Iran's WMD - Still No Evidence?

[Oscar]

[QUOTE=Bigfella;522017]

The issue here is not the role of Sharia law, it is the role of the clergy. They dominate the Iranian political system in a manner that renders it undemocratic. There may be more diversity than Russia, but that is hardly a recommendation.

Well, it matters since Russia is a member, among other International organisations, of the Council of Europe which only allows democratic countries to join in.

Ultimately the mullahs & their allies are gatekeepers of the political system. The fact that some political figures with whom they disagree get elected hardly matters if they have the ability to limit the numbers of such candidates and their ability to affect change.

The real question is not 'do they allow some opposition?', the real question is 'do they allow the opposition to threaten their power?' Some dictatorships only show their fangs when there is actually a chance those in power will lose it. There are & have been plenty of dictatorships that permitted the existence of limited opposition. Didn't & doesn't make them democracies.

And what happens if we elect a nazi or stalinist president or Prime Minister in the West? Well, he will be forced to govern according to rules already set. Is it undemocratic?

(a brief list might include: Sth Korea during the cold war; Indonesia before the late 1990s; Serbia under Milosovic; Apartheid Sth Africa; Singapore; Republic of Vietnam 1955-75; The Phillippines under Marcos; Cambodia over the past decade; Thailand under various Generals post-1973; Zimbabwe; numerous Latin American dictatorships)

The problem with your examples is that none of these regimes in their time have ever allowed reformists to take the power, when there were elections. South Africa being possibly the exception.

Note: using your criteria Zimbabwe is more democratic than Iran, for whatever that is worth.

And Mugabe is a dictator and has always been, elections have been rigged since 80's in this country to get him re-elected, it's just that no one cared back then.

[astralis]

oscar,

I provided a link from the national interest, there was a liberal candidate in the last presidential election (Moin) and seven other candidates who had a chance to get elected. The second round was between a conservative and a centrist (rafsanjani) who went out first in the first round. If anything Iran is more democratic than Russia where the official candidate is handpicked by the Kremlin. Ahmadinedjad won because all the conservative bidders called for their voters to choose him. What is undemocratic in this? And again, Khatami was elected twice.

Massive Rejection of Reformists Candidates For Coming Elections (Iran Press Service)

Iran: Reformist, Fundamentalist Candidates Ruled Out Of Assembly Election

so let me see, reformist candidates get kicked out, there's voter intimidation to persuade people to vote for the remaining traditionalist candidate, gee, that's a real election right there.

being more democratic than russia is not exactly a high bar- russia isn't a democracy to begin with. elections alone don't make a democracy.

also, you haven't answered OoE's blunt question: what is the national command authority?

[JAD_333]

Iran is a religious democracy. An example of theocracy would be the catholic church or the UK of the renaissance period or the byzantine emperor...Iran is a democracy which has the Shariah as the main source of Laws such as we have the Enlightement and the corpus juris civilis as the main inspiration for us. Since the islamic conquest of the ME people have always been judged according to the laws of their religion. To realise it now seems a bit weird.

Iran is a religious democracy? Iran's system of government cannot be called a democracy because its acts can be annuled by a supreme religious body without due process or recourse. That is the definition of a theocracy. It's incorrect to label an overall system a democracy simply because its lower levels operate on democratic principles. The correct label for a system extends to its entire body.

BF hit it on the head.

[Oscar]

also, you haven't answered OoE's blunt question: what is the national command authority?

The closest thing approaching the national command authority is the supreme council for national security (art 176) which deals with military affairs and foreign policy and is presided by ....the Iranian president. Even if the supreme leader is the commander in chief (just like the Queen of GB) The president is directly responsible before the people for the policy of his governement and so executes it, with the approval of the Supreme leader. But the person responsible for, and therefore in charge of the domestic and foreign policy, is the president.

[astralis]

oscar,

you missed the most important point, which is:

with the approval of the Supreme leader.

which means any foreign policy of the president is necessarily controlled by the Supreme Leader, which is a non-democratic authority.

ironically that's a very valid criticism of those people who focus on a-jad: despite all the talk about destruction of israel, he's not the guy in control. any look at iran's foreign policy must focus upon what the Supreme Leader wants done.

