Who lies the most?

US democracy vs Iranian democracy


Who lies the most?
by Ben Madadi

I often thought who Iranians would vote for in case they had a democracy. And we know who the members of the first Iranian parliament in the first decade of the 20th century were. They were mostly the clergy. Good for them! Iranians, would naturally vote for Shia Islam, even today. Hey, scream and shout that our compatriots are some idiots!? No! We may be idiots for thinking that we are right and they are wrong. The reality is out there. Don't like it? Go and find the society you fit in! God created us free, right? What would Iranians vote for today? I know that most Iranians are pretty much fed up with this regime, but what would they vote for? I think they would still vote for some hypocrite, mostly an Islamist one.

Just a few days ago I was just thinking about the current electoral process that is undergoing in the US, and comparing it to Iran. I was comparing Americans to Iranians. America is the oldest ongoing (continuous) democracy (Britain is a 'democratic' Monarchy if we may say so) and they are some of the most prepared peoples in democratic affairs. But it is so amazing that the average American voter (that means the vast majority) is not much different an idiot than the average Iranian voter. While the Iranian voter votes for an Islamist hypocrite who pretty much says nothing while lying about the most basic realities of the world, the American voter votes for a Christian who is just a bit more careful in his lies (because of the continuous harsh scrutiny by opposing media channels), though still pretty much saying nothing! Let's look at how things are! We have two front-runners (almost), Clinton for the Democrats and McCain for the Republicans. Why do their voters so whole-heartedly vote for one or the other? I am honestly curious to know. What has Clinton promised to do? What are her views? What is she saying really? What about McCain?

I looked at their programs. They say nothing concrete. If they are saying anything concrete, most of what they are saying are vague, irrelevant, impossible, or purely preposterous. And I actually found more (relatively) concrete statements and programs from McCain and much less concrete stuff from Clinton. Democrats are well-known for talking a lot and saying absolutely nothing at the end. When you go to their rallies and gatherings, you can only be sure that you will see smiles, behind which lies are abound. Republicans are somewhat more open and blunt in what they say and believe. But, in the end, people actually vote for candidates who talk a lot and say nothing. This goes for both Democrats and Republicans. It is not true to say that people do not have other choices. No! People do not want choices, they just want to vote for someone who can talk a lot, and say nothing. And this is indeed what most people want! And it is what they get.

Compare George Bush and Ahmadinejad! They were both elected by people, George Bush somewhat more fairly than Ahmadinejad. Look at their promises and their actions! Neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad promised much, but they didn't even do much for that little vague stuff they did promise. Ahmadinejad was voted because he knew how to lie well and talk a lot while saying nothing, and look like a good guy who respects Shia Islam and adheres to it, while Bush was elected because he looked like a good Christian who knew to talk a lot while saying nothing. However, the difference (as just mentioned) is that America has democratic institutions that are functional while Iran has defunct institutions that serve the politician in power, the most powerful one.

Why don't people wake up and vote for policies and programs and follow the rulers carefully to see whether they uphold their promises or not? I am not very sure about the possible reasons, but I can say that most probably hate is at play. Hate is the missing word in the nature of true politics. Hate blinds voters so much they don't read, listen or think. They just vote against someone they hate! People vote someone because they hate the other one, without having good faith and looking to see what they actually say, because most often they saying nothing. People vote for Clinton because they hate Republican conservatism, while Republicans vote for McCain because they hate Democratic liberalism (they don't even know what liberalism means).

People don't even listen to see the none-sense these politicians are saying. I did listen to every one of them. One did stand out, and it was Huckabee, simply I heard one PROGRAM (a no-meaning word in politics) he had; to abolish the IRS. That sounded very nice to me and something that could have very good results. But, amazingly, those who actually voted for him, did what they did because they hated liberalism and they thought Mike Huckabee would be the best Christian Evangelical conservative among all Republicans. Most of his voters had no idea about his tax policies. God, damn! Such idiots! Please don't get it personally. I don't really mean it :)

And why they voted for Huckabee? Because they hated liberals so much. All they heard Huckabee say was Jesus Christ, our Lord! Why did others vote for Obama or Clinton and not Huckabee? Because they hated so much Christian conservatism, they didn't care listening to see what they said. So, they neither listened to Obama, nor Clinton, nor McCain, nor Huckabee. They just voted AGAINST some ideology, or perceived belief, they hated really badly.

