ELECTIONS

HG you are right

one needs to have all elements of a democracy before voting takes place.

One needs to have freedom

Americans had that.

One needs to have democratic institutions.

America had that too thanks to the brits.

Once you have those then you can progress, but you also have to be mindful of your environment with respect to foreign interference.  It's tough.

Dear Ari

Assume Iranians follow your logic and go to vote i high numbers. Last time there was the reformist Mousavi who ran and "lost". Who do you think we will have as the "reformist" candidate this time?  Do you actually think the IRI will allow a true reformist candidate to run this time around?

Also, IRI track record so far with respect to reformists candidates:

1) Khatami- Did not accomplish anything at the end and things got worse

2) Mousavi- In jail

Amirparviz

In the abstract it's hard to object to a constitutional monarchy as compared to a republic; in some cases they work better than a republic, in some cases not. But you would have to show that working towards a constitutional monarchy is an efficeint place to put our political energies in the current situation. Perhaps if RP pulled a rabbit out of the hat and showed everyone that he is a realistic alternative. Note that right now the majority of Iranians are not as ideologically inclined to a monarchy as you are. So you would have to make your case non-ideologically in terms of tangible benefits. Better yet for monarchists, it would be great if they didn't have to make a case at all and RP (or someone else) was able to inspire a monarchistic ideology in Iranians. After all, doesn't a monarchy exist on farr?

Rejection of the "Election"

Ari,

I see it completely differently.

The Regime needs these sham elections to prove its legitimacy both internally and to the rest of the world. You are correct that they don’t need these elections to do what they want to do, but high turnouts and rigged results give them the talking points.

As for the elections in the West and US especially, you and I can put our names on any ballots if we are willing to go through the drill. Nobody scrubs the list. The fact that a bunch of country club types can get elected and vote against the interest of the average guy, is more a statement on the ignorance of the voter than the competence of the candidate or the integrity of the system.

Here in the US, you get the government that you deserve!

We'll get a worse islamic republic if you can possibly imagine

that an IRI with people that are more like north korea.

it is not the west that wants this VPK,

it is the same people that own power in the usa and uk, who removed the shah and created the Arab Spring using the cia and Nato.

//www.scribd.com/doc/63434141/9/ENRICO-MATTEI...

have fun reading why.

What scares me

about a foreign attack is what they have done already. In Iraq; Afghanistan and now Libya they created Islamic Republics. West has no intention of creating a secular state. If they get their way we got another Islamic Republic.

Amir 1973 read this book for info

//www.scribd.com/doc/63434141/9/ENRICO-MATTEI...

your ideas and conclusions are too much based on the media and your perception of reality, not reality.  Mattei was murdered by the cia in 1962 for his agreement with the shah.  After reaading this it may enlighten you as to what is really going on in egypt, tunisia, libya and syria and by whom. 

Just give it 200 years (give or take)

Nope! Check out the history of the American democracy. since 1776. Democracy can be an evolutionary process. 

In other words, "Bekhab, Eslamist-ha Bidarand". Through a centuries-long process, the Islamist regime will reach the "pre-democracy" stage. 

Ari I agree with your conclusion

bound to fail attempt at a secular democracy.

my reason is people can not just go from a highly repressive dictatorship to secular democracy in one go.

Do you think a constitutional monarchy would not be able to be stable????????? I know it will have huge challenges.

AO

An equally unwise application of the Modern Western model is hoping that Iran can become a secular democracy in a matter one regime change, or for that matter become a secular semi-dictatorship as the unstable Pahlavi dynasty showed. However, there are universals that can be abstracted from the history of democarcy to help think through this. One of them has to do with religion. Note the first line of the first amendment to the US Constition:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... 

At one level this looks like a step in the direction of secular government--which it is. But on a deeper level it reveals  how important people's religions were/are to them that they would wish to first and foremost guarantee the freedom to worship as they pleased without persecution. The freedom of speech, press, right to assemble etc. follow the demand for a system that allows them to meet their spiritual needs.  This may seem silly of them; but that's how it is. It is only in the retrospect of modernity that that we see speech, press, assembly as being on an equal or higher footing than religion.

