Iran's Election Offers Voters the Full Range of Democratic Choices

[mowj]

This is precisely why participation is a good idea. Plus the given impetus that a low-turn out will play into the hands of those who do not want to see Iran develop into a democratic, independent state.

Although still a slight risk of disintegration is present and dangerous but I am not as worried as say 5-6 years ago due to political maturity and gradual formation of a united opposition front inside the country, as well as consequesnces of a turmoil people witnessed in Iraq. As Mr Sahabi once pointed out bad laws are better than lawlessness.
In this election people realy don't have good choice but relative choices between bad (maybe too harsh for Moin) and evil.
In absence of any, even semi decent pollings in Iran, if Dr Moin decides to run I say there will be a participation of 45%-50% and if he refuses it will be 35%-38%. (Note: political behavior of people is very unpredictable.)
I don't think low turn out will immediately throws the country into turmoil but the behavior of fundamentalist after a while will.
OTOH, a low turn out will send a shock wave to those factions of IRI still dreaming of a Puritan Islamic State and an Iron fist rule and will give an upper hand to the opposition hopefully in any potential bargaining.

The four militarists candidates, one way or another, are associated with the worse of IRI had to offer in term of financial corruptions to brutal abuse of power, from setting up parallel illegal security institutions, to employment of hooligans and thugs in form of plain cloth policement to attack disidents gathering or meetings, to kiddnapping, arrests, and murder of activists (cultural, political, economical), in another word, the well known notorious shadow government will come into open. However, this time they will try to change the laws to accomodate their goals.
That is, a militarist president will write the bills, a militarist Majlis will pass the bills, a rubber stamp GC will approve the bills and a military/police state will implement those laws.
That is why Rafsanjani entered the race and again in a relative comparison, Rafsanjani will probably be a better choice than the other 4, considering Karubi has almost no chance of winning.
Anyway, all the afformentioned scenarios are only set backs to democratic movement.
Thanks to people's drive and insipiration for a democratic state, and Khatami's political mannerism and vision over the last 8 years, the refrom owning its existance to people will go on at a paste probably not as fast as people desire but it will and overall I am optimistic of not very distant future.

 

[Simply Ken]

It is simple minded to think that such thieves, murderers like qalibaf and
rafsanjani are the only choices we have.

Can you name one figure, outside of Iran, who has broad popularity within Iran? Heck, one figure who has broad popularity outside of Iran?

The one figure that emerged since Khomeini that the majority of Iranians rallied behind was Khatami. Since then, Khatami's popularity regretably has declined among his core constituency, although I have no doubt that Khatami is still the single most popular Iranian political figure in or out of the country.

Many of the figures that arise from this regime and within Iran aren't the kind I like, although Khatami was someone I wholeheartedly endorced. But to imagine that my taste in political figures is going to correspond to tastes of the majority of Iranians nationwide is itself unreasonable. Iran is a country where fully half the population was literally illiterate at the time of the revolution. The other half included a large mass who were barely educated and mostly traditional, and then a relatively small number (at most 10% of the population) that was middle class. Even among this middle class, backgrounds and political and social attitudes differed widely. In this group, at the time of the revolution, ideologically the two dominant groups were those of the left or those that were Islamists -- followers of Dr. Shariati, as well as of religious figures like Khomeini.

Iran has changed a lot since then, but as with Iran at that time, the view of Westernized, secularized, Iranians about their country is still skewed. The same way you can live all your life in "Los Angeles" and have very little contact about what people think or do in East LA or South Central LA, or live in San Fransisco and imagine that the entire country hates Bush, Iran also has major differences and its own "red or blue" regions.

As an aside, in the first presidential elections in IRI, the kind of figure that might have appeared nationalistic, secular, yet democratic, like Admiral Madani, did carry a good number of voters among the secular middle class in Iran. Yet, at the end, their entire numbers weren't consequential, as most of Iran voted for whoever they though Khomeini favored. Similarly, in later elections, figures like Dr. Ibrahim Yazdi were still allowed to and did compete for presidency, and yet lost to some of the same type of figures you dismiss as "murders and thieves".

Why not let every person who wants to run , talk freely against the shortcomings, against the lack of press freedom, against the lack of free
speech. Then we have a choice.

