Iran is a democracy

[Jon_in_london]

Id just like to bring to everone's attention that Iran is in fact a democracy. So no more of this 'Isreal is the only democracy in the middle east' crap alright?

And dont forget, all of this war talk by the washington hawks is directed against a democracy .

CIA factbook: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#Govt



Suffrage:
15 years of age; universal
Executive branch:
chief of state: Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI (since 4 June 1989)
elections: leader of the Islamic Revolution appointed for life by the Assembly of Experts; president elected by popular vote for a four-year term; election last held 8 June 2001 (next to be held NA 2005)
election results: (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani reelected president; percent of vote - (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani 77%
cabinet: Council of Ministers selected by the president with legislative approval
head of government: President (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani (since 3 August 1997); First Vice President Dr. Mohammad Reza AREF-YAZDI (since 26 August 2001)
Legislative branch:
unicameral Islamic Consultative Assembly or Majles-e-Shura-ye-Eslami (290 seats, note - changed from 270 seats with the 18 February 2000 election; members elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms)
elections: last held 18 February-NA April 2000 (next to be held NA 2004)
election results: percent of vote - NA%; seats by party - reformers 170, conservatives 45, and independents 10, 65 seats up for runoff; note - election on 5 May 2000 (reformers 52, conservatives 10, independents 3)

[Tony]

Where does it say Iran is a democracy?

Government type: Theocratic republic

[Jon_in_london]

Great, I suppose the Uk isnt a democracy either then:

Government Type: Constitutional Monarchy

:rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Great, I suppose the Uk isnt a democracy either then:

Government Type: Constitutional Monarchy




According to the CIA fact book it isnt. Is there anything in the UK constitution that would indicate that it is a democracy?

[reprise]

It's not fair. Nobody wants to liberate Australia and make us a democracy...

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tony



According to the CIA fact book it isnt. Is there anything in the UK constitution that would indicate that it is a democracy?

The UK doesn't have a constitution, ASFAIK

Edited to add: at least not in the formal US sense: Link (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/uk00000_.html) . Now that I think about it though, I have heard the UK referred to as "A Constitutional Monarchy" - whatever that means.

[reprise]

Although Australia is also a constitutional monarchy, I believe that Chapter 1, Part II, s7 (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par2cha1.htm) and Chapter1, Part III, s24 (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par3cha1.htm) of The Australian Constitution (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution) might earn us trial membership in the club of democratic nations.

The portions of the sections read :

C1,PII,s7 - The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.

C1,PIII,s24 - The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of senators. The number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective members of their people, and shall, until the Parliament otherwise provides, be determined, whenever necessary, in the following manner

I think it's the "directly chosen by the people" thing which might lead GWB to think we don't need liberating from our constitutional monarchy. :)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Graham


The UK doesn't have a constitution, ASFAIK

Edited to add: at least not in the formal US sense: Link (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/uk00000_.html) . Now that I think about it though, I have heard the UK referred to as "A Constitutional Monarchy" - whatever that means.

In fact we have the Magna Carta. We also have something else to restrict the power of the Monarchy but I forget when/what/why.

Nonetheless, Iran elects its leaders periodically holding elections. It is therefore a democracy.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

It is therefore a democracy.

Evidence?

Just because they have elected rulers does not mean that Iran is a democracy.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony



According to the CIA fact book it isnt. Is there anything in the UK constitution that would indicate that it is a democracy?

According to the CIA factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Govt), the US is only a "federal republic"; it says the US has a "strong democratic tradition", but a literal interpretation of that doesn't mean that the US is a democracy. But type of state is different from form of government anyway, and one doesn't necessarily give any clue to the nature of the other.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK


According to the CIA factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Govt), the US is only a "federal republic"; it says the US has a "strong democratic tradition", but a literal interpretation of that doesn't mean that the US is a democracy.


The US isnt a democracy, the CIA factbook is correct.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


In fact we have the Magna Carta. We also have something else to restrict the power of the Monarchy but I forget when/what/why.

We have a Bill of Rights (http://www.duhaime.org/uk-billr.htm) which began the process of limiting the power of the monarchy, but the rest comes from the "living" aspect of our "living constitution", i.e. it's not laid in stone as with the US constitution, but is the result of previous, current and future acts of Parliament.

[Mike B.]

I think the elected government in Iran is somewhat hamstrung by the Clerics who maintain much of the actual power. The reformist President got 77% of the vote, but the unelected clerics still control internal police and such to maintain their rigid Islamic law.

Iran is interesting in that I think it shows that people do not want to live in the 6th Century. Most of the younger people seem to not want the strict Islamic law and want a more liberal culture.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony



The US isnt a democracy, the CIA factbook is correct.
Duh, yeah it's a republic. But like I said, type of state (republic/monarchy/theocracy &c &c) is different from type of government (direct democracy/representative democracy/monarchy &c &c) and one doesn't necessarily give any clue to the nature of the other. So the CIA factbook isn't wrong, it's that you carnt guess whether a country is democratic or not from its description of government.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony


Just because they have elected rulers does not mean that Iran is a democracy.

Thats a classic! anyone want to stick that in their sig?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I think the elected government in Iran is somewhat hamstrung by the Clerics who maintain much of the actual power. The reformist President got 77% of the vote, but the unelected clerics still control internal police and such to maintain their rigid Islamic law.

Iran is interesting in that I think it shows that people do not want to live in the 6th Century. Most of the younger people seem to not want the strict Islamic law and want a more liberal culture.

Of course the washington hawks threatening Iran just makes the backward clerics more entrenched while undermining the progressives- the people we should be supporting.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Of course the washington hawks threatening Iran just makes the backward clerics more entrenched while undermining the progressives- the people we should be supporting.

Agreed!!! :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Thats a classic! anyone want to stick that in their sig?


What's classic is your ignorance of what a democracy really is.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Thats a classic! anyone want to stick that in their sig?

Let's not be too hasty here (just yet ;) ). Iraq had an elected ruler; Saddam Hussein held elections and was voted in by practically all the population. But in that no other candidate was allowed to stand, and voters had a choice of Saddam or prison and possible death, it wasn't a deomcracy by any meaning of the word.