With luck Iran could be placed in a similar pre-democracy stage, so that later it's population can evolve the same priorities regarding secular spheres of life. But obviously they're not there now. A knee jerk negative reaction to any government with religion as one of its priorities (not necessarily freedoms regarding religion, just religion being a top concern) ignores one of the realities about Iran.

The official Reformists are religious, I grant you that. But those other, secular, priorites exist in their mindset albeit on a lower tier for now. So there's at least a potential for a later democracy in Iran's own non-Western terms that doesn't appear in any of the alternatives, including invasion-->regime overthrow-->bound to fail attempt at a secular democracy.

No reform

is possible with Khamenei but what after he goes? There is no reason to assume things will remain same. We know there have been many reasonable Ayatollahs such as Taleghani and Montazeri.

What is one like them becomes the new VF? All it takes is one to start the reform. Khamenei is old. He is going to be on his way to Khomeini pretty soon. Then it is very possible that a more cool headed person would make the reforms.

So Khamenei is issuing fatwas endorsing his "biggest nightmare"?

Question is, do we want to weaken one of IRI's biggest nightmares-- the election process--for short term gains

One can continue holding on to one's delusions and failed approaches and repeat them over and over and over again and expect a different outcome. Or one can let go of one's delusions and try to learn from experience. The Libyans and Syrians did not bother with the charade of their regime's "elections" (nor the Tunisians and Egyptians for that matter despite the far, far less bloody nature of those regimes compared to the IRI). They called for "regime change" and, where necessary, asked for outside help. The funny thing, of course, is that in Syria it is the REGIME calling for "reform" and the opposition calling for regime change (along with international sanctions and oil embargo to bolster regime change). With the IRI, it is the "OPPOSITION" (translation: Islamists of a slightly different stripe and their West-residing Little Helpers) who are calling for "reform". Go figure...Keep hitting your head against the IRI's stone wall, and maybe, just maybe, that wall will budge some day (perhaps right around the time the Twelfth Emam "returns"). 

I'll answer this one Ari

Copying a Western model of evolutionary democracy for Iran is a non-starter.  here's a comment of mine on the subject from another thread (please note that none of the accusations is meant to apply to you):

"...comparing (or copying) the Western style civil rights movement to what is happening in Iran is perhaps the dumbest idea ever created by any so-called “opposition” movement to any dictatorship.  In fact, in my opinion, that concept is a ploy by the IR and its cloaked West residing supporters to maintain status quo in Iran.  The most obvious difference between the two situations is the fact that in the West, there is an independent judiciary that can strike down laws that create inequalities such as segregation, etc.  A perfect example is, of course, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown vs. Board of Education which put an end to segregated schools. Now compare that with IR’s show trials and “revolutionary courts.”  So, this whole idea that one can end one of the most brutal dictatorships in the 20th and 21st centuries by flower power and that the quest for democracy in Iran is a “civil rights movement”-- as is advocated by staunch fossil 1970’s revolutionaries like Dabashi and his supporters-- is just dumb if not quite sinister and insidious. "   

For the process to become fair and unbiased, there needs to be independent, overseeing institutions such as independent judicairies, etc.  Otherwise, ppeople can "vote" for a million years, with the same expected outcome: the guy incharge of everything wins.  Example: Cuba. 

HG

"... one needs to have all elements of a democracy before voting takes place."

Nope! Check out the history of the American democracy. since 1776. Democracy can be an evolutionary process. Why try to prove that failure is possible by emphasizing failed electoral processes? More to the point is finding out how election processes have succeeded by also studying the limited ones that matured and expanded.

ari, i take the issue very

ari, i take the issue very seriously especially the issue of shenanigans of the mullahs and their cronies which has led to rape, torture and execution of many ordinary iranians who have followed their theater.  i'm not against voting or the institution of voting.  if you're not familiar with the north korean voting system or that of the baathist in sadam's iraq, i suggest that you take half an hour on the internet and familiarize yourself.  sugarcoating the election scams that have gone in iran since 1979 is very dangerous and you should know.  one needs to have all elements of a democracy before voting takes place.

