Was Iran a democracy under Mossadeq?

Makaveli

IPL Player
Jan 28, 2006
2,976
0
#1
I was having this debate with rugsnotbombs and it's an interesting one because he pointed out that nearly everyone agrees that it was. And he's right about that, at least the average person believes so.

But a closer look at the constitution I think would tell a different story.

Article 2 of the Supplementary Fundamental Laws of 1907, for instance, says this: ART. 2. At no time must any legal enactment of the Sacred National Consultative Assembly, established by the favor and assistance of His Holiness the Imám of the Age (may God hasten his glad Advent !), the favor of His Majesty the Sháhinsháh of Islám (may God immortalize his reign!), the care of the Proofs of Islám (may God multiply the like of them !), and the whole people of the Persian nation, be at variance with the sacred principles of Islám or the laws established by His Holiness the Best of Mankind (on whom and on whose household be the Blessings of God and His Peace!).

It is hereby declared that it is for the learned doctors of theology (the 'ulamá)—may God prolong the blessing of their existence!—to determine whether such laws as may be proposed are or are not conformable to the principles of Islám; and it is therefore officially enacted that there shall at all times exist a Committee composed of not less than five mujtahids or other devout theologians, cognizant also of the requirements of the age, [which committee shall be elected] in this manner. The 'ulamá and Proofs of Islám shall present to the National Consultative Assembly the names of twenty of the 'ulamá possessing the attributes mentioned above; and the Members of the National Consultative Assembly shall, either by unanimous acclamation, or by vote, designate five or more of these, according to the exigencies of the time, and recognize these as Members, so that they may carefully discuss and consider all matters proposed in the Assembly, and reject and repudiate, wholly or in part, any such proposal which is at variance with the Sacred Laws of Islám, so that it shall not obtain the title of legality. In such matters the decision of this Ecclesiastical Committee shall be followed and obeyed, and this article shall continue unchanged until the appearance of His Holiness the Proof of the Age (may God hasten his glad Advent!)

If the laws are based on the Koran, and they can't deviate from it, can it ever really be a democracy? If so, then wouldn't that make the current regime a democracy?
 
Aug 27, 2005
8,688
0
Band e 209
#2
Iran never had/has a democratic government.
During Dr. Mossadegh era Iranians were involved in the government far more than ever before and comparing to what they had seen from single person governments of the past they felt an illusion of a democracy. But it was clearly written in the 1907 Constitution that Islam is official Religion of Iran while freedom of faith is fundamental requirement of a democracy.
Still I believe Iranians were in the right path for real democracy if the movement was not interrupted by foreigners and their domestic agents (aka ajnabies).
 
Oct 20, 2003
9,345
1
#3
My understanding of Democracy might be different from your, to me Democracy means government by representatives of the people, or rule by the people. In that sense, yes Dr. Mossadegh's government was a Demorcacy as it was elected by the people.
 
R

rugsnotbombs

Guest
#4
Agha Makaveli, you have still not given me your definition of what a democracy is.

the point i was trying to make to you is that it was an elected government and Mossadegh was elected to be the Prime Minister.

You can argue that the Parliament was not legit because women were not allowed to vote or run, but the system itself was a democratic won, people voted, people were put in power.

Now, regarding Islam, It is the people's responsibility to put pressure on the politicians to remove that if they wanted it removed. But remember, local Imams played a big part in the constitutional revolution, debates were held at mosques and in the end it was the people who wrote it. We can debate whether or not they were right or wrong, but the fact remains, it was their choice.

Now, here's where we agree.

If the laws are based on the Koran, and they can't deviate from it, can it ever really be a democracy? If so, then wouldn't that make the current regime a democracy?
if people cannot deviate, or, a better word, amend the constitution then no, then that is a problem. I am a strong believer in the people's right to choose, whether it is their religion or their government. The same way we shouldn't interfere in a person's personal religious beliefs, we should not interfere if a collection of those people want to remove, let's say Islam, from the constitution because in the end it is still their choice. But no one during the Mossadegh era seemed to ask for that.
 

a123321r

National Team Player
Oct 27, 2002
5,527
0
bradford, england
#5
i think one of the main points that keeps being missed about a democracy is that it is the will of the majority whilst PROTECTING the rights of the minorities.. if the majority of people decide that they want to lynch all the black people in that country, does that mean that those people can still say they live in a democracy because it was the will of the majority to lynch them? can't really comment about the mosaddegh era as i don't know enough about it but to put rules of a religion in a constitution you are already breeching the rights of the minorities who have different religions, so even though it may be the will of the majority to have it there.. it doesn't make it democratic!
 
Oct 20, 2003
9,345
1
#6
i think one of the main points that keeps being missed about a democracy is that it is the will of the majority whilst PROTECTING the rights of the minorities.. if the majority of people decide that they want to lynch all the black people in that country, does that mean that those people can still say they live in a democracy because it was the will of the majority to lynch them? can't really comment about the mosaddegh era as i don't know enough about it but to put rules of a religion in a constitution you are already breeching the rights of the minorities who have different religions, so even though it may be the will of the majority to have it there.. it doesn't make it democratic!
Dear Abouzar, it is given that under a system of democracy basic human rights of the minorities should be protected and respected, but preserving miniority rights is not the fundamental aim of demoracy.
How would you react to a situation where the tables were turned, for example what if the British of Pakistani origin would object to parts of British constitution that they would find secular, objectionable, or against their religious believes? Should the constitution of England (or any country for that matter) be amended to accomadate all miniorities? Wouldn't that give disproportionate rights to some people (minority) at the expense of majority? You always find some minority who would object to any laws including the constitution.
 

a123321r

National Team Player
Oct 27, 2002
5,527
0
bradford, england
#7
fair enough iranpaak jaan i'm sure we both agree that the term doesn't apply to IRI? but I guess the fact that they do not respect the basic human rights of minorities is not really a fault of islam but that of IRI itself so a different government practicing Islam may well be able to class itself as a democratic government.
 

moosh1

Ball Boy
Jan 20, 2004
440
1
#8
متاسفانه ایران در هیچ زمانی از تاریخ دمکراسی را تجربه نکرده. دکتر مصدق برخلاف نظر غالب ایرانیان چپ و مثلا مترفی نه تنها بتظز من دمکرات نبود بلکه بسیار هم دیکتانور صفت بود شاید تعجب کتید که من چنین حرقی میزنم ولی این حرف را بر مبنای اطلاع از تاریخ آن زمان میگویم . اگر اطلاع داشته یاشید مصدق را اطرافیانش پیشوا مینامیدند و مصدق هم از اینکه باو پیشوا بگویند نه تنها بدش نمیآمد بلکه خیلی هم دوست داشت که پیشوا باشد. البته این بخودی خود نمیتواند بد باشد ولی وقتی پیشوا را با سایر مسائلی که مصدق داشت مخلوط کنید آنوقت است که آش شور میشود.
انحلال مجلس با رفراندام آنهم مجلسی که بیش از 80 % از نمایندگانش از جبهه ملی بودند بر خلاف نص صریچ قانون اساسی وقت ایران بود. رفراندمی هم که انجام داد چنان قلابی بود که هیچ کس جرائت نداشت که رای مخالف بدهد دو نوع مرکز رای گیری بود یکی برای موافقین و یکی برای مخالفین و اگر کسی جرائت داشت که رای مخالف بدهد بر او آن میرفت که در همه رای گیریهای مخالفین میرفت.
چاپ 320 میلیون تومان پول بدون اجازه گرفتن از مجلس آنهم مجلسی که اکثریت قاطع آن از جبهه ملی بودند. گرفتن اختیارات تام از شاه و مجلس بر خلاف قانون اساسی و با شانتاژ کردن شاه و مجلس و مردم همه آینها را کرد که چی که ملت ما را عاقبت تحویل جمهوری اسهالی داد.
شاید از این نتیجه گیری من گیج شده باشید ولی من معتقدم که مصدق و بیست هشت مرداد پیش درآمد آمدن جمهوری اسهالی بود.
سیاست در فرهنگ لقت بمعنی توافق در امکانات و رسیدن به راه حلی که اگر صد در صد نیست ولی به نفع و مصالح اکثریت مردم ومملکت است. دکتر مصدق از هنر سیاست کاملا بی بهره بود و مثل بقیه روشنفکران ایرانی اهل قهرمان سازی از خود بود. و عاقبت هم به ارزوی خودش رسید ولی جه برای کشور گذاشت اگر او با شاه و آمریکا و انگلیس بر سر مسئله نفت بتوافق رسیده بودند ایا کشور ما آلان دست این آشغالهائی که آلان سر کارند بود؟
و اما از باصطلاح کودتای بیست هشت مرداد طبق قانون اساسی ابران شاه قانونا میتوانست که در صورت فترت مجلس وزرا و هم چنین نخست وزیر را عزل کند و کرد و زاهدی را به نخست وزیری نصب کرد در عوض مصدق بجای اینکه از فرمان شاه قانونی اطاعت کند از آن سر پیجی کرد که آن وقایع اتفاق افتاد که باعث دخالت بیگانگان در امور ایران شد.
 
May 12, 2007
8,093
11
#9
Mosadeq used to say shah is the king but primeminister should be elected.That is
more democratic than any other primminitster in shah's time which was appointed
directly by shah. Problem was US thought in a free election there could be a chance
that tude(comunists) win the election and then Iran belongs to soviet union.
 
May 16, 2006
321
0
#10
"Problem was US thought in a free election there could be a chance
that tude(comunists) win the election and then Iran belongs to soviet union".

Is that why US is not pressuring the placed and supported highnesses in power in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain to become a little democratic today, or for the last 30 years (for fear of Tudeh?)?

No my friend, that was a face-saving and justifying excuse.
Democracy and free elections are not something to be given by others, 1. it doesn't work that way, and 2. more importantly, it is not in their political and financial interests (despite all the propoganda). Iran was nothing but a pawn in a chess board, for the taking. It was just round 2, after round 1 ("the great game"), countries and their wealth & natural resources, for the taking.
 
May 12, 2007
8,093
11
#11
I do have something against we iranians never like each other. MKO sucked, IRI sucked , Shah sacked,...,My god we only had this mosadegh left. Did he suck too?
History says he did lots of good work. British government asked US to take care
of mosadegh since he was to weak against tude and they could win. Actually they didn't like his oil policy. This is based on what many CIA officer tell us about it and it makes sense. And I never said US fights for democracy for us.
 
Oct 20, 2003
9,345
1
#12

انحلال مجلس با رفراندام آنهم مجلسی که بیش از 80 % از نمایندگانش از جبهه ملی بودند بر خلاف نص صریچ قانون اساسی وقت ایران بود. رفراندمی هم که انجام داد چنان قلابی بود که هیچ کس جرائت نداشت که رای مخالف بدهد دو نوع مرکز رای گیری بود یکی برای موافقین و یکی برای مخالفین و اگر کسی جرائت داشت که رای مخالف بدهد بر او آن میرفت که در همه رای گیریهای مخالفین میرفت.
.
The constitution you are referring was not the original document , it was after amendment by the Shah that gave him extra power which was not envisioned in the original constitution document. Therefore, it was not a valid document (and hence was not recognized by Dr. Mossadegh) therefore, saying what Mossadegh did was against the constitution of the time, is incorrect. Secondly, Mossadegh relied on a referendum for closing the Majless. What power is superior than people's power. If you have any evidence to support your opinion that the referendum was a sham, I would be glad to hear it.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#13
The constitution you are referring was not the original document , it was after amendment by the Shah that gave him extra power which was not envisioned in the original constitution document. Therefore, it was not a valid document (and hence was not recognized by Dr. Mossadegh) therefore, saying what Mossadegh did was against the constitution of the time, is incorrect. Secondly, Mossadegh relied on a referendum for closing the Majless. What power is superior than people's power. If you have any evidence to support your opinion that the referendum was a sham, I would be glad to hear it.
Moosh1 is right Iranpaak jaan. The only thing missing from his post is the circumstances that led to this situation.

The part of the constitution that Mossadegh violated had nothing to do with any amendments by the Shah. So he was violating the constitution before or after the amendments by the Shah. Ironically Mossadegh used the exact same power that the Shah had gained through the amendments, pushing Iran further away from freedom, except that he claimed those rights for his own self.

The original constitution did not give the right to the prime minister to abolish the parliament. The amendments added gave this power to the Shah. Therefore Mossadegh's move was against the constitution regardless. Mossadegh argued that he had been granted extra-ordinary powers so he could act as the Shah.

Secondly, the answer to your question to Moosh is right there in Moosh's post. Mossadegh was violating the constitution in calling for an election that did not have secret ballots. And this was in the worst way possible. If you wished to vote for Mossadegh you went to a different center. If you wished to vote against him you went to a different one. This is a sham no matter what. Just consider that Mossadegh won 99.9% vs 0.1%. That is silly.

What I disagree with Moosh1, without elaborating on the details for now, is that the primary blame lies mostly on the shoulders of Iranian people themselves and among the leaders Kashani and Toudeh party. What led to the events we are discussing here is Kashani's 180 in withdrawing its support from Mossadegh. He sided with the British.
 
Oct 20, 2003
9,345
1
#14
Dear FP, the Shah altered the constitution by giving himself supreme power to dissolve the Majless. That constitution lost its legitimacy to Dr. Mossadegh and others. Therefore, Dr. Mossadegh went to the source of power or all laws; i.e. people thru referendum. Now claiming that because there were two centers for voting (yes and no) and there were voters intimidation is pure conjecture. This was a tactic that the Shah and his darbar were good at and practiced before the coup and after until the Shah was toppled. It assumes that Dr. Mossadegh and his followers were so powerful that they could control all the voting centers. It ignores the political climate, various political parties and fractions that existed at the time. If Mossadegh and his government were so strong and in control that could influence, then how could a coup led by a bunch of lumpons headed by the likes of Shabon Bemokh succeed
 

Makaveli

IPL Player
Jan 28, 2006
2,976
0
#15
Agha Makaveli, you have still not given me your definition of what a democracy is.

the point i was trying to make to you is that it was an elected government and Mossadegh was elected to be the Prime Minister.

You can argue that the Parliament was not legit because women were not allowed to vote or run, but the system itself was a democratic won, people voted, people were put in power.

Now, regarding Islam, It is the people's responsibility to put pressure on the politicians to remove that if they wanted it removed. But remember, local Imams played a big part in the constitutional revolution, debates were held at mosques and in the end it was the people who wrote it. We can debate whether or not they were right or wrong, but the fact remains, it was their choice.
As I mentioned before, if democracy was just about voting, Saddam Hussein would have been Abe Lincoln. People vote in Mubaraks Egypt too, but that doesn't make it a democracy.

Anyway, here's the defenition of democracy which doesn't fit the system in place under Mossadeq.

1)The rule of law is the principle that the power of of the state must be limited by the law and that no one is above the law.
2) Inclusion means that democratic rights and freedoms must be for everyone. They must not be denied to specifically targeted elements of the population, such as women and minority groups
3A) Equality means that democratic rights and freedoms must be accorded to everyone on equal basis. No group in society should have fewer democratic privileges than other groups. This principle asserts that these rights and freedoms must be distributed equally. No group or segment of the population has more rights or freedom of others.
3B) Equity means fairness. It requires only that we accord reasonably fair chance to realize their ambitions and improve their well-being under the same laws that apply to everyone else. It does not require us to make sure starts out and finishes the same social or economic plane or enjoys the same degree of political influence