Discussion on future of Free Iran

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#21
I think you are mixing 2 things. 1. The mullas and the way they have literally destroyed Iran. 2. Iranian culture (not only mulla culture) which is not ready for democracy yet.

In the case of number 2..... go back before the revolution to get rid of the mullah culture as you put it and see how things were. Iran and Iranians had it so much better under shah but it's not like they had a democracy. Shah was a dictator, his father was one, before him Qajars were dictators and go back all the way to 2500 years ago when Mullas didn't even exist. At a time when Rome was kind of democratic, Persia was ruled by dictators. As said, this is embedded in the Iranian culture. It has nothing to do with the mullas or the religion.

You say young people of Iran today are ready for it. I don't know what you base that on but as the example I told you before.....go to any Iranian forum with lots of young active members and see how tolerant they are against each other. Sorry dude but the young people are the children of their parents who themselves were the children of their own parents and every generation learn the culture of each other. Unfortunately it will take a very long time for Iranians to be able to live in a democracy.
By all accounts ancient Persia was among the most democratic societies even in comparison with today's world. Lest we forget, Cyrus the Great is considered the founder of human rights and his declaration displayed as a model at the United Nations. He had some of the most progressive ways of ruling and never practiced "Victor's justice", rather he freed the Jews, allowed people of various regions to practice their own religions, use their own language and so on. This should be a source of pride for Persians. Sadly Persia's fortunes changed with the Arab invasion and except for brief periods of prosperity it was under the attack of others. That is history, and we can learn from it.

The mullah culture that I mentioned (at its peak in Qajar era) was actually more pronounced during the Pahlavi dynasty as a suppressed desire of many who seemed to marvel at the notion of an "Islamic government". With the advent of the Islamic republic and the realization of that notion, most people have discovered the obsolescence of the idea and therefore the mullah culture is waning, especially in the young generation. However progress is a process and not an event. It will take many more years to completely rid the nation of superstition and dogma, but the process has certainly begun. In a way it could be said that in Pahlavi era, the kings were more progressive and wanted to force progress onto the nation, but elements of society were regressive. Now is the opposite, the Islamic republic is regressive and repressive, yet people have finally moved past the superstition and dogma of the mullahs and want freedom and progress. Once oppression and force are no more, this transformation that the society has made can be seen more clearly.
 

Sly

Football Legend
Oct 18, 2002
27,025
228
#22
By all accounts ancient Persia was among the most democratic societies even in comparison with today's world. Lest we forget, Cyrus the Great is considered the founder of human rights and his declaration displayed as a model at the United Nations. He had some of the most progressive ways of ruling and never practiced "Victor's justice", rather he freed the Jews, allowed people of various regions to practice their own religions, use their own language and so on. This should be a source of pride for Persians. Sadly Persia's fortunes changed with the Arab invasion and except for brief periods of prosperity it was under the attack of others. That is history, and we can learn from it.
That alone is not called democracy! That is people receiving freedom by their "leader". (Yes, we are all proud of that).

Right from wikipedia:
Democracy: in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.[2] Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".[3] Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy.

In a democracy people have the ability to control their leaders. The system kinda existed in ancient Greek cities and in the Roman republic (after they got rid of their system of having kings). That was not the case in Cyrus's time or in any other time in Persia.
 

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
1,316
227
#23
Guys I think you miss the fact that removal of Shah was because he was going rouge, trying to become more independent and call some shots.

There's no way we can have the independence you guys desire. We have oil and we're really a backward nation which for 40 years has not been exactly 'peace-seeking'. Keeping it together seem to be the primary task for the future.

It looks like the next phase is Sepah having the control and those guys revere Stalin or guys like Duterte. So yes your prayers are answered.
.
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#25
I think that may be true of the older generation, but the younger people, who ironically grew up behind the Islamic curtain and veil, are more open-minded and bold and will bring about change.

