the situation to 'the bully GWB vs all these small poor states'. However, leadership in Iran brought this on themselves, it's not a matter of becoming the US's lap-dog... it's just a matter of them acting normally towards others. This means not threatening your neighbours with nuclear weapons, friendly dialogue, normal diplomatic relations, not repressing women, publically executing people, using the language of fire and brimstone to condemn us in the West who just want to cooperate not agitate.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

God what a terrible system. Arent we such heros to survive with it?

Indeed. Just as we are such heroes to decide that all other cultures would also fare just as well under such a system as our largely-similarly western ones do.

Western liberal democracy is actually the best system of government in the whole world.

For westerners and western culture. At least...thats as far as the available evidence would seem to show.

jc

Ancient1

mike65 wrote:

He won by appealing to the massed poor so they'll be expecting to see economic reform and if his words about creating a "modern, advanced and Islamic" Iran can be trusted he may well find to two former conditions can't be achived without ditching the latter at a formal state level.

He's inheriting a handful alright. Economic reform hasn't proven easy over the past 8 years or so and it'll be interesting to see if he can bring a fresh approach or if the mammoth task will put him off. It was after all promises of economic reform (yet again), rather than foreign policy overtures, that won him the election.

Good read here: http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=8208

mr_angry

bonkey wrote:

For westerners and western culture. At least...thats as far as the available evidence would seem to show.

jc

The available evidence would appear to show that alternative cultures at work within western civilisation also seem to flourish under this system of government. The Muslim population in the UK and Ireland seem to have very little problem practicing their faith and way of life, at least until they started being demonised by the US anyway.

Of course, I'm generalising here. There have been racist attacks on Muslims, and the odd mosque desecrated, but then again, there's been one or two Catholic churches desecrated in Ireland and yet we can generalise and say that Irish culture has flourished.

As far as I can see, while the population of any country remains largely poor and uneducated, there is very little chance of them challenging the mantra of their elders - in this case the mullahs and ayatollahs. Educating the people will require the government to start programs to do so which will require political willpower, and that will mean the people in charge will be effectively weakening their own position. I'm not one to preach any form of violence, but frankly, I think only a revolution will accomplish anything like this.

Victor

Sand, I imagine landing western style democracy in Iran would only make things worse, simply by handing power to the wrong kind of people.

Sand wrote:

Arent the Iranians so lucky they have man in charge whose concerned with forcing every male employee of the state to grow a beard

Are you sure you aren't mistaking them for their sworn enemy the Taliban?

Also, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4517119.stm

Von

Sand wrote:

I really hate the mentality that liberal democracy isnt the best thing going - somehow the West must labour on under the evils of freedom of exspression, religion, private property, equality before the law, one man one vote and a whole raft of rights and laws to protect them. God what a terrible system. Arent we such heros to survive with it?.

Sand wrote:

These guys are threats to civillisation- and need to be eliminated. If their rights are infringed to protect civillisation , I wont lose any sleep at night - posting about a terrorists rights being broken is pretty pointless cause I honestly dont care .

Sand on Gitmo.

Doesn't sound like very liberal or democratic to me.

Wibbs

Originally Posted by bonkey
Indeed. Just as we are such heroes to decide that all other cultures would also fare just as well under such a system as our largely-similarly western ones do.

Quote:
Western liberal democracy is actually the best system of government in the whole world.

For westerners and western culture. At least...thats as far as the available evidence would seem to show.

Forgive me if I have picked you up wrongly , but are you suggesting that these other cultures that you speak of don't want free democratic elections, sexual equality, access to the law, a free press, freedom of religion and thought and freedom to protest? All because of their culture and the fact that not westerners? Why not? That strikes me as rascist/culturalist in itself, as it suggests that these people in Iran and elsewhere are somehow inherently different to westerners. It's akin to saying "ah the poor Africans aren't very industrious, but sure isn't it their culture".

Originally Posted by Sand
If you disagree, thats your right. Treasure it because you dont have that right under any other system of government in the world.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Victor
Are you sure you aren't mistaking them for their sworn enemy the Taliban?