This is just justifying the regime.

Iran is not a democracy, certainly not a Western style democracy, and it will not become a democracy until a majority prefer that system. In fact, the first political figure in Iran to win nationwide acclaim on something of a democratic platform was Khatami. Even Dr. Mossadegh's popularity was based on the "oil nationalization" issue, and (outside the small secular groups) plummeted when he lost the support of the religious establishment while also battling the royalists. Besides, Dr. Mossadegh was not -- strictly speaking -- someone had been elected by the people. In a system that was geared to favor certain elites, Dr. Mossadegh was the person who because of oil nationalization became the hero of most Iranians, and remained seen in that positive light among democratic forces in the country. In this regard, there is no comparison between the popularity and following of someone like Khomeini during the revolution, and the following of someone like Dr. Mossadegh. That is true even though you might find Dr. Mossadegh a much better choice, and someone who would represent you much more than Khomeini.

The issue for Iranians who want Iran to become democratic, and to make sure they don't lose their country in the process, is how to get from point A to point B without getting lost into an entirely unrelated path! The answer to that question cannot start with fooling ourselves and believing propaganda while ignoring the hard facts about Iran!

 

[Old-Faraz]

Mowj:
Did you know Mr. Sahabi? If so, the father or the son?

 

[kambujiyeh]

I nominate this thread as the Joke of the Year. Thanks Simply Ken I needed that laughter.

Maybe Iran is the true bastin of Democracy

Pass me some of that good stuff too budd.

Thanks,

Javeed Iran

 

[mowj]

Old-Faraz, I don't know them (Yadollah, the father or Ezatollah, the son) in sense of meeting them but I know them specially Ezatollah Sahabi fairly good due to their writings and activities and I have very high respect for them (Bazargan included) . IMHO, they and other intelectuals of their kind were jewles of experience that that the country could benefit far far more than we have. But, we are slowly getting there.

Do you know them? Any memories!

 

[payan]

Simply ken ,please ,our long time friend ,I can't believe it what I read it ,one more time take a good look at those guys who want to be the president of Iran .
honestly ,don't you think they should be in prison ,their real place ,not just because of their involonement in death of so many Ianian people ,but also for destroying completley our infrastracutre ,we are far from Iran is all about .
those guys are all criminal .
seriously you are playing with fire .
this is not about America or this and that ,right now Russians have control on IRI'destiny ,AS long as Americans are busy in iraq and afghanestan .

 

[Simply Ken]

Simply ken ,please ,our long time friend ,I can't believe it what I read it ,one more time take a good look those guys who want to be the president of Ian .
honestly ,don't you think they should be in pirison ,their real place ,not just because their involonement of death of so many Ianian people ,but also for destroying completley our infrrastracutre ,we are far from Iran is all about .
those guys are all criminal .
seriously you are playing with fire .
this is not about America or this and that ,right now Russians have control on IRI'destiny ,AS long as Americans are busy in iraq and afghanestan .

I believe that the best path for real change in Iran is the one I have outlined. That is my genuine belief. Many, if not most, of us want basically the same things for our country. We just differ on how to get there, the same way we differ in our understanding of why we are where we are.

 

[Old-Faraz]

Old-Faraz, I don't know them (Yadollah, the father or Ezatollah, the son) in sense of meeting them but I know them specially Ezatollah Sahabi fairly good due to their writings and activities and I have very high respect for them (Bazargan included) . IMHO, they and other intelectuals of their kind were jewles of experience that that the country could benefit far far more than we have. But, we are slowly getting there.

Do you know them? Any memories!

Yes, I had met both the father and the son. I was a child at the time and went to a school which was headed by the father, Dr. Yadollah Sahabi. He was also our geography/geology teacher, so I had more interactions with him. I met his son only a couple of times in the school setting when he would join in for lunch.

I did return to see Yadollah about 20 years later, around 1993 to pay my respects as a former student. I went to see him at his office. He was 90 something years old. A couple of years before I saw him again, he had been beaten up by some Hezbi thugs for some speeches he had made. Partly as a result of that incident, he had lost his vision in one eye. Although he could afford it, he had not gone abroad to have it examined. I asked him why and he said: "I went 90 years with two eyes, there is no harm is going the last 10 years or so with one eye".