It can be said that in the past the regime of the late Shah was progressive, in spite of the heavily religious strata of society, and wanted to bring about progressive changes in accordance with modernity, yet it was resisted, at least in the atmosphere of the revolution, by the religious and left-leaning (Russia-favouring) groups. These factions colluded and brought the revolution. Later the revolution was coerced in the direction of Islamism - the largest faction - and to the detriment and destruction of other factions. Ironically that too became gradually influenced by Russia.

Today the atmosphere can be said to be the opposite of the time of the late Shah. The regime is heavily reactionary and reclusive, yet most cross sections of society are progressive, in favor of an open society and open to cooperating with the international community. It is the Islamic republic that through its multi-layered security apparatus and use of misinformation, discrimination, machinations, scheming and violence prolongs its grip on power. Any variation from its Islamic doctrine is not allowed and considered opposition to the "system" or nezam which is the rule of the supreme leader or velayat faghih.

As far as democracy, of course the rule of the people is great, but a Western model of "democracy" as a system has many of its own shortcomings and out of date itself. To some extent "people's governance" is an illusion, rather it is a limited choice set by loyal partisan members of a couple of parties, presented in a heavily biased atmosphere of propaganda and lobbying. This is not real democracy. A real democracy is when the atmosphere of election is free from electioneering and propaganda and partisan spins. After this facade of "free elections" comes the process whereby by definition the "opposition" is charged with nothing but to oppose, ridicule and undermine all efforts of the government with some contempt. There is little cooperation as a "majority" government gets to do what it wants with impunity and a "minority" government tries to do the same by colluding and scheming with other parties! How is this to the best interest of the people?

Now if there were truly open elections whereby normal working and honest elements of society, poets, doctors, artists, engineers, workers, housewives (for the lack of a better term), businessmen, and professionals were elected to a body that consulted with the grassroots on a regular basis to discover the truth on how to best serve their locality, state or country, that would be true democracy.
 

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
1,316
227
#26
Iranians are still nationalists: More than 70 percent still favor developing missiles and a nuclear capacity. Only 16 percent told the pollsters that “Iran’s political system needs to undergo fundamental change.” Yet far fewer support the regime’s foreign adventures. Forty-two percent say “the government should spend less money in places like Syria and Iraq.” A plurality say Iran should negotiate with other countries rather than try to become a regional hegemon. And though 75 percent say the nuclear deal has not improved living conditions, 55 percent still favor it.

Only a tiny number of Iranians — 8 percent, according to the new poll — get information from foreign radio broadcasts, but more than 60 percent depend on the Internet or apps such as Telegram. The United States could do a lot more to help people get around the regime’s attempts to block these channels.

Rather than pursue such strategies, Trump seems intent on voiding the nuclear deal by May.... If Trump kills it, expect some quiet celebrations in Tehran.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.1caf2904ed9f
 

Zob Ahan

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 4, 2005
15,956
317
#27
Iranians are still nationalists: More than 70 percent still favor developing missiles and a nuclear capacity. Only 16 percent told the pollsters that “Iran’s political system needs to undergo fundamental change.” Yet far fewer support the regime’s foreign adventures. Forty-two percent say “the government should spend less money in places like Syria and Iraq.” A plurality say Iran should negotiate with other countries rather than try to become a regional hegemon. And though 75 percent say the nuclear deal has not improved living conditions, 55 percent still favor it.

Only a tiny number of Iranians — 8 percent, according to the new poll — get information from foreign radio broadcasts, but more than 60 percent depend on the Internet or apps such as Telegram. The United States could do a lot more to help people get around the regime’s attempts to block these channels.

Rather than pursue such strategies, Trump seems intent on voiding the nuclear deal by May.... If Trump kills it, expect some quiet celebrations in Tehran.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.1caf2904ed9f
You are too naive if you believe in this "poll".
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#28
I wouldn't put much faith in the polls conducted or influenced by the Islamic regime. Firstly, they are pure fabrications much like their elections. Secondly, where there is no natural and free discourse, the thinking is not fully developed. The mullahs dictate to people what they should think about minorities in their own country, people that live among them, do you expect them to have a free and unbiased opinion on foreign relations based on facts?!!