HG

No, I did not mean that. Furthermore I avoided using rhetorical shenanigans in a serious debate that affects the future of my country. Recommend you take the issue just as seriously. The issue is should we work to dismantle an institution--the elections-- that could be used by either side to further its aims?

ari, did you mean 1. "The

ari, did you mean

1. "The election process has proven to be the strongest force in legitimizing the regime?"

2. the election process has proven to be the platform where the "out of favored" cronies fight the "favored" cronies at the expense of lives and livelihood of ordinary people?

Amir1973

I don't know enough about Cuba or N. Korea to meaningfully analyze their "election" dynamics. But I do know enough in the case of Iran to point out the following.

1. The election process has proven to be the strongest force in destablizing the regime.

2.  The election process has proven to be the strongest force in causing fracturing in the IRI system. This has two components:

A: Conservatives and reformists have been increasingly at odds with each other, culminating in the election protests and the Mousavi/Karoubi imprisonment.

B: Ahamdinejad faction within the conservatives has felt freer to flex muscle against the Khamenei faction. Part of this has to do with the sense that people voted for them--as some undoubtedly did.

Question is, do we want to weaken one of IRI's biggest nightmares-- the election process--for short term gains?

Esfand

"I think the reason is if they were to discontinue the "election" process
it'll be confirmation of them abandoning the freedoms which they so
much boast." 

That's a good answer. Holding elections is an acknowledgment by the regime of the people's power.  Claiming that there is no election fraud, is an acknowledgment by the regime that they don't have the right to interfere with people's votes. In general hypocricy is an acknowlegment by the hypocrite that he knows he is in the wrong and is afraid of whoever it is he is lying to. It would be harder to deal with an IRI which has the power of conviction behind its beliefs and acts as it says. So voters should not weaken an instituion that--however nominally-- gives them the power to hold the government accountable. Of course the IRI will take advantage of the vote to help legitimize itself, and we should work creatively to minimize that. But not at the expense of weakening the institution of voting. That would be shortsighted.

Much more importantly though, if the opposition reaches a consensus to boycott, I will sigh, close ranks and fall in line, but it seems the debate is still open.

Response to Ari Siletz

"why won't the regime simply do away with voting and all its headaches?"

A large majority of the world's countries have some sort of "elections", including the most authoritarian ones (e.g. N. Korea). Just like those other authoritarian regimes, the IRI has learned to "manage" its "elections" and rig the system so that they don't challenge the authoritarian nature of the regime to any significant extent. On the contrary, the "elections" are used as props to uphold the supposed "democratic" nature of the regime. The IRI will continue holding its sham "elections" as long as they serve to reinforce the regime and its propaganda, which they do.

Some necessary reading material on the subject of the IRI's "elections":

//www.iranrights.org/english/document-604.php

You didn't answer a single one of MY questions from my previous post. Let's hear your answers to THOSE questions. Regards.

...

...

q.

q. ....iran....voting.....?

a. pretned that it's a democracy.*

*khamenei: to come out and vote is like a slap in the face of western countries.

Amir1973

For answers to "please vote" fatwas and Cuba/Korea 95% turnout claims, concentrate on the question, "why won't the regime simply do away with voting and all its headaches?"
Do you have an answer?

Ari jaan I disagree in this case.

I'd say in the next election in 2013 people should boycott the polling stations.  I say this because it'd be a contrast to the 2009 elections when 40 million voted.

In the 2005 election many boycotted and I believe about 20 million or so voted.  So in the same token perhaps by 2017 we'll have another massive turnout and this time will be the end of the Islamic Republic once and for all!  If they last that long!

To answer your question, I think the reason is if they were to discontinue the "election" process it'll be confirmation of them abandoning the freedoms which they so much boast.  That'd be proof that the regime is really lost it and time for it to go.