Possibly he is, but under Islam a man is required to sport a beard.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=9037&dgn=4

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4517119.stm

Yes fair play to him for standing up to the police. To be fair to Islam it is very specific how prisoners in general and especially other Muslims are to be treated. Sharia law is quite specific in this respect and torture is quite out of the question. In fact Islam in this was far ahead of Christianity and the west in the past. I would much rather have been a prisoner under Islam in the 12th century than stuck, rotting and tortured in a Christian jail.

That said it is now quite a ways behind what we would call a tolerant system, especially in regard to women's rights under law. EG a woman's testimony is lesser than a mans and of course the whole veil issue. So sadly this brave bloke's stance is held back in many respects by the very laws he upholds. His final words in that article point that out.

"Bad veiling will not be fixed by detention," he said.

"There are tens of civil ways to combat such corruption."

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Actually, 50% are below the mean intelligence, but there isn't that big a difference

Actually, just under 50% as there will be some who are of mean intelligence

Sand wrote:

Western liberal democracy is actually the best system of government in the whole world. If you disagree, thats your right. Treasure it because you dont have that right under any other system of government in the world.

That’s not exactly correct. Western liberal democracy does not actually give its citizens the right to reject it. We cannot actually ‘vote’ ourselves into a dictatorship for example - any move by one Western liberal democracy to break from democratic orthodoxy is generally met with hostility by other the Western liberal democracies (e.g. Austria) while happily ignoring the suspension of democratic rights if it protects the said democratic orthodoxy (e.g. Algeria in 1991). Indeed, in many countries some of the parties that even disagree with Western liberal democracy are illegal to begin with.

So no, we don’t really have the right you speak of. Only the illusion of that right.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote:

So no, we don’t really have the right you speak of. Only the illusion of that right.

Very fair point, but I think most would agree that as a political system western liberal democracy is by far the best of an imperfect lot. When a better alternative comes a long I for one will be all for it.

Edit. Now that I think of it a benign dictatorship with me in the driving seat holds some appeal. I'm off to design the uniforms now. Lots of gold braid and big hats obviously. I'll head on over to the fashion forum to finalise the details....

Gurgle

bonkey wrote:

Actually, 50% are below the mean intelligence, but there isn't that big a difference

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, just under 50% as there will be some who are of mean intelligence

Is IQ defined in integers ?

Sand

Indeed. Just as we are such heroes to decide that all other cultures would also fare just as well under such a system as our largely-similarly western ones do.

Ah, I didnt realise that some people arent entitled to the same rights as us. Theyre from the wrong culture. Now we just need to invent a philosophy to justify their lack of freedom - well call it respect for their culture of having a mullah approved culutre *imposed* on them by religious police. Yes, respect - thats what well call it. Much as I respect the SFIRAs right to break the legs of 14 year old kids in alleys. Normal policing standards and human rights arent culturally appropriate for SFIRA controlled estates and the 14 year old kids who live in them.

If the Iranian theocracy was such a reflection of Iranian culture then why does it need the secret police? The candidates approved by the clerics? What are they so afraid of?

To be honest Bonkey - that whole cultural argument is just cover for the local thugs oppressing the local victims. Because its all local its all okay.

Sand, I imagine landing western style democracy in Iran would only make things worse, simply by handing power to the wrong kind of people.

You misunderstand Victor - I dont propose holding an election tommorrow, and calling it democracy. Elections are populist, leading to the "tyranny of the majority". So it would be a disaster to give the populist nationalist xenophobic and reactionary forces in any unfree society democractic legitmacy. Bascially the stabilisers that keep democracy on the road, minimising the populist trampling of the minority need to be built first.

Are you sure you aren't mistaking them for their sworn enemy the Taliban?

Sadly no;

From the link

The mayor shut down fast-food restaurants and required male city employees to have beards and long sleeves.

And he took down an advertising campaign showing UK footballer David Beckham - the first Western celebrity used to promote a product in the country since Iran's 1979 revolution.

Doesn't sound like very liberal or democratic to me.