People of Iran should know, as most seem to now judging by their slogans in the streets, is that unlike the previous regime that cared about its image and the prestige of the country, the Islamic republic only cares about its survival and they create any diversion, such as moderate versus conservatives, or the illusion of discussion and through their multi-layered security forces prolong their grip on power. It's like trying to wrestle with a pig, one ends up getting really dirty and the pig loves it! Any discourse and discussion with it legitimizes it, whereas a regime that oppresses and tortures its own citizens has lost all legitimacy.
 
Likes: TeamMeli

TeamMeli

Legionnaire
Feb 5, 2014
7,265
26
Las Vegas, NV
#29
@Meehandoost You are right do not put any faith into polls coming from countries like Iran or Russia I agree 100%

If it comes from a western country, you can trust the poll. In Russia and Iran, people LIE on those polls so the government doesn't zoom in on them. If the poll says more than 70% favor Iran developing ballistic missiles, cut that number in half.
 

Playboy

IPL Player
Oct 18, 2010
3,078
200
#30
according to today's wsj article general soleimani is rising in the
polls while president rouhani's support is seriously eroding.
also a majority want continued fight against isis and support
for iranian allies in syria. iranpoll.GIF
 

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
1,316
227
#31
You are too naive if you believe in this "poll".
LOL wouldn't trust it to the tee but it's something to fall back to. IR has US backing imo and things will not change so easily,.

What amazes me is that the US hasn't been willing to put pressure on IR at least to clean up their act in regards to human rights. Iranians are treated far less that animals. I bet come May it will be business as usual, Trump hart o poort mikoneh but enough to let some air out;.

see I don't fully accept the article but close enough; which figure are you exactly in doubt?
 

Zob Ahan

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 4, 2005
15,956
317
#32
LOL wouldn't trust it to the tee but it's something to fall back to. IR has US backing imo and things will not change so easily,.

What amazes me is that the US hasn't been willing to put pressure on IR at least to clean up their act in regards to human rights. Iranians are treated far less that animals. I bet come May it will be business as usual, Trump hart o poort mikoneh but enough to let some air out;.

see I don't fully accept the article but close enough; which figure are you exactly in doubt?



The whole thing. Even IR's poll that Rohani just put out was way better than this POS.
 

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
1,316
227
#33
Well it said 8% of Iranians get their news from non-Iranian sources. That sounds legit unless you have first hand news and data. Not a deal-breaker.
60% post nuclear agreement said (wishfully) economy is better.
now 60% say it worse and 70% said conditions are very bad. That sounds about right.
63% say regime to blame for this
70% still like developing missles and nukes. (make sense as majority of ppl listen to domestic news)
16% say fundumental changes needed. (this one I have issue with but look at the poll, based on 1000 ppl)
75/% say nukes havent 'improves lives.
A plurality say Iran should negotiate with other countries rather than try to become a regional hegemon.
65% have said twice in three years that Domestic economic mismanagement and corruption is the cause of economy's doom.

^^ these seem to be inline with the vibe.. here's the details of the poll.
http://www.cissm.umd.edu/sites/default/files/CISSM Jan 2018 Iran Results and Trend Tables - FINAL_0.pdf
Not a scientific poll but also not too far off based on 1000 individuals . YOu're easily writing it off, when you say 'the whole thing' it sounds a bit absurd looking at above details.
Look at Q102.. it's obvious most ppl are really wanting work and food to eat; Iranians may talk politics but it's mostly clueless shit; they just keeping track of corruptions but no intelligent conversation is really made/offered on daily basis. Am talking common Iranian.. bazari, middle class family man to lower class and small time street vendors.

