Democracy Iranian Style
By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A guffaw or a loud snort should follow any statement that puts Iran and democracy in the same vicinity. Why? Because Iran is not free and it is not a real democracy. It's a joke:
Iran's hard-line Guardian Council on Sunday rejected all reformists who registered to run in presidential elections, approving only six out of the 1,010 hopefuls. Leaders of the reform movement threatened to boycott the vote.
The final list effectively barred reformers seeking democratic changes within the ruling Islamic establishment from the presidential race. The move came as ruling clerics seek to consolidate their power in the June 17 vote following the departure of reformist President Mohammad Khatami.
Iran has the 9th most unfree press on the planet to report it all (Reporters Without Borders has more here on this repressed and oppressed nation). So why are the mullahs so afraid of its own people? Publius Pundit:
Perhaps one of the biggest phobias of a tyrannical regime is that they won’t get the legitimacy they need from both the domestic and international community. This is exactly why they go through the huge trouble of organizing sham elections every few years. What will happen if nearly nobody votes? Regardless of who wins, he will know that he is not the true choice of the Iranian people. The Iranian rulers have even acknowledged that they do not expect many people to turn out, and you know they’re worried about it.
What if the mullahs hold an election and no one shows up? Regime Change Iran has more. The leadership later threw a few meager meaningless bones to the reformists, but it was nothing that would put their stranglehold at risk.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The Eason Jordan Wannabe — Comments (1) »
Democracy Iranian Style 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Uzbekistan? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Shouldn't we stop propping up these countries with nearly the same record before invading? Isn't that the more reasoned and deliberative approach?
I just can't endure the usual reporterese which demands that he be referred to as a reformer merely because he'd prefer to crack the skulls of a handful fewer dissidents. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Student uprising in Iran Monday night following the "Guardian Council" ruling denying spots on the ballot to the reformers. Pictures here.
Iran Freedom Rally
Lafayette Park, Washington, DC
at noon on Saturday, May 28, 2005
The keynote speech at the Iran Freedom Rally will be given by Richard Perle, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense.
This rally also marks the end of the Iran Freedom Walk from Philadelphia to Washington, DC by Jerry Corsi and supporters.
Updates at Iran Freedom Foundation.
Although I would not trust Vlad with my retirement money, I do agree with Putin that exporting democracy does not work. The US will spend it's way into bankruptcy policing the world and trying to force feed democracy. I don't believe people like Perle and Wolfowitz give a damn about the deficit or the taxpayers; they are blinded by ideology.
- I do agree with Putin that exporting democracy does not work.
Hen da naa! Amerikajin wa wakaru koto ga mottomo muzukasii desu.
You are confronted by pictures of Iranians demonstrating because the dictatorship has ruled the reform candidates off the ballot, and your response is to tell us that democracy cannot be exported. To whom, in this instance, are we required to export it, in your view?
What position of Mr. Perle's on the subject of Iran might you disagree with?
Of what releveance is a comment concering the U.S. spending its way into bankruptcy policing the world and exporting democracy, when the subject is Iran?
And finally, since this is a hot button issue with me right now, what is your opinion concerning the participation of self-inflicted ignoramuses in political debate?
Shouldn't we stop propping up these countries with nearly the same record before invading?
Where did I say that Iran should be invaded? FTR, I don't think we should force regime change militarily. Under certain conditions, I am in favor of fully removing their ability to make atomic bombs.
I do not answer questions in posts that call names, sorry.
Several of the countries I listed have maintained their dictatorships because of the implicit or explicit support of the US. Thus, before we take action against Iran, it seems logical that we should stop assisting similar countries.
I don't think we should force regime change militarily. Under certain conditions, I am in favor of fully removing their ability to make atomic bombs.
Without an invasion how is this to be achieved?
We invaded Iraq ostensibly because they were developing WMD including nuclear weapons that posed a threat to our national security and we had exhausted all other avenues available to us, international agreements, sanctions and an inspection regime, what's left?
But could we please dispense with the hokum that Khatami was, in any meaningful sense, a reformer?