But on the other hand, and in terms of the subject of the thread, it is a classic. I wonder if BillHoyt is still running his Illogic of the Month award over in Banter? :D

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony



What's classic is your ignorance of what a democracy really is.
Could you explain what democracy really is? It might help clear up the matter if the argument is the result of a misunderstanding of basic terms.

[aerocontrols]

What the CIA world factbook doesn't tell us is who holds the power in Iran. I don't believe anyone knowledgeable would argue that Khatami and the legislature has as much power as Khomeini and the Mullahs (Assembly of Experts).

Yeah, it's a democracy all right :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Could you explain what democracy really is?


In a nutshell, democracy is a system of government where the power belongs to the people and/or the majority.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tony



In a nutshell, democracy is a system of government where the power belongs to the people and/or the majority.

Dictionary.com:

Democracy:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community

Iran would appear to fit at least some of these definitions (2 and 4, for instance) and could be argued into others, I think (1 and 3).

Of course, that's assuming that their elections are, at least reasonably, free and fair. That's hardly a given.

Graham

[aerocontrols]

Nearly 130 members of Iran's reformist-led parliament have signed an open letter calling for the country's top religious leader to break the deadlock holding up political and social changes.

This latest move by Iran's reformists is seen as a last attempt to rescue the political reform process endorsed by President Mohamed Khatami. The open letter calls for supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to accept reforms and stop unelected government institutions from blocking changes.

It names Iran's Guardian Council as the biggest obstacle to reform. The 12-man Council can veto legislation it considers unconstitutional or contrary to Islamic law.

The Council recently rejected a parliamentary bill seeking to curtail its power to disqualify candidates from elections. It also refused a bill giving President Khatami the right to question rulings made by Iran's hard-line judiciary system.

Although reform supporters won a parliamentary majority two-years ago, their decisions have been consistently overruled by the Guardian Council and the conservative clerics who control Iran's courts.

source (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DC26CE63-CD77-44F8-BB0FA52A19276344)

I say none of 1-5 apply, and the entire premise of this thread is laughable.

[Graham]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


source (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DC26CE63-CD77-44F8-BB0FA52A19276344)

I say none of 1-5 apply, and the entire premise of this thread is laughable.

It depends whether you're arguing technicalities or general understandings, IMO.

I think strictly technically Iran meets some of the definitions of a democracy. I'm not so sure it's anything like what people generally understand a democrcy to mean, however.

Graham

[Tricky]

If we are to use "democracy" in the same sense that the US wants a "democracy" in Iraq and Iran, it means free elections, with multiple candidates. Certainly they call Israel a democracy, and it is also, technically a republic.

I think the semantics gets everyone sidetracked. What the US really wants is a "western-style democracy". Or perhaps what they really want is a US-friendly government. They seem to have no problems with Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, both monarchies.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Graham
I think strictly technically Iran meets some of the definitions of a democracy. I'm not so sure it's anything like what people generally understand a democrcy to mean, however.


Which ones?

The people do not govern. The Mullahs do. (1 & 2)

The common people are not the source of power. The Koran is. (3)

The majority does not rule. (4)

:rolleyes: (5)

[Graham]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Which ones?

The people do not govern. The Mullahs do. (1 & 2)

The common people are not the source of power. The Koran is. (3)

The majority does not rule. (4)

:rolleyes: (5)

I'll agree five is laughable.

My understanding, however, was that the mullahs were elected in some fashion or, at least, ruled by common consent. Is that not correct?

Regardless, the majority of people are muslims and thus the Koran is the common people.

Graham

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by reprise
It's not fair. Nobody wants to liberate Australia and make us a democracy...

If you ask Al-Quaeda nicely, I'm sure they'll agree.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Graham
My understanding, however, was that the mullahs were elected in some fashion or, at least, ruled by common consent. Is that not correct?

The Mullahs were not elected. Look at the parliamentary majority of the anti-mullah reformers (170-45) and explain to me how the Mullahs rule by common consent. They rule by power, period.

Originally posted by Graham
Regardless, the majority of people are muslims and thus the Koran is the common people.

The majority of the people elected a reformist parliament that sits powerless.

This statement you've made is quite amazing.

MattJ

[Graham]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The Mullahs were not elected. Look at the parliamentary majority of the anti-mullah reformers (170-45) and explain to me how the Mullahs rule by common consent. They rule by power, period.

The majority of the people elected a reformist parliament that sits powerless.

This statement you've made is quite amazing.

MattJ

It looks llike the Mullahs were elected by an "Expert Panel" whatever that means.

The reformist pariliament isn't powerless, it's pushing for reform. You don't expect it to happen overnight, do you? The fact that they are there, however, and permitted to sign petitions and continue to object to the Mullahs' rule puts thema giant step ahead of a lot of other places, IMO.

Which statement is amazing? The one about the Koran? I thought that was the whole basis of Islam. It wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken though :)

Graham

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Graham


It looks llike the Mullahs were elected by an "Expert Panel" whatever that means.

It means that a large group of clerics elects a smaller group.

Theocracy

Originally posted by Graham
The reformist pariliament isn't powerless, it's pushing for reform. You don't expect it to happen overnight, do you? The fact that they are there, however, and permitted to sign petitions and continue to object to the Mullahs' rule puts thema giant step ahead of a lot of other places, IMO.

The claim at the top of the thread is: Iran is a democracy. The claim is not true. That is what we are debating, no?

MattJ

[Graham]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


It means that a large group of clerics elects a smaller group.

Theocracy

The claim at the top of the thread is: Iran is a democracy. The claim is not true. That is what we are debating, no?

MattJ

I think you're probably right, ultimately. However, I still think there is a lot of room for manoeuvre between the word and the thing, if you know what I mean.

On a surface level, the UK is set up the same way as Iran - an elected parliament with an unelected supreme ruler.

In the UK, most if not all of the power rests with the elected parliament and the so-called ruler has very little effective power. In Iran it's the other way around.

Technically, each is just as much a democracy as the other. In real-life-fact, their situations are very different.

Graham

[Skeptic]

My understanding, however, was that the mullahs were elected in some fashion or, at least, ruled by common consent. Is that not correct?

Yes and no.

Yes, they were elected in some fashion. So were Stalin and Hitler every few years, and (today) Mugabe and Bashar Assad. The fact that only one party (or only parties with a VERY limited view, e.g., radical islam of one variety or another) are up for election, helps a bit with determining the results in advance...