Where's the link to Rohanis' poll? can you?

The whole thing. Even IR's poll that Rohani just put out was way better than this POS.
 
Last edited:

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#34
I have a stupid question to ask:
If you lived in Iran and some one contacted you for a survey on political and social issues, would you tell the truth?!!
 

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
1,316
227
#35
In my experience having stayed in Iran extensively in recent years poll is not way off.


I have a stupid question to ask:
If you lived in Iran and some one contacted you for a survey on political and social issues, would you tell the truth?!!
 

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
1,316
227
#36
اقدامات خشونت‌آمیز و بکار بردن سلاح از سوی ضابطین دادگستری و برخورد قهرآمیز و حمله به جمع دراویش و ضرب ‌و شتم شدید و توهین و فحاشی به آنها در حین بازداشت، انتساب اتهامات بی‌ پایه و اساس به دستگیرشدگان، بی‌ رحمی و رفتار قلدرمآبانه و شقاوت بیش از حد؛ هشدار و زنگ خطری‌ است برای دولتمردان کشور و جامعه درویشی.... برنامه‌ریزان امنیتی کشور باید به این نکته توجه نمایند که رفتارشان به‌گونه‌ ای نباشد که جامعه درویشی را از مشی صلح‌ طلبانه پشیمان نمایند و به اجبار آنها را وادار به واکنش‌هایی نمایند که با اصول اعتقادی آنها در تعارض است.... بر اساس آموزه‌های درویشی همه‌‌ درویشان از هرگونه تنش و ایجاد بحران در جامعه پرهیز می‌کنند اما این بدان معنا نیست که حقوق حقه‌ خود را نادیده بگیرند.


We all know peaceful methods specially in this case will not get us/them far. This thread turned into a wish list. To be realistic, what's gotta happen short term?

The next key step???
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#37
There can be little value in the polls of a country where the government rules by oppression, intimidation, discrimination and violence! Whether conducted by domestic agencies or foreign, people are simply too afraid to give real responses. Even in discussions on forums under anonymous names, people are reluctant to engage freely out of the fear of who the audience might be.

For nearly forty years the Islamic regime has oppressed its citizens, subjugated women, persecuted and murdered all minorities, censored media and sharing of information, stifled free discourse and discussion, attacked student and labour unions, imprisoned millions, and tortured, maimed or killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians. It has lost all its legitimacy and must come to an end. All its charades including the appearance of reform will only prolong its existence at the peril of the Iranian people and their progress. Realizing this fact is an important step so that people are not fooled by various shades of this regime including reformers, hardliners.

On a larger and longer scale however, people of Iran have been conditioned into normalization of deceit. Cheating another to get ahead has been considered being sharp! Mullahs have sanctioned this behaviour under their religious edicts of dissimulation (taqqiyeh). For centuries Iran, once a beacon a science and arts, where honor, truthfulness and upright character were the norm, has fallen into an abyss and its culture polluted and eroded. This is the real challenge: to rediscover our heritage and change this culture into something just, inclusive, accepting, and beautiful. This is not going to be an event, rather a process which brings about lasting change and progress.
 

Sly

Football Legend
Oct 18, 2002
27,025
228
#38
As far as democracy, of course the rule of the people is great, but a Western model of "democracy" as a system has many of its own shortcomings and out of date itself. To some extent "people's governance" is an illusion, rather it is a limited choice set by loyal partisan members of a couple of parties, presented in a heavily biased atmosphere of propaganda and lobbying. This is not real democracy. A real democracy is when the atmosphere of election is free from electioneering and propaganda and partisan spins. After this facade of "free elections" comes the process whereby by definition the "opposition" is charged with nothing but to oppose, ridicule and undermine all efforts of the government with some contempt. There is little cooperation as a "majority" government gets to do what it wants with impunity and a "minority" government tries to do the same by colluding and scheming with other parties! How is this to the best interest of the people?