[zraver]

Iran is a Theocracy with limited avenues for public participation. Such avenues may ultimately expand into something more concrete, but probably not without a fight. Comparisons with any modern democracy are pointless except to highlight how unlike them Iran is.

Iran's system of government is just under 30 years old. 30 years after our (USA) revolution only the landed white males could vote, a large minority was slave and the country was being ruled by the Virginia Regency and King Caucus. So while comparing Iran to a modern democracy will leave Iran looking the worst for wear, lets compare them against similar aged democratic histories. Iran embraced universal sufferage from the get go- we didn't, went from an effective religious conservative 1 voice system to one that has widely divergent view points on a great many issues. Yes the reactionaries will try and stop the clock, they do that here to. But the direction the Iranian political system is going is clear. They are certainly liberalizing faster than the CCP.

OoE, officially the NCA is the Supreme Leader, but in some areas at least it seems to be the Pasadran who is calling the shots. Much like Tojo and the Army using Hihrohito to rubber stamp thier policies. The SL and his clerics tend as a whole towards either conservative or reformist but not radical. They have 3 duties that tend to move away from radacalism 1- leadership/direction of the Shia world wide*, running Iran the country, and thier own economic interests. *Iran has the largest number of grand aytollhas in Shia Islam. Unlike the Sunni's Shia Islam is much more centralized. Not like the Catholic Church, but certainly similar to a baptist convention.

[S2]

Zraver Reply

"30 years after our (USA) revolution only the landed white males could vote, a large minority was slave and the country was being ruled by the Virginia Regency and King Caucus."

We evolved in the absence of any tangible examples leading us forward. Can this mullocracy say the same?

[zraver]

"30 years after our (USA) revolution only the landed white males could vote, a large minority was slave and the country was being ruled by the Virginia Regency and King Caucus."

We evolved in the absence of any tangible examples leading us forward. Can this mullocracy say the same?

Nope, and if they move as slow as we have then that would be a valid complaint. But they are moving faster, they started with universal suffrage after all. This is also their second attempt, we the great democracy crashed their first attempt.

Nor did we evolve in a vacuum, we had at our founding the wealth of some of the greatest political thinkers of, the examples of what Britain got right and wrong etc and will still botched it by giving the vote to only the tiniest minority.

[Parihaka]

So really, OoE's question could have two answers. National Command Authority could be and theoretically is the NCA, an unelected theocracy. Or, as Zraver and xerxes have said, it could in reality reside within the Pasdaran, an unelected ideological cadre with the largest best-equipped army and a finger in every economic pie.
Neither speaks to me of democracy.

[JAD_333]

Nope, and if they move as slow as we have then that would be a valid complaint. But they are moving faster, they started with universal suffrage after all. This is also their second attempt, we the great democracy crashed their first attempt.

Nor did we evolve in a vacuum, we had at our founding the wealth of some of the greatest political thinkers of, the examples of what Britain got right and wrong etc and will still botched it by giving the vote to only the tiniest minority.

What do you hope to prove by comparing US and Iran's post-founding approach to suffrage?

Are you saying Iran has a better system of government, a better constitution, more freedoms?

[zraver]

So really, OoE's question could have two answers. National Command Authority could be and theoretically is the NCA, an unelected theocracy. Or, as Zraver and xerxes have said, it could in reality reside within the Pasdaran, an unelected ideological cadre with the largest best-equipped army and a finger in every economic pie.
Neither speaks to me of democracy.

With the exception of appointment for life (which we do with justices but not the president) Iran's supreme leader is elected by those already elected. Not exactly unheard of in American politics. Washington, Jefferson, Adams etc were not selected as we do now. Nor were they or any president elected on a popular basis, but by a semi-secret group called electors who are in no way constitutionally bound to vote for anyone but whom they think is best. The Pasadran is another issue, and I see bloodletting in the future. But again we had our civil war to set our house in order. Lets not judge Iran's democracy by their short comings compared to our system when they are just out of the gate and we have a 200 year head start. Lets judge them by the progress they make, that is after all they claim being made for China- an avowed communist state.


