 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
Martin Woollacott, The Guardian:
Ali Shah is the disrespectful nickname Iranians have in recent years bestowed on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme religious leader of the Islamic republic.
It captures what they see as the monarchial aspirations and the clear limitations of the man who took over the function of "guiding" the republic from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini 18 years ago and who now, after an election that has put his man in as president, controls all the major institutions of the Iranian state.
Those years have seen a slow draining away of legitimacy from the republic and its leaders, and in particular from Khamenei, who could never match the dominating presence of Khomeini and who could not stem the increasing hostility of most of the Iranian people to political religion, but who nevertheless has been determined, along with his satraps within the system, to maintain his grip on power.
The ultimate destination in a journey of this kind is an authoritarian state without authority, and that prospect seems much closer today in Iran. For years the men in charge of the key positions in Iran, including the Council of Guardians, the judiciary, the security ministries and the security forces, have periodically been able to recapture some popular support by allowing reformists a margin for manoeuvre in parliament and in the presidency, particularly under President Mohammad Khatami.
But, with the subversion of the 2004 parliamentary elections by the conservatives, who banned most liberal candidates and made the resources of the state available to the rightwingers, that era began to close. It is now definitively over, with the election to the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former mayor of Tehran whose politics are fundamentalist to the point of simple-mindedness, marking the point at which the Khamenei regime has passed over into a fearful consolidation of power that has no room even for a loyal opposition.
Khomeini, whatever else may be said about him, was a man big enough in his achievements to spread his aura over the whole apparatus that the revolution created, even though he ejected the liberal partners, both secular and religious, who had helped make that revolution.
Khamenei and his fellow conservatives, by contrast, have increasingly come to depend only on the security state, and upon the physical coercion, or the threat of it, which that dependence implies. They have also begun, as it increases, to admit representatives of the security arms into the inner circle of power, hitherto confined to clerics and a few devout laymen. Ahmadinejad is himself a former Revolutionary Guard.
Certainly, the losing candidates in the presidential election charge that the assets of the security state were deployed on a large scale to ensure his victory. The meetings of liberal candidates were disrupted, mysterious bombs went off - presumably the contribution of the intelligence services - government money was said to have been made available in large quantities and the volunteer militia groups, which dot every community, were on hand as unpaid election workers and enforcers. In addition, there are so many of these people - 300,000 in the militia, police, and Revolutionary Guard, not counting the regular armed forces - that the impact of their votes, if directed toward a particular candidate, is bound to be significant.
Whether such support was as extensive as some of the losers claimed, it was not the only reason Ahmadinejad won. His diatribes against corruption and his pledge that oil wealth would be used to improve the lives of ordinary people had an impact. Yet this is precisely the field in which he cannot deliver.
The Islamic republic is both a corrupt regime and one where connections count for everything. All but an honourable handful of the clerico-political class have enriched themselves, some illegally and some by simply taking advantage of their positions. Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad's main opponent in the election, is one of the most prominent examples, and he suffered for it in the campaign. But among the men who helped get Ahmadinejad in are many who have profited as much or almost as much. Is Mr Clean going to go after them?
For western countries, the main problem represented by this victory is that it entrenches those least sympathetic to rapprochement with Europe and America and least likely, in particular, to give way on nuclear enrichment, which the Khamenei regime is trying to turn into a nationalist touchstone.
The regime's dilemma - which is that it needs western investment and expertise if it is to provide the prosperity that will help it stay in power, but fears the corrosive political impact of dealings with western countries - will intensify. Its confrontation with the US will almost certainly sharpen, and the possibility of a US attack, if there is no concession on nuclear matters, while still not high, will increase.
What is both worrying and hopeful for Iranians is that this consolidation of power has a last-ditch aspect about it. Khamenei has increased control, but the regime has lost flexibility and much of whatever legitimacy remained.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
My apologies, I saw that a little too late (on page 2).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
And of course, as is most common with your commentary, your wrong.
On DanS's notion that the Iraqiu presidential elections were undemocratic. Hmm, they had 6 Candidates for President.
I had 2 credible candidadates last time I went to the polls, and the winner does not even have to win a mayority if the popular vote, but a Byzantine system of state caucauses.
Should seem obvious that the Iranian model is so much less democratic....
|
Only two credible candidates? Even discounting the obvious Bush and Kerry from that list surely there were more than two credible candidates? I thought New York had a simlar system to the rest of the United States regarding elections? I had at least half a dozen candidates to choose from on my ballot here in Colorado, and they were chosen to represent their parties on the national ballot by different people in every instance (members of their own party) and not by the same people who decide everything else in the country as is done in Iran. Aside from this, if I were unhappy with the selection of candidates I am allowed to write in anyone I want.
Iran is effectively a one party state, and that one party never has to stand for elections, but instead rules from the shadows. It decides who runs, who gets arrested and which election results to nullify when it doesn't care for the outcome. Democracy has receded constantly since the formation of the republic, and now serves only as a means to play the Iranian public and gullible outsiders like Imran and now apparantly you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
Revolutionary secularists weren't in any position to win a Presidential election in Iran, particularly considering the boycott of many Reformists in the past election (and, hence, Moin's loss). It'd be like if the Supreme Court banned Nader, Cobb, Brown, etc. from running over here, i.e. it wouldn't have made much of a difference, and the election would've been by and large "democratic." The FPTP system, ballot access rules, etc. here serve a similar function as the Guardian Council's exclusions. Obviously in Parliamentary elections and so forth, these bans are a lot more relevant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
"Revolutionary secularists weren't in any position to win a Presidential election in Iran, particularly considering the boycott of many Reformists in the past election (and, hence, Moin's loss). "
the reason the real reformers boycotted the election was precisely because of the limitations on democracy.
" It'd be like if the Supreme Court banned Nader, Cobb, Brown, etc. from running over here, i.e. it wouldn't have made much of a difference, and the election would've been by and large "democratic." "
A. It wouldnt be
B. AFAICT the support for the real reformers is greater than that.
" The FPTP system, ballot access rules, etc. here serve a similar function as the Guardian Council's exclusions. "
er, no. They are content neutral. The GC doesnt exclude anyone with small support - they specifically exclude people with a platform they dont like.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The point you so glaringly miss is that, NO, noone will be elected asking for the removal of the system that decides whether they can run or not.
Once you get elected, and get a mayority in the legislature, then you can push. Otherwise, you are left waiting for a revolution, simply because the President of Iran, without a legislature to back him, could not really hope to take on the conservatives politicvally, and would need to wait for the streets to erupt.
That is what distinguishes "Reformer" from "Revolutionary".
Is that distinction too difficult to grasp? |
ergo, by definition, no regime ever effectively oppresses reformers, since if they are effectively oppressed, they can only take power by revolution, and thus cease to be reformers. Breathtaking.
The point remains - the elections did NOT represent the full spectrum of political opinion in Iran. And the excluded represented an opinion that could only be called reformist, except that the very exclusion made them by definition "revolutionary"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
ergo, by definition, no regime ever effectively oppresses reformers, since if they are effectively oppressed, they can only take power by revolution, and thus cease to be reformers. Breathtaking. |
WTF.
How the hell do you get to that statement?
Maybe you missed the point earlier, but the Council of guardians had originally left out all the reformers-only because of protests did the Supreme leader reinstate two. That meant that the Iranian system had done a pretty good job of, well, efefctively repressing reformers.
quote:
The point remains - the elections did NOT represent the full spectrum of political opinion in Iran. And the excluded represented an opinion that could only be called reformist, except that the very exclusion made them by definition "revolutionary" |
No election ever does. You call Germany's elections always undemocratic because there is no legal way for a Nazi to run in Germany?
And yes, a Reformist DID RUN. That was the whole point of posting the candidates. Had the people wanted to elect a reformer, they had one running!
What happened is that the sectors who would generally vote for a reformer boycotted the elections
 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-06-2005 10:25
In order to be a reformer, you MUST be a total wacko radical! Nice to see LOTM lives in a different world.
|