As for being "ruled by common consent", that's not true. Most people in Iran, especially the young, are sick and tired of the corrupt, backward, and all-around horrible regime. Of course, the Mullahs CLAIM they "rule by common consent"--like all dictators do; that's because, if you rule by "common consent", there is no need for those annoying things like an opposition party, free elections, human rights, etc. After all, what's the point of allowing opponents to run for office, if the people all "love" you anyway?

Regardless, the majority of people are muslims and thus the Koran is the common people

That's like saying that, since most Americans are Christians, turning America into a theocratic dictatorship ruled by the bible won't "really" hurt its democracy, because "the bible is the common people".

<rant>

I am amazed, though, once more, at the way so-called "liberals" are willing to turn a blind eye to just about ANY evil, as long as it's done by someone who can claim an "exotic minority", "different culture", or "third-world" status in some way.

None of us would stand for a minute for anything remotely approaching the opression and religious dogma of Iranian "democracy", with its religious police, stern islamic rule, corruption, hate-stirring, lack of basic human rights, barbaric penal system, total lack of minority or women's rights, support of terrorism, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. But when the Iranian Mullahs act this way--it's OK, since "it's their culture", so who are WE to criticize annoying things like cutting off the arms of theives, or treating women as chattle?

Why? Are Iranians, somehow, less human than other people, because the Mullahs decided "their culture" includes awful sixth-century customs? Do they deserve less protection when the religious police comes to behead them because "it's their culture"? Do the mullahs deserve the honor of being called a "democracy" because they have a thin veneer of bogus "elections" to cover their theocracy, and explain away the lack of any real freedom in their country as "their culture"?

</rant>

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony
In a nutshell, democracy is a system of government where the power belongs to the people and/or the majority.

I disagree. In terms of western democracy--or more accurately, representative democracy--power belongs to government, and is administrated by representatives chosen by a process of public participation, and to the judicial system which can interpret and/or challenge governmental power. Strictly speaking, power only belongs to the people in an indirect way, in that they can participate in the process of choosing representatives and they agree to be governed by those representatives.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Skeptic

That's like saying that, since most Americans are Christians, turning America into a theocratic dictatorship ruled by the bible won't "really" hurt its democracy, because "the bible is the common people".

snipped the rant ;)



I agree with you too, the mullahs and their whole system sucks. Personally, I'd quite happily see them all fry in their own juices.

My statement about the Koran was a little high on speed and low on "thought out", I'll confess. That said though, I'm not sure it is the same thing as your example.

"American" democracy is inherently better than "Iranian" democracy, I think that's pretty obvious. Turning America into a theocratic dictatorship would fundamentally alter (destroy) that democracy.

Whether you approve of Middle Eastern "culture" or not, however, it is different to so-called western culture and, in many countries is much more backward. More sincere and simplistic faith in religion and religious leaders is a symptom of that backwardness, IMO.

Thus, no matter what you legislate for, the Islam and the Koran are going to play a far more important role in any Iranian democracy than the Bible does in the US.

Graham

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK


...power belongs to government, and is administrated by representatives chosen by a process of public participation, and to the judicial system which can interpret and/or challenge governmental power. Strictly speaking, power only belongs to the people in an indirect way, in that they can participate in the process of choosing representatives and they agree to be governed by those representatives.


What you have just described is not democracy but a republic.

[Tmy]

Is anyone a democracy???


In the US the power is held by the Republicans and Democrats. The faces and names change but still the same old parties. Is that a democracy?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by BillyTK


I disagree. In terms of western democracy--or more accurately, representative democracy--power belongs to government, and is administrated by representatives chosen by a process of public participation, and to the judicial system which can interpret and/or challenge governmental power. Strictly speaking, power only belongs to the people in an indirect way, in that they can participate in the process of choosing representatives and they agree to be governed by those representatives.

The above sounds like the Napoleonic code, not English common law.

[simplification mode]
Napoleonic Code: The government gives rights/powers to the people.

English Common Law: The people give rights/powers to the goverment
[/simplification mode]

They begin with different assumptions about where power 'belongs'.

Just curious, if you don't mind... are you living in a country whose laws were founded in English Common Law, the Napoleonic Code, or some other?

MattJ

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony



In a nutshell, democracy is a system of government where the power belongs to the people and/or the majority.

Well, according to this libertarian:

Sorry, Mr. Franklin, “We’re All Democrats Now”

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people “a Republic, if you can keep it.” We should apologize to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, for we are wallowing in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.

Madison, the father of the Constitution, could not have been more explicit in his fear and concern for democracies. “Democracies,” he said, “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

If Madison’s assessment was correct, it behooves those of us in Congress to take note and decide, indeed, whether the Republic has vanished, when it occurred, and exactly what to expect in the way of “turbulence, contention, and violence.” And above all else, what can we and what will we do about it?

The turbulence seems self-evident. Domestic welfare programs are not sustainable and do not accomplish their stated goals. State and federal spending and deficits are out of control. Terrorism and uncontrollable fear undermine our sense of well-being. Hysterical reactions to dangers not yet seen prompt the people- at the prodding of the politicians- to readily sacrifice their liberties in vain hope that someone else will take care of them and guarantee their security. With these obvious signs of a failed system all around us, there seems to be more determination than ever to antagonize the people of the world by pursuing a world empire. Nation building, foreign intervention, preemptive war, and global government drive our foreign policy. There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the Constitution that established it.

The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmund Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: “The general object was to produce a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

The transition from republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. It seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways, the Civil War and its aftermath laid the foundation for the acute erosion that took place over the entire 20th century. Chronic concern about war and economic downturns- events caused by an intrusive government’s failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution- allowed majority demands to supersede the rights of the minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was- a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a republic with limited and regional government and protection of personal liberty. The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance of the principles of a true democracy.

Unfortunately, too many people confuse the democratic elections of leaders of a republic for democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell people how to manage their personal lives, and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.