Liberal democracy is an exceptional system - it is not a natural state of events. Quite simply, as history has demonstrated with tragic consequences, anti-liberal forces represent a real threat to the freedoms we hold and liberal democracies are often unable to properly defend themselves from the threat they pose until it is far too late. Often the means of defending democracy and rule of law bend or even break the standards of the system. Like internment of the IRA in 1930s and 1940s Ireland. I view Gitmo in the same light as that internment. If anything Gitmo is far more progressive in that the rule of law remains paramount, as demonstrated by interventions of the US Supreme Court.

Western liberal democracy does not actually give its citizens the right to reject it. We cannot actually ‘vote’ ourselves into a dictatorship for example

European countries have voted themselves into dictatorships. If anything its a damn shame that the parties concerned werent simply locked up on a military base in Cuba and forgotten about and screw their rights.

Europeans continue to attempt to vote in subversive anti-liberal forces to this day. Le Pen nearly became the Prez of France last time around, let alone the whats occuring in Irish politics. If the resistance you mention of neighbouring liberal democracies to anti-liberal forces gaining power in other liberal democracies is a problem, I fail to see why.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Ah, I didnt realise that some people arent entitled to the same rights as us.

I haven't suggested that at all Sand.

You've flat-out said it, and defended it, with regards to the like of how our established free societies can occasionally change/bend/break the rules to remove freedoms from others as we see fit, but I've only suggested that democracy may not be the ideal for everyone.

Interestingly, after rubbishing my suggestion, you then go on to respond to Victor, explaining that democracy right now for everyone wouldn't work either. Which is a polite way of saying that some people shouldn't have democracy right now, as it wouldn't be the best thing for them.

Now we just need to invent a philosophy to justify their lack of freedom

I'd look at your response to Victor and your comments regarding the righteousness of Gitmo and suggest that you already have a philosophy to justify people's lack of freedom Sand. It just has to be the right lack of freedom.

jc

SkepticOne

Should Arabs have democracy?

Hobbes

SkepticOne wrote:

Should Arabs have democracy?

What does that have to do with Iran?

SkepticOne

Hobbes wrote:

What does that have to do with Iran?

Nothing. I got caught up with the discussion on democracy in general. Ignore.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

European countries have voted themselves into dictatorships.

Seventy-five odd years ago that may have been true, but it’s not now. I’m talking about what is true now, and frankly has been for quite a while, which is that we do not, for good or ill, have the right to question orthodox democracy.

If anything its a damn shame that the parties concerned werent simply locked up on a military base in Cuba and forgotten about and screw their rights.

An sentiment that illustrates my point, TBH.

If the resistance you mention of neighbouring liberal democracies to anti-liberal forces gaining power in other liberal democracies is a problem, I fail to see why.

If democracy cannot fundamentally change because to even suggest to do so is anti-democratic or unpatriotic what do you think will happen?

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

I haven't suggested that at all Sand.

You've flat-out said it, and defended it, with regards to the like of how our established free societies can occasionally change/bend/break the rules to remove freedoms from others as we see fit, but I've only suggested that democracy may not be the ideal for everyone.

Ok so maybe sand flat out said it and defended it, but at least he did defend his point. You may have only suggested that democracy may not be the ideal, but you have certainly not defended that viewpoint in any meaningful way. A further discussion on that would be welcome.

Interestingly, after rubbishing my suggestion, you then go on to respond to Victor, explaining that democracy right now for everyone wouldn't work either. Which is a polite way of saying that some people shouldn't have democracy right now, as it wouldn't be the best thing for them.

No I think he was suggesting that other safeguards would have to be in place before you could call it democracy. Independant police force judiciary and press, controls on armed forces, church and state separation and a constitution to name a few.

You have also not responded to sand's point that the new regime in Iran has more in common with the taliban(on religious grounds) than is comfortable. Both his and my links have backed that contention. The only link you provided was an admittedly brave Muslim cleric speaking out against torture in police custody. Sadly the same cleric supports policies and punishments against what he sees as "corruptions" such non compliance of veil wearing. If that's an example of a progression to a modern inclusive and tolerant state, it's a weak one.