Although, in the end I don't know, I'd have to wait and see what is the prevailing tedencies and thoughts at the time.  Since 2009 and up to now I'm leaning towards advocating boycotting.  That's how I feel and many in my family feel the same.

One thing about Iran is that the population is so young that by 2013 a new generation will come up ready to vote oblivious to the 2009 protests (thinking they can now freely put makeup on and have BF/GF ;-) and will take to the streets to campaign for their candidates.  Sometimes it's hard to say no to them! 

Everything is sacred

Ari Siletz: Huh?

In Iran the vote is the only concession left over from the otherwise discarded goals of the 79 revolution. It is the only public institution that presents a danger to the order--as we have seen--and nothing would please the regime more than to see this institution destroyed at the hands of the people themselves. Ask yourself this: why won't the regime simply do away with voting and all its headaches? Why work so hard to rig the elections when it's much easier to simply do away with them?

Are you serious? So why does Khamenei issue fatwas for people to vote (ignoring the obvious issue that Khamenei himself was chosen by the 86-member Assembly of Experts to be the Leader-for-Life and the Final Word on all vital matters)? Why do Khamenei and his supporters constantly invoke the IRI's "elections" as proof of people's support for the "nezam"? Why do North Korea and Cuba tout the fact that greater than 95% supposedly vote in their own "elections"?

what can we do to give them stronger reasons to be afraid? Answer: make the voter more important to the polital process, ie. vote...then puke.

Huh? How can the voter be made "more important to the political process" within the Islamist regime? By voting in a new Leader? Not gonna happen. By voting one's way to a democracy? Not gonna happen. So how?

Vote anyway

We have a similar issue in the US with the vote being used as a means to legitimize a system that works against the interests of the public. Many Americans are aware of this and bring their mental barf bags to the polling stations to wretch after casting their ballots. But they realize that if they shortsightedly undermine the institution of voting they have deprived themselves of a potentially valuable tool for someday exerting people power.  In Iran the vote is the only concession left over from the otherwise discarded goals of the 79 revolution. It is the only public institution that presents a danger to the order--as we have seen--and nothing would please the regime more than to see this institution destroyed at the hands of the people themselves. Ask yourself this: why won't the regime simply do away with voting and all its headaches? Why work so hard to rig the elections when it's much easier to simply do away with them? What are they afarid of, and what can we do to give them stronger reasons to be afraid? Answer: make the voter more important to the polital process, ie. vote...then puke.

آقا اسفند، حرف شما درست، ولی‌...

زیاد نگران "انتخابات" آینده نباشید، چون که به نظر میاد کار این رژیم ولایت وقیح ممکنه قبل از این "انتخابات" قلابیشون تموم بشه. اگر هم نشد، بی‌ خیال، بذارید یک "انتخابات" دیگه هم بزنن، دلشون خوش باشه. از قدیم گفتن: دیر یا زود داره...

اصلاح طلبانی که نفی "فتنه ۸۸" را بکنند که دیگر اصلاح طلب نیستند!

من فکر کنم این انتخابات اسفند بی‌ درد سر بگذرد و مردم زیاد شرکت نکنند، چون اصلا تو انتخابات مجلس مردم زیاد شرکت نمیکنند.  من نگران انتخابات رئیس جمهوری بعدی هستم.  شاید این رژیم ملعون برای اون انتخابات مردم رو زورکی وادار کنه که رای بدن، یعنی‌ اگر مثلا شناسنامت مهر نخوره بهت یارانه نمی‌دیم! 

در عین حال ممکن که مردم در اون انتخابات بریزن تو خیابون و اون موقع رژیم واقعا باید نگران امنیتش باشه.  البته بریزن تو خیابون برای تظاهرات نه برای رای دادن. تا ۲ سال دیگه اقتصاد کشور خیلی‌ خراب تر از این خواهد بود و تکلیف مشخصتر خواهد شد. 

Everything is sacred