This is politics. It's bullshit (excuse my French) and hypocrisy all over it! It is the same in Iran, and it is the same in America, though Iranian one is not based on democratic and functional institutions while the American one actually works so that hypocrite rulers (pretty much every and each one of them) do not hold on to unconditional and unchecked power. That is the case for the US and that is the case for Iran, and anywhere else. But why is the US doing so well and why is Iran doing so poorly? They are both supposed to have some incompetent rulers who say, and do, pretty much nothing, right? It is simple, because while American rulers are under continuous scrutiny by the media and the judiciary (especially the media usually serving the opposing ideology), the Iranian rulers control the media and the judiciary.

So, although both American and Iranian rulers are pretty much nothing but some hypocrites, American rulers do nothing in general while they enjoy the goodies of power, Iranian rulers do a lot in order to keep their goodies flowing while they are alive, therefore doing lots of damages. That's all they do really, which is not so bad as such, but it is far worse in the process by preventing average Iranians pursuing their own goals, personal or social. This is why we are doing so badly and Americans doing so well.

Rulers in societies that are, or pretend to be, democratic, are best kept at bay under continuous check so that normal people, businessmen, parents, just every single citizen of the country, can get on with their lives without state interference. And the judiciary, independent of political hypocrisy, is supposed to make sure that one citizen's liberties do not collide with another citizen's liberties. Therefore some sort of justice is served. And all this must be under the close supervision of a strong and non-political (no state control involved) media so that corruption gets publicised.

What America has achieved has been this; the creation and protection of the fundamental institutions to keep politicians under control, through an independent judiciary and an independent press. And it actually works okay, just okay. All it does, from a philosophical point of view, is that two evils, some who hate the socialists (pretending to be liberals) while others who hate conservatives, never really get so much power to annihilate the other while doing their dirty work every now and then when they are in power. That is life.

However we shall not brandish every and each politician as such, because there are enough decent and caring politicians out there. I did kind of generalise the whole process, but there are individuals who are different every now and then but they often stand very little chance of being elected. And I am not talking about Ron Paul here. His programs are naive, populist and unworkable.

Nothing is perfect, though US imperfection has succeeded to serve the US citizens far better than what is supposed to be the rule of God in Iran, oh yeah! Let's hope that we as Iranians do our best so our own Iranian Islamic Republic, for the sake of the vast majority of moderate Muslim Iranians, makes a better environment in which hating parties can vote against each other and at the end none of them can plunder so much for so long at the expense of the country. And to do this we need stable and democratic institutions. An independent media is very important in order to follow and check to see that hypocrites stay hypocrites as their voters like and do not turn into thugs sticking to their administrative and political positions.

It is also important to be tolerant, not turning hate into violence. But it is quite difficult to imagine Khomeini's republic becoming tolerant to others. We all know how tolerant Khomeini was even to his friends who dared disagreeing with him. If only he hated them but be more tolerant and let them create their own political parties, Iran would have already become a flourishing prosperous country.�


Recently by Ben MadadiCommentsDate
Moving forward
Nov 06, 2008
Testing democracy
Nov 02, 2008
Playing dumb?
Sep 29, 2008
more from Ben Madadi

I found your article very

by Donna (not verified) on

I found your article very interesting. While I have lived in the USA all my life my dad is from Tehran Iran and lives there. I always felt that Iran and USA were very much alike and that is where the conflict came in. The voting process and what the canidates promise in both countries was brought out in a clear crisp manor. I imagine that no matter where we live promises are made and broken. If we all worried about human life and well being of all the world would be a better place. I enjoyed your article.


I found your article very

by Donna (not verified) on

I found your article very interesting. While I have lived in the USA all my life my dad is from Tehran Iran and lives there. I always felt that Iran and USA were very much alike and that is where the conflict came in. The voting process and what the canidates promise in both countries was brought out in a clear crisp manor. I imagine that no matter where we live promises are made and broken. If we all worried about human life and well being of all the world would be a better place. I enjoyed your article.

Ben Madadi

Re: vb

by Ben Madadi on

The best thing to do would be not to vote!