Now if there were truly open elections whereby normal working and honest elements of society, poets, doctors, artists, engineers, workers, housewives (for the lack of a better term), businessmen, and professionals were elected to a body that consulted with the grassroots on a regular basis to discover the truth on how to best serve their locality, state or country, that would be true democracy.
Exactly. and if we go back to our earlier discussion, we Iranians can not handle western democracy, let alone true democracy. Historically it's not even in our culture. That's why most of us said before that we needed dictatorship. But a dictator doesn't necessarily mean a bad person. Cyrus the great was a dictator. We just need a good person / a good council who give the people their freedom but at the same time their words are law and everybody have to follow them. Otherwise Iran will be more ruined than already.
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#39
I have a slight correction. Instead of saying Iranians cannot handle a "Western" model of democracy, I would say that it has many shortcomings, one of which is the role of "opposition" which is basically to undermine and oppose anything the government wants to do. That creates disunity. Instead, a system that is secular and democratic in that all personal freedoms are upheld and everyone is free to run for office, at the same time somewhat combines elements of democracy as a system of government with elements of let's say autocracy (instead of dictatorship) in that decisions are not appealed and dragged out forever, rather carried out with due process. This form can be better accomplished under a constitutional monarchy I believe where the monarch is the defender of the nation but has no special powers. Would that be the essence of it? In either case, I would prefer direct election of the prime minister as well, instead of leader of a party. Frankly, the best would be a system of NO political parties and anyone can run for the parliament or prime minister. That way, their only allegiance is to the country and its people as opposed to a political party. I would also do away with a senate to keep the government smaller and free from the elites.

Regardless of the system, I believe one big obstacle to overcome, which is cultural, is to minimize idol-making of the king or the government. This is what corrupts.
 

Sly

Football Legend
Oct 18, 2002
27,025
228
#40
I have a slight correction. Instead of saying Iranians cannot handle a "Western" model of democracy, I would say that it has many shortcomings, one of which is the role of "opposition" which is basically to undermine and oppose anything the government wants to do. That creates disunity. Instead, a system that is secular and democratic in that all personal freedoms are upheld and everyone is free to run for office, at the same time somewhat combines elements of democracy as a system of government with elements of let's say autocracy (instead of dictatorship) in that decisions are not appealed and dragged out forever, rather carried out with due process. This form can be better accomplished under a constitutional monarchy I believe where the monarch is the defender of the nation but has no special powers. Would that be the essence of it? In either case, I would prefer direct election of the prime minister as well, instead of leader of a party. Frankly, the best would be a system of NO political parties and anyone can run for the parliament or prime minister. That way, their only allegiance is to the country and its people as opposed to a political party. I would also do away with a senate to keep the government smaller and free from the elites.
What you are suggesting here is more or less a western form of democracy (like in Sweden), with the exception that political parties are replaced with individuals. Unfortunately I need to stay firm on the statement that Iranians wont be able to carry out this form of government. The outcome will more or less become IR. IR was not suppose to be a dictatorship in the beginning either. It was supposed to be democratic. Khomeini himself said he wouldn't become a leader and no religious figure should take over the leadership. Look what happened a bit later. The flaws of the western democracy you are mentioning are exactly the same arguments IR officials talk about everywhere. You say now the people have changed and can have this form of government. I seriously doubt it because as said before, it's not in our culture. You can see the signs of it everywhere.

Regardless of the system, I believe one big obstacle to overcome, which is cultural, is to minimize idol-making of the king or the government. This is what corrupts.
You hit the nail on the head here. Don't you think we are not doing this now? We make idols or even gods out of everyone we like, let alone a king or a government. As a very small example, look at CQ fans vs. Karimi fans during the recent happenings. All our big stars are gods to their fans. Daei, Mahdavikia, etc. Now you can see fans of stars everywhere. But the extent in Iran is way waaaay over the top. :)
 
Last edited: