Discussion on future of Free Iran

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#41
Well, Khomeini and other top clerics may have said many things, but many didn't believe them because of the way mullahs are and lying and cheating is in their DNA and way of thinking. Mullah culture promotes and thrives on "mob mentality". Seemingly intellectual people lose their reason and accountability when they listen to the incantations of the mullahs from the pulpit. And the problem has been in the perception of Islam by Muslims that may have viewed the clergy as the custodians of their religion. It appears that to large extent this is no longer the case. For the most part, most have either lost their faith in anything remotely divine as they associate it with the machinations of the mullahs, or have fallen away from Islam and secretly practice other religions; and the ones that still relate to Islam, likely don't with the mullahs. This is why it appears that the jig is up for them. The only thing that keeps them in power is their multi-layered security apparatus that has everyone spying on each other. As was the case in the recent uprising, once it begins to unravel, it will unravel rather quickly. After the Islamic republic fiasco, a secular government is a foregone conclusion. Which brings me to a question. How exactly is the form of governance in Scandinavian countries, can you elaborate and mention its strengths and shortcoming as far as you see?
 

Sly

Football Legend
Oct 18, 2002
27,102
264
#42
How exactly is the form of governance in Scandinavian countries, can you elaborate and mention its strengths and shortcoming as far as you see?
Well, I can answer for Sweden. Sweden has a king with no political power. He counts as the ceremonial head of state. He's there at the Nobel prize ceremonies, international royalty events, etc. The same with his family. but they are not involved in making decisions for the country in any form or way. Instead, Sweden has a parliament and a government with a prime minister. The prime minister is the political head of the state. For the government, there is an election every 3 years. There are parties who usually get most of the votes. The famous dominating ones are: Left party (far left), Environmental party, Social democrats, Center party, People's party, Moderates and Christ democrats (religious and far right). In recent years, a new party has been getting quite a lot of votes too and they are called Sweden democrats who are against immigration but kinda racists at the same time.

Among all these parties, the Social democrats and the Moderates are usually the most dominating ones. Which ever party gets most of the votes after each election, forms a government and usually the head of that party, elected by the members of that party, becomes prime minister.

In Sweden, the taxes are very high (30% of the salaries and after a certain amount of salary, it increases to 50%) which has it's advantages and drawbacks. The drawback is that not many people within this system (if any at all) can make their money to rise sky high, as you can in the US. The advantages are that as long as you have Swedish residence permit, you go to school and university for free, everyday you get free lunch at school, you have an extremely cheap healthcare no matter where you work or if you work at all. The sum of your and your wife's parental leave can go up to 1.5 year in total, extremely high standard of welfare and more. (you can already see it's a perfect system to be misused in Iran lol).

Sweden have big industries. From Volvo and SAB manufacturers to building advanced military airplanes and Medicine. In general the Swedish economy is extremely stable in their governing system. Even though the last international economical recession had it's effect on the Swedish economy too, it did not have a major effect on it. Sweden continues to be among the top 2, 3 countries in different international lists where economy, education, healthcare, welfare, etc. are studied.

Having said that, another setback for Sweden is huge amount of immigration. Not necessarily the immigration itself but the kind of the immigrants who are let in the country. There is no background check or point system where economy, education and/or skills of the immigrants are taken into consideration, like they do in Canada. The idea is humanitarian help. The poorer or the more war-torn you are, the more in need of a better life you are. That results in lots and lots of uneducated people from the bushes of their countries, coming into Sweden and consequently they have a very difficult time to adapt to the new culture/system. This whole thing has increased the votes for the party, Sweden democrats which let them into the parliament some years ago. Their numbers are not so high there so they are not really in the position of making decisions but still....

Anyways, what you need for this system to work, is huge amount of public responsibility and organization. and Swedes are extremely organized (almost like Germans). They are also very punctual (from individuals to the society, like buses, trains, etc.). Although it's very interesting that most of other Europeans I know think Swedes work much less than they do in their countries. They think Swedes are lazy. lol
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#43
Sly,

Thanks for taking the time to explain Sweden's system. It sounds interesting, especially about free and universal education and health care. The political system seems to be similar to England, or Canada (where the English royals are unfortunately theirs too!). I agree with what you say about abusing the system. I know many people do it in France too, particularly naturalized citizens. Ironically this kind of social welfare system is what Khomeini and his clan were selling to Iranians before and during the revolution...I digress, I think their deceit and lack of credibility has been firmly established!!