Although he was a deeply (and privately) a religious man, he was an individual of impeccable character and integrity. He donated all his wealth to start different schools, all of them boys schools. I understand from friends that one of his last wishes was to start a school for girls while he was alive, but could not do it due to various issues. He has willed that part of his estate to be used for establishment of a girl's school.

I also met Bazargan once. All I remember was that he was a kind and knowledgable old man. Although I always felt uneasy about the revolution and its overtly religious nature, I was heartened that Bazargan and his circle had prominent roles in the first government. Of course we know what happened later.

 

[PouyaFatemi]

Simply Ken,

I usually enjoy reading your messages and consider them some of the best observations on Iranian politics. However, I have to disagree with you on this one. A "blank vote" is only a technicality. The elections are not democratic when the GC filiters candidates. Based on your logic then, EVERY election is a democratic election, because no matter what the choices, people can always do blank votes!! Ofcourse you don't believe that's the case, or do you??!!


I'm also fairly positive that the "radical reformist" group you mentioned does not desire a complete separation of religion and state.

 

[payan]

Ken I have known you on line for ths many years , so I have no doubt in my mind that you are a true nationalist ,we have differences in football and politics which it is normal ,but sometime you take the extreme side in yor views .
I am sure right now some people get wrong idea about your political views .
that is all I am saying .
there is no hope from inside of regime in order to get Iran free .

 

[Simply Ken]

Simply Ken,

I usually enjoy reading your messages and consider them some of the best observations on Iranian politics.

I appreciate your generous comment. Thanks.

However, I have to disagree with you on this one. A "blank vote" is only a technicality. The elections are not democratic when the GC filiters candidates. Based on your logic then, EVERY election is a democratic election, because no matter what the choices, people can always do blank votes!! Of course you don't believe that's the case, or do you??!!

What I said is slightly different than what you are suggesting. Or perhaps I wasn't clear? '

So let me first restate what I have tried to argue in this thread: I believe Iran's electorate are given a rather full range of democratic choices to make in this election. In other words, that they can choose between a sufficiently diverse set of choices, with different ideological perspectives.

That, however, doesn't suggest that Iran's system is democratic, or that Iran is a democracy. For instance, the Guardians Council initially disqualified Moin (and Mehralizadeh). That would have been a substantial reduction in legitimate ideological perspectives that seek to participate within the system, making the choices too limited given the range of opinions that exist (again for those who wish to operate within the system). The fact that the Guardians Council's powers in this regard are broad and the institution is not one that can be made accountable to some democratic recourse, gives the system a glaring deficiency in democratic terms.

That deficiency notwithstanding, however, in this election all those who want to participate within the system are given a full range of choices, covering a range of tactics and opinions. A rather more diverse range than what you find in your typical election in the US.

So who is left out in having a way to express their viewpoint in this election? In terms of any substantial portion of the electorate, the only group left out are those who don't believe that the system can be reformed to become the kind of system they want, and/or those who don't want to wait that long anyway. This group, I have suggested, can still be heard by voting a blank ballot.

As for your question whether that choice of voting for a blank ballot makes every election "democratic", leaving aside the semantic point I addressed earlier in clarification of my remark, my answer is: Not necessarily. It depends on whether, first, the electorate as a whole is afforded the unfettered right to participate in the election? It depends whether that electorate is allowed to cast its ballot in secret? It also depends to what extent that electorate are allowed to organize a "blank ballot" campaign?

When I look at those questions in the context of this particular election in Iran, I believe the answer is yes: that there is a realistic option for the electorate to participate in the elections, to secretly cast a "blank ballot", and there are sufficient outlets to organize such a campaign. Both within the country, as well as given the numerous media outlets operating from outside.

Let me end by saying that IMO such a campaign would fail, even if its message was widely and effectively communicated to the public at large. That at most, it could gather 10-20% of the electorate to cast a "blank ballot". Why? Because the very fact of casting a ballot requires a commitment that is lacking among most of those who won't vote in the upcoming elections! Indeed, let me put it this way: to actually go through the trouble of voting requires a serious enough commitment, and to lower that commitment by encouraging apathy is much easier than to show the ability to have people say what you want them to say through their ballot!