JAD_333

What do you hope to prove by comparing US and Iran's post-founding approach to suffrage?

Are you saying Iran has a better system of government, a better constitution, more freedoms?

we originally granted sovereign franchise to the absolutely smallest most elite group we could. A group probably no bigger as a percentage of the population than Clerics are in Iran, yet we were still a democracy then. Our leaders were not chosen by the people then, they only got to pick their House of Representatives. Even senators were appointed, Justices still are- yet were were a democracy then. We even had political prisoners many times during our history- yet remained a democracy. Iran came out of the gate with universal suffrage for all adults irrespective of religion, color, or sex. That is not something we can say we did. There is a lot in common with the American democracy of 1809 and modern day Iran. What makes one a democracy and the other not? Arbitrary standards, if you applied the same set of standards to American then we didn't become a democracy until the civil rights act that finally allowed African American participation.

[Parihaka]

With the exception of appointment for life (which we do with justices but not the president)

Except Justices do not write legislation, they enact it. They are bureaucrats, not political leaders. They are no more relevant to the argument than is a sanitation worker.

Iran's supreme leader is elected by those already elected.

Who are not elected by popular choice, the vox populi.

Not exactly unheard of in American politics. Washington, Jefferson, Adams etc were not selected as we do now. Nor were they or any president elected on a popular basis, but by a semi-secret group called electors who are in no way constitutionally bound to vote for anyone but whom they think is best.

Firstly, America is not a Democracy it is a Republic, and secondly isolated aspects of that republic's historical record is not representative of the definition of a Democracy. Elected representatives in a free vote when virtually anyone can run for election, is.

The Pasadran is another issue, and I see bloodletting in the future.

I agree

But again we had our civil war to set our house in order. Lets not judge Iran's democracy by their short comings compared to our system when they are just out of the gate and we have a 200 year head start. Lets judge them by the progress they make, that is after all they claim being made for China- an avowed communist state.

They may well become a democracy, but they currently are not, which is the claim you and others are making.

[zraver]

Except Justices do not write legislation, they enact it. They are bureaucrats, not political leaders. They are no more relevant to the argument than is a sanitation worker.

Roe V Wade

Who are not elected by popular choice, the vox populi.

Half of them are, the council of Guardians is made of of 12 jurist: 6 religious clerics and 6 secular law experts. The 6 civil jurists are elected by the Majlis (Parliment) from those nominated by the head of the judicial power. Akin to having our Chief Justice send names to Congress rather than the President nominate them. The 6 religious jurist are selected by the Supreme Leader.

Firstly, America is not a Democracy it is a Republic,

Now your ducking and weaving, we both know that in the context of its use America is a democracy as the word is commonly understood. If US President after US President has called America a democracy then it stands to reason it is.

and secondly isolated aspects of that republic's historical record is not representative of the definition of a Democracy. Elected representatives in a free vote when virtually anyone can run for election, is.

And it only took us 2 and a 1/4 centuries to reach that point.

I agree

Iran's only hope when that day comes will be its people doing a Yeltsin in Moscow.

They may well become a democracy, but they currently are not, which is the claim you and others are making.

By any objective standard when compared to accepted democracies just as far along their path they are. You are concentrating on what they got wrong, not what they got right.

[zraver]

Did some checking, the assembly of experts has the final say over the supreme leader and is elected directly from a public vote. Although the candidates must be vetted by the Guardian Council and be experts in Islam, this is a law the assembly passed and is not a constitutional mandate. Reformers are trying to change it back so that anyone can run. The assembly is also the place to look for a new supreme leader when the old one is no longer in office if no obvious outside candidate is around.

At every level of Iran politics there is some one else double checking your work. While the ultimate legal code is Sharia and not common law or the Napoleonic Code etc it is just another legal tradition.

[Parihaka]

Did some checking, the assembly of experts has the final say over the supreme leader and is elected directly from a public vote. Although the candidates must be vetted by the Guardian Council and be experts in Islam, this is a law the assembly passed and is not a constitutional mandate. Reformers are trying to change it back so that anyone can run. The assembly is also the place to look for a new supreme leader when the old one is no longer in office if no obvious outside candidate is around.

At every level of Iran politics there is some one else double checking your work. While the ultimate legal code is Sharia and not common law or the Napoleonic Code etc it is just another legal tradition.

World

Iran reformists' protest continues

Monday, January 12, 2004 Posted: 2354 GMT ( 7:54 AM HKT)


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Dozens of Iranian legislators held a second day of protests in the halls of parliament Monday, walking out of a session and holding a sit-in to object to a hard-line commission's disqualification of moderate election candidates, according to the state-run news agency, IRNA.

A number of sitting members of parliament were included in the Guardian Council's ban on hundreds of candidates in the February 20 election -- all allied with moderate reformist President Mohammad Khatami, the agency said.

About 80 deputies from the 290-seat parliament joined the sit-in Monday, 10 more than began the protest on Sunday.

Reformers have made steady inroads in the Iranian electoral process since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, pledging to relax the hard-line ayatollahs' iron grip on Iranian society.

The head of parliament's national security and foreign policy commission, Mohsen Mirdamadi -- who was rejected by the council -- described the rejections as "a civilian coup d'etat," IRNA said.

"They have barred certain individuals in every electoral constituency in order to clear the way for their favorite candidates," he said. "By doing so, they have practically specified the make-up of the seventh parliament from now, and this is not an election, but a selection."

The U.S. State Department is siding with the protesters and calling on the Iranian government to reverse the commission's decision.

"We, as a matter of course, support free and fair elections in Iran," said State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli. "And we are therefore opposed to interference in the electoral process."

At the Haydarnia sports gym in Tehran -- where disqualified candidates were told they could appeal the council's ruling -- several banned candidates held a sit-in when the gym's doors remained locked and representatives of the Guardian Council failed to show.

The president's younger brother, Mohammad Reza Khatami -- head of the country's largest reform party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front -- was among the disqualified candidates.
Khatami speaks to journalists Sunday after a Cabinet meeting in Tehran.
Khatami speaks to journalists Sunday after a Cabinet meeting in Tehran.


"The reason for the rejections as well as any thing behind the scene is crystal clear to us," Khatami told reporters.

"The sit-in today is the beginning of a movement which will have more ramifications, and if the legitimate demands of the MPs (members of parliament) are not addressed, it will become more widespread and take up other dimensions," he said.

The president appealed for calm.

"Any action which may create tensions must be avoided and instead ways which help the protests bear fruit must be explored," President Mohammad Khatami said after a Cabinet session, but he said the electoral board's rejection of prominent figures "makes no sense."

"If the reason for their disqualification has been proved, (the board) must present evidence and reasons," he said.

Ereli said "decisions about who should govern a country are best made by the citizens of that nation through an open and transparent process.

"The options of the people in that regard shouldn't be limited by other institutions so as to prejudge the election or the outcome of an election," he said.

Although the Guardian Council has the power to ban candidates, Ereli noted that "there are measures within the government and within governmental processes for the government of Iran to invalidate those decisions."

Calling the government's handling of the electoral process "one of the fundamental measurements of its credibility," Ereli called on the Iranian government "to disavow attempts by the Guardian Council to shape the outcome of the February 20 parliamentary elections."

"It's important that the voice of the people be heard in Iran," he said.

Although the Guardian Council is selected by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the president said he believes the disqualifications contradict the ayatollah's view.

Pledging to follow "legal channels to deal with this issue," Khatami added that "we must always be worried about the public dissatisfaction and God willing, the Guardian Council will make amends."

Exactly how many of the 8,200 hopefuls for February's legislative elections have been barred remains unclear. However, initial results from several provinces carried by the official IRNA news agency indicated it was between 50 percent and 60 percent, Reuters reported.

Parliament members say about 900 of the 1,700 hopefuls for seats in Tehran have also been disqualified from running.

I hereby declare all members of the New Zealand National party as being ineligible to stand in the upcoming elections, whether currently sitting or potential members of Parliament on the grounds that they are
1: not Roman Catholic
2: If Roman Catholic, not publicly and privately fervent enough.