This may be a good system for Iran, with the king having ceremonial powers and sort of being separate and above politics as protector of the nation. He would have to go out of his way to ensure he is not made into an idol as has been customary. I personally like the idea of electing the prime minister directly, in addition to electing representatives to the Parliament. As I said before, no Senate which is usually too elitist anyway. In addition to this, important national issues should be by-partisan and decided upon through a referendum requiring higher majority than 50%+1 for change(say 60-70%). For instance changing the flag, national anthem, supreme court judges and so on would go under that category. In fact it would be best if elections could somehow be done without having any political parties. That way representatives represent their constituencies and all serve the well-being of the country as opposed to their parties. I also like a federated model of governance whereby provinces have autonomy in their region which can include their local customs, language and religion, but all must learn the national language and script as well. I also believe in a fair taxation system, one that is not so socialist that takes most of the income if one makes above a certain level. As you say initially there may be those that try to circumvent the system, but with time people will become more responsible citizens.
 

Sly

Football Legend
Oct 18, 2002
27,102
264
#44
Sly,

Thanks for taking the time to explain Sweden's system. It sounds interesting, especially about free and universal education and health care. The political system seems to be similar to England, or Canada (where the English royals are unfortunately theirs too!). I agree with what you say about abusing the system. I know many people do it in France too, particularly naturalized citizens. Ironically this kind of social welfare system is what Khomeini and his clan were selling to Iranians before and during the revolution...I digress, I think their deceit and lack of credibility has been firmly established!!

This may be a good system for Iran, with the king having ceremonial powers and sort of being separate and above politics as protector of the nation. He would have to go out of his way to ensure he is not made into an idol as has been customary. I personally like the idea of electing the prime minister directly, in addition to electing representatives to the Parliament. As I said before, no Senate which is usually too elitist anyway. In addition to this, important national issues should be by-partisan and decided upon through a referendum requiring higher majority than 50%+1 for change(say 60-70%). For instance changing the flag, national anthem, supreme court judges and so on would go under that category. In fact it would be best if elections could somehow be done without having any political parties. That way representatives represent their constituencies and all serve the well-being of the country as opposed to their parties. I also like a federated model of governance whereby provinces have autonomy in their region which can include their local customs, language and religion, but all must learn the national language and script as well. I also believe in a fair taxation system, one that is not so socialist that takes most of the income if one makes above a certain level. As you say initially there may be those that try to circumvent the system, but with time people will become more responsible citizens.
You are very welcome. Well, the royal family in Sweden is very much different to the English royal family at least. In England, everywhere you go, you see pictures of the Queen or prince Charles. In every public place, in every magazine, in every news paper, you get reminded of the royal family one way or another. You see their paintings or magnified pictures everywhere in London. It almost reminds you of shah in Iran before the revolution and now Khameneii.

In Sweden, it's just the other way around. You rarely see a single sign of the royal family in any public place or in any authority building. Only if major events happen, like the Nobel prize ceremony or a wedding of a royalty somewhere in Europe or live broadcast of Stockholm city in new years eve, you see the royal family here and there. There are magazines who follow them but if you are not interested in those magazines, you rarely see their pictures anywhere. In general the Swedes like their royal family, but they wouldn't escape having a discussion about whether they should suspend the whole royalty thing in Sweden or not.

This also reminds me to mention the prime minister's picture is nowhere to be found in any authority building or governmental building. Although he's more to be seen in the news than the royal family.

The point is, the Swedes see every individual in a similar way. In fact, if you are a doctor or a street worker, you wont be treated in a very different way in the society. You get the same respect from the people. This probably comes from the socialist culture of the Swedes but it still helps them to keep this governing system of theirs intact and making it work.

As for Iranians, you know that after shah fled the country, Bakhtiyar was trying to change the system to something like the Swedish one. He was trying to bring democracy and at the same time, slowly bring shah back but keep him as a ceremonial king. He was also fond of socialism if I remember correctly. But he was put aside by the people during the revolution.

Anyways, I think we need a major major cultural change first, before we can have this system up and running properly in Iran.
 
Last edited:

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#45
Agreed on the cultural revolution, one to eradicate the mullah culture! Before or after the revolution, it has been a mullah culture and mob mentality prevalent in Iran that mullahs were mainly equated with Islam and any criticism of mullahs would be the same as criticizing Islam. Of course both should have been tolerated and accepted in the natural social discourse of society, however this had been largely curtailed by the mullahs themselves to protect and prolong their reign. Sadly this meant that Muslims' devotion and faith were more dependent on vain imaginings of mullahs founded in superstition and dogma. No one asked why crying at the mourning feasts would be a meritorious act (savab). I say "feasts" intentionally because they were (rowzeh-khani, sofreh abul-fazl, etc.) essentially feasts with the guise of mourning. But they are asking the question now. It could be said that during the reign of the late Shah people were more religious, even zealot, and the government was more progressive, whereas now it is the opposite, people are definitely more illumined and progressive than before and the government is very regressive and repressive. Still, that mullah culture, seen in false humility or taarof, exaggeration, fallacies, zealotry and mob mentality are all diminishing and hopefully will soon disappear altogether. Other than idol-making that is less prevalent, one other subtle indication is TV programming where it used to take several minutes (of soghra & kobra) to get to the main point, now there is less of that too among Persians outside Iran...