The majority is assumed to be in charge today and can do whatever it pleases. If the majority has not yet sanctioned some desired egregious action demanded by special interests, the propaganda machine goes into operation, and the pollsters relay the results back to the politicians who are seeking legitimacy in their endeavors. The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

This trend toward authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, unlike a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of benevolence, fairness, and equity. The pretense of love and compassion by those who desire to remold society and undermine the Constitution convinced the recipients, and even the victims, of its necessity. Since it was never a precipitous departure from the republic, the gradual erosion of liberty went unnoticed.

Today the concepts of rights and property ownership are completely arbitrary. Congress, the courts, presidents and bureaucrats arbitrarily “legislate” on a daily basis, seeking only the endorsement of the majority. Although the republic was designed to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority, today we find the reverse. The republic is no longer recognizable.

Supporters of democracy are always quick to point out one of the perceived benefits of this system is the redistribution of wealth by government force to the poor. Although this may be true in limited fashion, the champions of this system never concern themselves with the victims from whom the wealth is stolen. The so-called benefits are short-lived, because democracy consumes wealth with little concern for those who produce it. Eventually the programs cannot be funded, and the dependency that has developed precipitates angry outcries for even more “fairness.” Since reversing the tide against liberty is so difficult, this unworkable system inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny.

As our republic crumbles, voices of protest grow louder. The central government becomes more authoritarian with each crisis. As the quality of education plummets, the role of the federal government is expanded. As the quality of medical care collapses, the role of the federal government in medicine is greatly increased. Foreign policy failures precipitate cries for more intervention abroad and an even greater empire. Cries for security grow louder, and concern for liberty languishes.

Attacks on our homeland prompt massive increase in the bureaucracy to protect us from all dangers, seen and imagined. The prime goal and concern of the Founders, the protection of liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious concern for personal liberty are condemned for their self-centeredness and their lack of patriotism.

Even if we could defeat al Qaeda- which surely is a worthwhile goal- it would do little to preserve our liberties, while ignoring the real purpose of our government. Another enemy would surely replace it, just as the various groups of barbarians never left the Roman Empire alone once its internal republican structure collapsed.

Democracy encourages the mother of all political corruption- the use of political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent in this effort represent the degree to which democracy has won out over the rule of law and the Constitution, it looks like the American republic is left wanting. Billions are spent on the endeavor.

Money in politics is the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic majorities. It is seen by most Americans, and rightly so, as a negative and a danger. Yet the response, unfortunately, is only more of the same. More laws tinkering with freedom of expression are enacted, in hopes that regulating sums of private money thrown into the political system will curtail the abuse. But failing to understand the cause of the problem, lack of respect for the Constitution, and obsession with legislative relativity dictated by the majority serve only to further undermine the rule of law.

We were adequately warned about the problem. Democracies lead to chaos, violence and bankruptcy. The demands of the majority are always greater than taxation alone can provide. Therefore, control over the monetary and banking system is required for democracies to operate. It was no accident in 1913, when the dramatic shift toward a democracy became pronounced, that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionist. Even with an income tax, the planners for war and welfare (a guns and butter philosophy) knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government counterfeit and fractional-reserve banking were required to seductively pay for the majority’s demands. It is for this reason that democracies always bring about currency debasement through inflation of the money supply.

Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire building. “Promoting democracy” overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals- no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is, constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy may be on the short run and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major contributing factor to the violence and chaos that eventually come from pure democracy.

There is abundant evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elections, but we are only too willing to accept some for-the-moment friendly dictator who actually overthrew a democratically elected leader or to interfere in some foreign election.

I will not that I do not agree with many of the things he states in his full speech, however aspect of what is saying are correct.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The above sounds like the Napoleonic code, not English common law.

[simplification mode]
Napoleonic Code: The government gives rights/powers to the people.

English Common Law: The people give rights/powers to the goverment
[/simplification mode]

They begin with different assumptions about where power 'belongs'.

Just curious, if you don't mind... are you living in a country whose laws were founded in English Common Law, the Napoleonic Code, or some other?

MattJ

I was using the word "belong" in terms of position rather than of ownership, so in the latter sense you are quite correct.

I'm from the UK, and to be honest our laws seem to be founded on the principle of "make it up as you go along"; on the one hand we've had the erosion of monarchic/elitist rule, with power being gradually returned to the people to be administered by the government; but in terms of rights, successive governments have acted as if they grant rights to the people, rather than ensuring the rights of the people. :shrugs:

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony



What you have just described is not democracy but a republic.

In the way that republic and representative democracy have become interchangeable, yes; but in that representative democracy and republic aren't exactly the same thing, then no. For instance, in my country is a constitutionally limited monarchy, but the type of government is representative democracy.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by BillyTK


I was using the word "belong" in terms of position rather than of ownership, so in the latter sense you are quite correct.

I'm from the UK, and to be honest our laws seem to be founded on the principle of "make it up as you go along"; on the one hand we've had the erosion of monarchic/elitist rule, with power being gradually returned to the people to be administered by the government; but in terms of rights, successive governments have acted as if they grant rights to the people, rather than ensuring the rights of the people. :shrugs:

I know. I think that this is bleed-over from mainland Europe. You may wish to take notice of how the new EU Constitution frames the issue.

Just checking...

Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms...

Oh, Article I-8.2 is good...

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in this Constitution. They shall have:

– the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

– the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;

– the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;

– the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the Union Ombudsman, and to write to the Institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Union's languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.

vs.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice how in one document, the government is sovereign, and bestows rights (or not) to the people, and in the other, the people are sovereign, and bestow powers (or not) to the government?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
And dont forget, all of this war talk by the washington hawks is directed against a democracy .

What war talk, by the way?

[Malachi151]

As I recall, hardly any of the countries that signed on as Americna backers in the war were democracies. I would call England the most democratic of the group. What is Spain exactly, and theocracy? I assume they have some level of representation.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is anyone a democracy???
In terms of the criteria outlined above, it's doubtful! ;)
In the US the power is held by the Republicans and Democrats. The faces and names change but still the same old parties. Is that a democracy?
Well, strictly speaking, power is held by neither political party; it's "owned" by the people (;) to Aerocontrols), "located" in government institutions and administered by the chosen representatives (Republocrat &c) of the people. So the government never changes, it's just the people in the driving seat. Or rather, the people in the back seat who tell the people in the front seat where to go :D

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I know. I think that this is bleed-over from mainland Europe. You may wish to take notice of how the new EU Constitution frames the issue.