 

[Simply Ken]

That message was already too long, and I still had another part! My apologies ...

I'm also fairly positive that the "radical reformist" group you mentioned does not desire a complete separation of religion and state.

If I said they desire a "complete" separation of religion and state, I misspoke. I meant they are opposed to giving clerics or any other "Islamic group" any veto or undemocratic power over the democratic process. Their ideological position, which is quite reasonable and democratic, is represented best through figures like Soroush, Ayatollah Koinha, and Aghajari.

As an aside, while I agree with them on most points, I believe there is another model that is sufficiently democratic (even in comparison to Western democractic models) that nonetheless retains a symbolic role for religion (and clerics) in affairs of the state. A role that in the process even strengthens the democratic process by giving a "reformed" institution of Velayat Faqih just enough power to enhance the system of checks and balances. Enough power to make sure a "democratically elected leader" does not usurp all power and become a president for life! There are additional advantages in the model I have in mind, including playing a role in offsetting any separatist tendencies, while actually hastening the Islamic Reformation many of these people desire and perhaps allowing for an "Islamic Rennaisance" in the process. And I am, btw, personally not religious but rather an agnostic!!

 

[Zir Taaghi]

So let me first restate what I have tried to argue in this thread: I believe Iran's electorate are given a rather full range of democratic choices to make in this election. In other words, that they can choose between a sufficiently diverse set of choices, with different ideological perspectives.

[font=&quot]what are you gonna do about the supreme leader ?! or the GC ?? or the hardliners who are holding the strong hold with their thugs in the streets, the Lebas Shakhsis ??

what's gonna happen to the corrupt majlis and the pre-set non-qualified illiterates who take the seats in order to act accordingly with their beloved leader ?

whoever the next president, he will be another Khaliband puppet with his threads in Khamenehei's hands ! rather hand... just one hand, almost forgot...one dirty hand ![/font]

 

[perspolis ny]

"I believe that the best path for real change in Iran is the one I have outlined."

simply ken, I believe that people should be given all the choices possible and what the people choose will be the best path for real change in Iran. But all choices should be on the table otherwise, there is no freedom to choose .

 

[Simply Ken]

simply ken, I believe that people should be given all the choices possible and what the people choose will be the best path for real change in Iran. But all choices should be on the table otherwise, there is no freedom to choose .

In a general sense, I believe that too. However, trying to be "literal" about it makes for anarchy and unworkable government.

Every system has to perforce "filter" some of the choices. Some do a better job in the mechanism they use to vet and filter these choices than others, making their system appear much more democratic. Others like Iran have a system that requires some changes.

That said, in this election, a rather full range of choices are on the table for the electorate. It is, however, unreasonable to suggest that an election in this system must include figures who are committed to NOT work within the system! More so if some of those figures have engaged in violent tactics and endorce unlawful methods of changing things. That position means that you are demanding that Iran should hold a direct referendum on its system every time some person asks for it!

You have to first earn the right to demand a referendum on a system by showing that at least a majority support your demand. But if the majority do not support that demand, or you have failed to prove it by the various mechanisms available, then I don't see how and why you can claim you have a democratic mandate for demanding a change in the system altogether!

There are a million things and more that need to be be changed and improved in Iran. Some imagine that the only way to improve those things is to work to overthrow this regime. I don't agree; not when I know that the regime has enough core supporters to make any such enterprise (even if it gained more support among the fence sitters) a mess to say the least.

I believe that Khatami's reforms, despite not being able to "fix" all those "million things", did succeed enough to now give us more ways to fix each of these things one by one, each of us concentrating and working in our own area of expertise. Now, those of us who really care about Iran should begin doing the hard work and start improving those things one by one. Each in our own area. Constitutional lawyers and political scientists working to improve Iran's legal and political system. Human rights lawyers working to improve the rights of the accused. Economists working to improve the economic policies of the state. Engineers and scientists working in their fields to improve things. Educators working in their field.

When all of us do our own part, things will improve in Iran. Looking for unrealistic short cuts and falling for foreign traps (unlike some of the "dayie jan napolean stories in the past, the foreign plots now are real and not good for Iran) is not the answer.

There are many problems in Iran. But if these reforms that Khatami initiated are established and become accepted even by the "hardliners", then I believe Iran will do fine.