Reformers are blocked in

by vb (not verified) on


No I think Iranians can

by Anonymous347 (not verified) on

No I think Iranians can prove how advanced they were with their 1979 revolution which was bicolored instead of the monotonic colors of the Eastern Bloc's revolutions. Theirs was black and red at first but then the black kicked the hell out of the red and turned into pitch black.


Yeah but

by XerXes (not verified) on

Why don't you think how advance we are comparing to the region. While we had a rainbow revolution all over the eastern block countries like orange, red, pink or whatever, in Iran we had white revolution decades and decades ago. haha, can you top that?


qassame Hazrate Abbas ya dom e khoroos

by Anonymous347 (not verified) on

qassame Hazrate Abbas ya dom e khoroos!

According to Khatami who said earlier that Iran was the most democratic state in the Middle East, "election process" cannot possibly be a "Catastrophe"! Why can't he make up his mind?

January 2008

Iran's former President Mohammad Khatami said Thursday that Iran is the most democratic state in the Middle East.

Addressing the 38th World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Khatami said, "Obviously, opposition against Iran is politically motivated. Extremists in any religion always consider everything black and white and have no tool but violence."
He said love is the core of Islam and Christianity. "Extremists in both the religions want to turn love into hatred," warned the cleric.

Elsewhere in his address, Khatami pointed to West's concern over religion and said, "In the West which had nothing to do with religion, we witnessed the World Wars I and II."
Asked by a reporter on an Austrian rightist party member's insult to Islam and Muslims, Khatami said, "We have a proverb which says when an idiot says something one should not pay attention to and ignore it."
He said such insults would solve no problem.

More than 2,500 people, mostly senior economic and political figures, from 88 countries have taken part in the World Economic Forum in Davos, which started on Wednesday.

Twenty-seven presidents and prime ministers and 113 ministers are taking part in the forum.

Moreover, about 60 percent of the participants are
representatives of economic sectors and more than 1,370 of the guests are heads of the world's big and well-reputed companies.



Iran's Khatami Terms

by Anonymousu (not verified) on

Iran's Khatami Terms Election Process "Catastrophe"

February 07, 2008
Monsters and Critics.com
Middle East News

Tehran -- Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami termed the election process and widespread disqualifications of reformist candidates for next month's parliamentary elections a 'catastrophe,' Tehran media reported Thursday. 'That some decent people are disqualified is problem enough, but the more regrettable problem is that the trend of the people's votes is predetermined and this could seriously jeopardize the system,' ISNA news agency quoted the reform-minded Khatami as saying.

More than 2,000 candidates, including a large number of pro- Khatami reformists, have reportedly been banned by the Iranian Interior Ministry monitoring committees even before reaching the main monitoring body which is the Guardian Council.

'This is indeed a catastrophe. The most important thing (in a political system) is holding elections without narrow-mindedness and unilateral approach,' Khatami said.

Khatami and ex-president Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani lead the reformist-moderate coalition, the main opposition faction to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In the 2004 polls, more than 2,500 reformist candidates were rejected due to their alleged non-commitment to the Islamic system. According to reformists, the number for the 2008 elections is even higher.

Due to the vast number of disqualifications, reformists say that they have no serious chance of challenging the conservatives in the March 14 elections.

Even the grandson of late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the reform-minded Ali Eshraqi, was disqualified from the elections.

Observers doubt that, under such circumstances and without a competitive atmosphere, the elections on March 14 could turn out to be a trendsetter for Iran's political future.

But the elections could still become a challenge to Ahmadinejad as also the conservative faction is not fully behind the president.

The conservatives are led by former chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, who resigned last October due to differences with Ahmadinejad over the president's uncompromising nuclear policies which might lead to international isolation of the Islamic state.

In an interview with ISNA, Larijani made clear that he has 'ideological differences' with Ahmadinejad and further criticized the president's economic policies, which has led in the last two years to astronomic inflation in the country, harming especially those who in 2005 voted for him due to his economic reform promises.

The main pro-Ahmadinejad faction is called 'Nice Smell of Service,' but besides the reformist-moderate coalition, even the conservatives have gradually distanced themselves form the presidential camp, mainly in the fear that they might be affected by widespread popular protests against the government's poor economic performance.

At stake are 290 seats, including 30 for Tehran, which is politically the most important constituency.