The UK is a bleed-over from mainland Europe! *grumbles* blooming French invading us every other century, what have they ever done for us?

Just checking...



Oh, Article I-8.2 is good...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in this Constitution. They shall have:

– the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

– the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;

– the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;

– the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the Union Ombudsman, and to write to the Institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Union's languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vs.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice how in one document, the government is sovereign, and bestows rights (or not) to the people, and in the other, the people are sovereign, and bestow powers (or not) to the government?

It's okay; Tony Blair has assured us that countries in the EU are sovereign and bestow rights and powers to the EU :confused: He's also promised to protect us from the EU Constitution anyway--well the bits which would require the repeal of a whole load of labor laws...

[Skeptic]

As I recall, hardly any of the countries that signed on as Americna backers in the war were democracies. I would call England the most democratic of the group. What is Spain exactly, an theocracy?

Not any more than England is a "theocracy" because the Queen is formally the head of the church. Spain is a modern representative democracy, for all intents and purposes.

Of course, you could just go and live for a week in "democratic" Iran and "theocratic" Spain and see for yourself which is REALLY a democracy and which is REALLY the theocracy.

But you won't let obvious facts interfere with your theory--if you did, you wouldn't have been a "revolutionary Marxist", after all.

(By the way, why do you still live in the bosom of the the "opressive capitalistic imperialism" of the west, instead of immigrating to, say, Cuba or North Korea?)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by BillyTK

In terms of the criteria outlined above, it's doubtful! ;)

Well, strictly speaking, power is held by neither political party; it's "owned" by the people (;) to Aerocontrols), "located" in government institutions and administered by the chosen representatives (Republocrat &c) of the people. So the government never changes, it's just the people in the driving seat. Or rather, the people in the back seat who tell the people in the front seat where to go :D

The US is neither a Republic or a Democracy, it is a weak Plutocracy with Democratic backing, and really always has been.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Skeptic
As I recall, hardly any of the countries that signed on as Americna backers in the war were democracies. I would call England the most democratic of the group. What is Spain exactly, an theocracy?

Not any more than England is a "theocracy" because the Queen is formally the head of the church. Spain is a modern representative democracy, for all intents and purposes.

Of course, you could just go and live for a week in "democratic" Iran and "theocratic" Spain and see for yourself which is REALLY a democracy and which is REALLY the theocracy.

But you won't let obvious facts interfere with your theory--if you did, you wouldn't have been a "revolutionary Marxist", after all.

(By the way, why do you still live in the bosom of the the "opressive capitalistic imperialism" of the west, instead of immigrating to, say, Cuba or North Korea?)

If Spain is a democracy then thats fine. It was my impression that there was still strong role of the Catholic Church in government and that royalty still played a role in government as well. If that is not true, then I stand corrected.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151


The US is neither a Republic or a Democracy, it is a weak Plutocracy with Democratic backing, and really always has been.

Gotta love that good ol' propaganda... :rolleyes:

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Gotta love that good ol' propaganda... :rolleyes:

Oh yes, we all know that money has nothing to do with politics and that the mechanic down on the corner's voice is equal to the CEO of Exxon's voice :rolleyes:

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
As I recall, hardly any of the countries that signed on as Americna backers in the war were democracies. I would call England the most democratic of the group. What is Spain exactly, an theocracy?

Not any more than England is a "theocracy" because the Queen is formally the head of the church. Spain is a modern representative democracy, for all intents and purposes.

Of course, you could just go and live for a week in "democratic" Iran and "theocratic" Spain and see for yourself which is REALLY a democracy and which is REALLY the theocracy.

But you won't let obvious facts interfere with your theory--if you did, you wouldn't have been a "revolutionary Marxist", after all.

(By the way, why do you still live in the bosom of the the "opressive capitalistic imperialism" of the west, instead of immigrating to, say, Cuba or North Korea?)

Great question at the end Skeptic.
Here is Malachi's view of America from another thread:

"American society is built heavily on lies, deception, misunderstanding, and lack of self reflection. Its a superficial society built on stupidity, so what can we expect here?

Of course abstinance is stupid to teach, the reasons behind even wanting to teach it are lack of
understanding of the human condition. The US suffers from blunt head trauma from generations of
propiganda and religion.

The average person in America does not know what it means to be human, how can they know how to educate on issues fo sex and drugs?"

This is so typical from leftists and loving "progressives." They love humanity, but have a problem with people. I am surprised he does not go to North Korea. He can then be around authentic human beings as they venerate the "Dear Leader." I mean for gosh sakes why would he want to stay in an evil, colonialist, plutocratic, racist, exploitive, country that is apparently filled with people that are incredibly stupid.

Of course he will never actually go to these "workers' paradises." He will sit here and lament how stupid his countrymen are and what a living hell it is to be here and pat himself on the back at how clever he is to see through all the propaganda that the rest of us are too stupid to see.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Iran is a democracy? Ok now that's just ridiculous.

They obviously aren't a democracy in the sense of the US or England, which is what most mean when they talk about democracy.

Technically they *can* be called a democracy(non-monarchist, government of the "people") but then so can China, and Nazi Germany.

I mean seriously are we going to defend Iran, a country obviously ruled by a theocratic totalitarian system, as a democracy?

Basically the declaration is cashing in on the ambiguity of the word democracy, nothing new but slightly misleading.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Malachi151


The US is neither a Republic or a Democracy, it is a weak Plutocracy with Democratic backing, and really always has been.

It's funny you should say that because I was flicking through some C Wright Mills as I was writing that stuff...! :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Iran is a democracy? Ok now that's just ridiculous.

They obviously aren't a democracy in the sense of the US or England, which is what most mean when they talk about democracy.

Technically they *can* be called a democracy(non-monarchist, government of the "people") but then so can China, and Nazi Germany.

I mean seriously are we going to defend Iran, a country obviously ruled by a theocratic totalitarian system, as a democracy?

Basically the declaration is cashing in on the ambiguity of the word democracy, nothing new but slightly misleading.

To a large extent Iran is a democracy in the sense of the UK, which definitely isn't a democracy in the way the US is. Like Iraq, the UK has both a non-elected theocratic head of state (the monarchy) and a supreme court (the Law Lords) which is technically appointed by the head of state (albeit under advisement of the attorney general). Theoretically the head of state has the power to block the passing of legislation, and the Law Lords (as well as the House of Lords in which they sit) have the actual power to return legislation to the House of Commons for amendments or block it entirely, which is a power they frequently exercise. I believe the only mechanism which prevents the monarchy from exercising their power is some form of gentlemen's agreement, other than the risk of a constitutional crisis if they ever should do so.

China and Nazi Germany (oops! Godwin's Law) could be loosely termed republics, but not democracies (unless you stretch the definition to include Iraq). Iran is not as theocratically totalitarian as Saudi Arabia, for instance, although according to article linked to earlier, threat of possible US intervention is driving Iran back to conservative theocracy and away from progressive secualr democracy.

Btw, are you really a dialectical materialist?!!

[peptoabysmal]

But the Council of Guardians who has final say in the screening process announced on January 29 that they had reinstated 192 candidates on appeal, rejecting 99 further candidates. All told, approximately 10 percent of those seeking to run have been rejected, among them the most prominent reformists as well as every candidate on the list of Iran's only tolerated opposition party, Ibrahim Yazdi's Iran Freedom Movement (IFM).


Full Story (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch2000/436.htm)

Reminds me of elections we used to have in the deep South.

[DialecticMaterialist]

To a large extent Iran is a democracy in the sense of the UK, which definitely isn't a democracy in the way the US is. Like Iraq, the UK has both a non-elected theocratic head of state (the monarchy) and a supreme court (the Law Lords) which is technically appointed by the head of state (albeit under advisement of the attorney general). Theoretically the head of state has the power to block the passing of legislation, and the Law Lords (as well as the House of Lords in which they sit) have the actual power to return legislation to the House of Commons for amendments or block it entirely, which is a power they frequently exercise. I believe the only mechanism which prevents the monarchy from exercising their power is some form of gentlemen's agreement, other than the risk of a constitutional crisis if they ever should do so.

BTW we are talking about Iran, nor Iraq, perhaps that is a typo though.

Democracy can mean either majority rule or government of the people or perhaps even both. Now Iran may have majority rule but it's not a democracy.

To serve the people, I believe the government has to look out for its rights and prosperity: Iran does neither.

Also the monarchy is England is not nearly as active as the theocracy in Iran.

de·moc·ra·cy [Audio pronunciation of democracy] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Now according to that, in a sense Nazi Germany and China are a democracy.

They are supposedly ruling by the people.

Now you can say "well they weren't elected" and in Hitlers case you would be wrong. But no matter.

The fact is the Iran theocracy is not maintained by election but totalitarianism. That would then make it nondemocratic according to that anticipated definition.

The fact is though, when westerners speak of democracies they speak of empirical matters, examples like Japan, the US, the UK, France. Governments by the people, that serve,and protect these people and their freedoms fairly well.

To then announce Iran is a democracy and hence good is to ignore empirical context.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


BTW we are talking about Iran, nor Iraq, perhaps that is a typo though.
My mistake! Yes, we are talking about Iran; I suspect it was a conditioned responsed to typing "Ira..." Apologies.
Democracy can mean either majority rule or government of the people or perhaps even both. Now Iran may have majority rule but it's not a democracy.
In the case of representative democracy, the people appoint representatives; in the case of direct democracy, the people are directly involved in decision making, although this may result in a group of people being selected to make a decision about a particular issue. The latter may seem like representative democracy, but it would be more like jury duty; it's the difference between a group of people being selected to run everything for a fixed term (representative democracy) and a group of people being appointed to make a decision about a specific case, but only for the duration of that case (representative democracy).
To serve the people, I believe the government has to look out for its rights and prosperity: Iran does neither.
Wrt rights, this would rule out the UK to a certain extent and definitely rule out some European countries (see Aerocontrol's comments about the Napoleonic code above). Wrt to prosperity, with the advent of neo-liberal capitalism, that's a bit of a challenge for Western governments anyway; In terms of non-material prosperity this is certainly the case with, but in terms of (non-material) prosperity, Iran's Guardian council are doing exactly what they were made to do.

Also the monarchy is England is not nearly as active as the theocracy in Iran.
From a functional point of view this is correct; I was arguing from a structural point of view. But we do have that annoying unelected second House thing going on.

Now according to that, in a sense Nazi Germany and China are a democracy.

They are supposedly ruling by the people.

Now you can say "well they weren't elected" and in Hitlers case you would be wrong. But no matter.
No they're not, and demonstrably so. In China's case its leaders are appointed by the committee and are of the people in name only, which is closer to a republic than a democracy (although republic and representative democracy have become synonimous, a republic doesn't necessarily require a democratic process in the modern sense to select its leadership). In Hitler's case, yes he was elected, but then he set about systematically destroying the democratic apparatus so to that extent, Germany was even less of a democracy than Iraq (I actually meant Iraq this time ;) ).
The fact is the Iran theocracy is not maintained by election but totalitarianism. That would then make it nondemocratic according to that anticipated definition.

The fact is though, when westerners speak of democracies they speak of empirical matters, examples like Japan, the US, the UK, France. Governments by the people, that serve,and protect these people and their freedoms fairly well.

To then announce Iran is a democracy and hence good is to ignore empirical context.
The theocratic aspect of Iran is maintained by non-democratic means; structurally just like the UK. To say that it's maintained by totalitarianism is to say that the UK's is too. One of the defining characteristics of totalitarianism is suppression of opposition; yet Iraq has a functioning democratic system (people can freely choose candidates who then go on to sit in their national assembly; there is a ruling party who not only are clearly and demonstrably in opposition, but also have the power to create legislation. AFIAK the only power (although a pretty fundamental power) the Guardian Council has is to block legislation; it can't create legislation. Anyway, authoritarian is a more accurate epithet :p

Iran may not yet be at the point where we would like to recognise Iran as a democracy, but they are slowly getting there, which is a good thing (it took the UK about, what? three or four hundred years? before it came anywhere close to having a recognisable democracy). To then announce Iran is a totalitarian state and hence bad is to ignore empirical context. When westerners speak of democracies they often speak of an idealised form of democracy generated from the examples available to them, which bears little similarity to actual democracy. I guess this is where a lot of confusion arises from ;)

[DialecticMaterialist]

The theocratic aspect of Iran is maintained by non-democratic means; structurally just like the UK. To say that it's maintained by totalitarianism is to say that the UK's is too.

What? I really doubt UK and Iranian government mantain power via the same means. The UK for example doesn't enslave women or kill people who speak against the Church of England. Nor does the Monarch delcare Fatwas over books criticizing the monarchy.


One of the defining characteristics of totalitarianism is suppression of opposition; yet Iraq has a functioning democratic system (people can freely choose candidates who then go on to sit in their national assembly; there is a ruling party who not only are clearly and demonstrably in opposition, but also have the power to create legislation. AFIAK the only power (although a pretty fundamental power) the Guardian Council has is to block legislation; it can't create legislation. Anyway, authoritarian is a more accurate epithet

Yes it still supresses opposition. I still stuck with totalitarian, especially for women. Though technically there is little difference.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an [Audio pronunciation of Totalitarianism] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (t-tl-târ-n)
adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed:


The rule of religious authorities is near absolute, people are told to eat,sleep and breath Islam and alternative cultures/religions are badly supressed.

BTW authoritarianism:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an [Audio pronunciation of authoritarianism] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-thôr-târ-n, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
adj.

1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience



Which technically makes Iran authoritrian as well. Though authoritarian is really not mutually exclusive with or any better then totalitarianism.

Republic: re·pub·lic [Audio pronunciation of republic] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.

1.
1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.



Technically all democracies are republics save those which are direct.

Iran may not yet be at the point where we would like to recognise Iran as a democracy, but they are slowly getting there, which is a good thing (it took the UK about, what? three or four hundred years? before it came anywhere close to having a recognisable democracy).

That's because the UK was operating with 16th century technology. There is really no reason why Iran can't be a strong democracy, i.e. it took Japan only very little time after world war 2 and Japan started just as backwards as Iran.


To then announce Iran is a totalitarian state and hence bad is to ignore empirical context.

How so? Because they can hold show elections. (Saddam had elections as well) and because there is some rampant majoritarianism?

Iran is not in the sixteenth century but the twentieth. I think you are ignoring historical context. ;)


When westerners speak of democracies they often speak of an idealised form of democracy generated from the examples available to them, which bears little similarity to actual democracy. I guess this is where a lot of confusion arises from

I think that is precisly actual democracy. Obviously its not idealized if it is actually practiced.

Really there is no reason why we should merely examine or compare Iran to some middle age kingdom.

I mean saying "Well they are good, compared to a 5th century feudal state" is just very silly. I mean...ok...but that's not saying much.

That's like calling a man who smacks his kid with a tennis racket a good father, because 400 years ago people were doing much worse to kids.

[DialecticMaterialist]

And BTW, China does have elections. ;)

http://www.electionworld.org/election/china.htm

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And BTW, China does have elections. ;)

http://www.electionworld.org/election/china.htm

Bloody hell, they've got more parties than the US and UK put together! Shame they're not "real" ones, eh? :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


What? I really doubt UK and Iranian government mantain power via the same means. The UK for example doesn't enslave women or kill people who speak against the Church of England. Nor does the Monarch delcare Fatwas over books criticizing the monarchy.
Again the difference is structural rather than functional. Oppression of women would be a whole other thread ;) and whilst HM wouldn't declare a fatwah (which is, after all, a decision on interpreting Islamic law in relation to a particular issue, although I guess that was little comfort to Salman Rushdie), it often feels like the media does :D

Yes it still supresses opposition. I still stuck with totalitarian, especially for women. Though technically there is little difference.
Dude, they've got a political party which is actively trying to erode the power of Guardian Council! How is that suppressing opposition? Btw--technically there's a huge difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism; it's the way that power is distributed through society. There's little difference between either in relation to representative/direct democracy, but to measure everything according to such a polar construct is kind of--daft.
The rule of religious authorities is near absolute, people are told to eat,sleep and breath Islam and alternative cultures/religions are badly supressed.
The latter is... true to a certain extent, but you need to remember that Islam is a bottom-up religion, not simply a top-down one.

BTW authoritarianism:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
au·thor·i·tar·i·an [Audio pronunciation of authoritarianism] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-thôr-târ-n, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
adj.

1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which technically makes Iran authoritrian as well.
Hey, that was my point! you go find your own! :p

Though authoritarian is really not mutually exclusive with or any better then totalitarianism.
Authoritarianism is exclusive with totalitarianism, it's the reason why such a differentiation exists; if power is centralised it's totalitarian, it's distributed through society via authorities it's authoritarian. To try and equivocate the two other than for being undesirable (and actually, some degree of authoritarianism can be desireable or even necessary in certain instances) renders the terms meaningless.

Republic:

Technically all democracies are republics save those which are direct.
And save those which are not republics.

That's because the UK was operating with 16th century technology. There is really no reason why Iran can't be a strong democracy, i.e. it took Japan only very little time after world war 2 and Japan started just as backwards as Iran.
The technology aspect was irrelevant. Monarchic and parliamentary change didn't result solely (if at all?) from technological change. Or at any rate, none that relates to the current discussion.

Comparing Iran with Japan is to ignore the cultural conditions which led to Japan embracing western capitalist democracy, and which are completely lacking in Iran.
How so? Because they can hold show elections. (Saddam had elections as well) and because there is some rampant majoritarianism?
Iraq held elections with one and only one candidate permitted to stand, and with the threat of force hanging over voters to force them to choose that candidate. Are you seriously suggesting that Iran's democratic system is equivalent?
Iran is not in the sixteenth century but the twentieth. I think you are ignoring historical context. ;)
Nor have I suggested it is so; and I suspect you're ignoring the historical context which led to the formation of Iran's democratic system, and of the external forces which impinge on the religious conservatives' grip on Iran
I think that is precisly actual democracy. Obviously its not idealized if it is actually practiced.
No, seriously? Some process is defined not by what people are actually doing, but by what people think they're doing? So, for instance, democracy is simply marking a piece of paper to put someone into congress/Parliament/whatever? Does that mean marriage is simply a public ceremony for two people to show how much they love each other? My car drinks petrol and that's how it runs? A cup of tea is really hot? What I believe to be true is actually the truth? :eek:
Really there is no reason why we should merely examine or compare Iran to some middle age kingdom.

I mean saying "Well they are good, compared to a 5th century feudal state" is just very silly. I mean...ok...but that's not saying much.

That's like calling a man who smacks his kid with a tennis racket a good father, because 400 years ago people were doing much worse to kids.
Sorry. No idea where you're going with this last comment, but good luck to you! :D

[Skeptic]

Of course he will never actually go to these "workers' paradises." He will sit here and lament how stupid his countrymen are and what a living hell it is to be here and pat himself on the back at how clever he is to see through all the propaganda that the rest of us are too stupid to see.

...until he gets either a job or a girlfriend, that is.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Again the difference is structural rather than functional. Oppression of women would be a whole other thread and whilst HM wouldn't declare a fatwah (which is, after all, a decision on interpreting Islamic law in relation to a particular issue, although I guess that was little comfort to Salman Rushdie), it often feels like the media does

What's the difference?


Dude, they've got a political party which is actively trying to erode the power of Guardian Council! How is that suppressing opposition?

I really doubt that. Proof?

I really doubt I for example could start a Marxist or atheist party in Iraq. Perhaps the Bahai church may have different thoughts on your view of free opposition?

Btw--technically there's a huge difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism; it's the way that power is distributed through society. There's little difference between either in relation to representative/direct democracy, but to measure everything according to such a polar construct is kind of--daft.

Well that "popular construct" was the dictionary....

BTW you should maybe explain the difference when you propose it....





Hey, that was my point! you go find your own!

Which is not mutually exclusive to totalitrianism, i.e. its both.

Authoritarianism is exclusive with totalitarianism, it's the reason why such a differentiation exists; if power is centralised it's totalitarian, it's distributed through society via authorities it's authoritarian.

Semantics. The dictionary says authoritrianism is about absolute power invested in an authority. This can be distributed or focused. Do you have a definitive source for any of this?


To try and equivocate the two other than for being undesirable (and actually, some degree of authoritarianism can be desireable or even necessary in certain instances) renders the terms meaningless.

No they are just not mutually exclusive. Language evolved in a messy manner, it wasn't something planned out.


The technology aspect was irrelevant. Monarchic and parliamentary change didn't result solely (if at all?) from technological change. Or at any rate, none that relates to the current discussion.

Comparing Iran with Japan is to ignore the cultural conditions which led to Japan embracing western capitalist democracy, and which are completely lacking in Iran.

That's strange I always felt the technology aspects which allows for things like mass literacy, transportation, more equal economies(and hence oppurtunities) to be more crucial then culture.

I mean we have had culture for a long time, with nothing like a modern democracy. Then technology imporoves and I guess just by coincidence we get more democratic governments in europe...

Also culture may create differences but we still are all, in the end, human. That itself I believe creates far more similiarity then it does difference. Both Japanese and Iraqis eat, sleep, crap, feel pain and have babies regardless of culture.



Iraq held elections with one and only one candidate permitted to stand, and with the threat of force hanging over voters to force them to choose that candidate. Are you seriously suggesting that Iran's democratic system is equivalent?

The paticulars may vary but generally I think they are similiar.


No, seriously? Some process is defined not by what people are actually doing, but by what people think they're doing? So, for instance, democracy is simply marking a piece of paper to put someone into congress/Parliament/whatever?

Never said that. This is why I gave real life examples: England, Japan, the US.


Does that mean marriage is simply a public ceremony for two people to show how much they love each other?

Depends on the person though I fail to see any relevance.

What I believe to be true is actually the truth?

No it's what you believe but you don't hold as true. ;)


(Yes I know my response was irrelevant, but so was the points.)

[reprise]

According to the World Almanac and Book of Facts, Iran's constitution requires it to be an Islamic republic. Can anyone verify that as being correct, because if it is then the population can elect anyone they like to government but that government will still be required to maintain a state in which Islam law is supreme.

[reprise]

From the Islamic Republic of Iran Constitution (http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution.html)

1. General Principles, Article 1 :
The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

1. General Principles, Article 2 :
The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
6.the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to:
1.continuous ijtihad of the fuqaha' possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis off the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Ma'sumun, upon all of whom be peace;
2.sciences and arts and the most advanced results of human experience, together with the effort to advance them further;
3.negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.

1. General Principles, Article 4 :
All civil, penal financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally to all articles of the Constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations, and the fuqaha' of the Guardian Council are judges in this matter.

It's pretty scary stuff. Oddly enough, 3. The Rights of the People (http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-3.html) wouldn't be too bad a framework for a bill of rights if the supremacy of Islam was removed from it.

As far as I can determine, the Iranian people themselves have absolutely no right or power to amend the Constitution (http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-14.html) and many forms of amendment are constitutionally prohibited.

The contents of the Articles of the Constitution related to the Islamic character of the political system; the basis of all the rules and regulations according to Islamic criteria; the religious footing; the objectives of the Islamic Republic of Iran; the democratic character of the government; the wilayat al-'mr the Imamate of Ummah; and the administration of the affairs of the country based on national referenda, official religion of Iran [Islam] and the school [Twelver Ja'fari] are unalterable.

[reprise]

Before posting this link I'd just like to say that I don't regard ABCNews as an unbiased, authorative news source, so while I find the report somewhat disturbing I'd be interested in finding out a lot more detail on this as I suspect this particular report is somewhat sensationalist.

Pentagon eyes massive covert attack on Iran (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/ITeamInsider.html)

[Skeptic]

Pentagon eyes massive covert attack on Iran (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/ITeamInsider.html)

(Sigh)

If it ever WAS a covert operation, it no longer is...

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by reprise
According to the World Almanac and Book of Facts, Iran's constitution requires it to be an Islamic republic. Can anyone verify that as being correct, because if it is then the population can elect anyone they like to government but that government will still be required to maintain a state in which Islam law is supreme.

Well, that's what it says on Iran's Home Page (http://www.president.ir/).
Don't forget to sign the guestbook, while you're there :D.

They can't elect anyone they like, candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council and can be rejected for any reason, and the Guardian Council doesn't have to answer to anyone as to why they reject a candidate. It's such a farce, there is even a comedy movie produced in Iran which deals with this subject Secret Ballot (http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/s/secret-ballot.shtml).