LEADERSHIP part I

amirkabear4u
by amirkabear4u
24-Jun-2008
 

It is a fact that we Iranians always talk about politics in any public or private occasion. It is partly due to not having a voice in running our own affairs. I believe in democracy and as a researcher like to involve everyone to join in trying to run our own country. Remember big projects always start from drawing board and this is it.

Let’s assume, for some reasons, the situation in Iran completely changed and mullahs decided to pack their bags and run (no government lasts forever).If you were offered the grand task of running Iran (you never know could happen to you) what would you do? By no means, this is going to be an easy task and all the time you should bear in mind that if make mistakes your life and other peoples’ lives may be at risk. Be serious because politics is the art of dealing with crisis and people. Due to the geographical and political situation, Iran inherently has been an unsafe country. What should be done to overcome this? You really need to consider the fact that there is nothing so far done properly. You should consider every aspect of daily life including international issues related to Iran. And finally try to be as realistic as possible. Do you hire other people to do this for you? What if there are not many people who are qualified to do it? Assume you are the brain behind this change of government (and trust me to take over mullahs you need to be a political brain because mullahs have a way of influencing masses and so should you).To help you to decide better you need to consider if you want to be crowned or be a president and why? Both have their own advantages but just choose one. Good luck .....

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by amirkabear4uCommentsDate
Glimpses of Iran
-
Sep 10, 2012
Where is VPK?
6
Sep 08, 2012
Team Persia
4
Aug 10, 2012
more from amirkabear4u
 
amirkabear4u

Where are all those who .......

by amirkabear4u on

Where are all those who express themselves from left to right.

To Abarmard

You had the most valid points so far. You mentioned “stability comes with more military and police force to control a possible chaos”. It is interesting because at the same time being a fair approach but then the opposition very quickly will stick dictatorship label to you. Therefore I thought having an efficient and strictly by the book police force will do the job. At the same time partially abolishing the military power and army not only disappoint the opposition but also channelling excessive amount of cash used in arms into a civilized police force. All governments who are looking for some excuse just love to see us militarily expanding. This was one of shah’s mistakes.

You mentioned “benefit themselves and everyone is for themselves”, it is all to do with bad economy, in contrast Iranian have a good heart. And also they are not always the neighbours who report!

My blog was concern about the initial first few month but some of your points are mentioned in part II.

To Niloufar Parsi 

YES Niloufar What a BIG question. I believe this is why a lot Iranians continuously talking about politics because they do not realize how serious running a country is. But don’t get me wrong it is their democratic right to express themselves.

To Kurdish WarriorReading your comments I thought if at least for some nations total democracy could be practical at all or not?You said “Mosques to be turned into libraries or School”. Wouldn’t this create crises if minorities were allowed in the majlis but converting mosques!! You need to be careful there.Another point, believe it or not one of the social problems we have is copy cat attitude. Every nation has different race, culture and environment therefore do you think it is right to copy some foreign politics?Thank you all for your comments.


Niloufar Parsi

Kurdish Warrior

by Niloufar Parsi on

Oh shoot, I mentioned the 'F' word! Totally agree with you. Iran is one of the most natural federations there is, and its a shame we are not moving in that direction. Some Frasi speakers get very irritated when you mention it, but that is probably because they see it as a challenge to Farsi rule or the 'natural' order centred around Tehran.

The original American constitution is one of the best ever. And the Swiss model of democracy is even better. Lets hope...

Peace!


default

Dear Niloufar

by Kurdish Warrior (not verified) on

I totally understand what you are saying...Perhaps I should've put it down clearer. What I'm trying to say is that governmental post should be divided between all Iranians fairly. I should’ve put out a better example like Switzerland where Italians, Germans and French speakers are all part of the constitution. Even Canada would fit in that category. Another thing that I also believe is good for Iran is the concept of federalism system which applies to both countries above. However every time I mention this in the forum a lot of Muslim Persians panic and consider this as segregation. In order for all Iranians to have their rights many new laws need to be implemented so that can assure Iranians that they are part of the society and will be protected.
As for the mix I've seen many who are half Persians-Armenians, Persian-Kurds an so on which I think is quite cool. So I'm very pro to that concept.


default

Kurdish W

by XerXes (not verified) on

Which wars of Lebanon would you like Iran to become?

You have left all the countries in the world and chose Lebanon? Are you OK? aziz jaan haalet khoobeh?


Niloufar Parsi

Kurdish Warrior jan

by Niloufar Parsi on

I can't let you get away with that brother! :) 

I fully agree that Iraq and Lebanon are very young. But please reconsider the consequences of what you are advocating.

In Lebanon, the President HAS to be Christian, the PM a Sunni and the Speaker a Shia. So a great Sunni or Shia can never be a president. How is that good for the nation? How does it even encourage the sense of nationhood equally among all citizens? It negates equal opportunity and choice.

Then there is the question of demographic changes over time. The Lebanese civil war was caused by demographic changes that saw the Christians become a minority from being only just a majority about 60 years ago. But they and their Christian colonial masters did not want to let go of power and that is essentially why there has been so much fighting. A sectarian Constitution is too static over time. It also favours the groups with highest birth rates at the direct expense of others!

In a fair bid to safeguard the rights of minorities, you are pushing them into isolated boxes with very hard divisions. This can actually become a political caste system like in Lebanon.

Let me propose that we are human being first, Iranians second, men and women third, ethnic groups fourth, and religious groups last. All of these- plus some other identity factors that I may have left out such as 'political group' or 'sexual preference' -  are parts of our individual identities (in whatever order we choose. my order is just my own, and I wouldn't want a Constitution to make that choice for me). These identity priorities merge, grow, change and become transformed in time as we grow older, say from a little girl to a wife to a secular professional to a devout grandmother etc.

My question is: if you start on the path of identity politics to design a Constitution, how are you possibly going to include all these various groupings in the structure? Can you imagine the complexity of a matrix that includes all these grouping and all their possible variations in a Constitution?  How will you make sure that the rights of a secular Sunni Kurdish mother of 2 children are properly 'protected' along with those of a gay Jewish male student from Isfahan with a foreign father and a canary?!

Would it not be far simpler to adopt a set of universal rights for all Iranians, and then to opt for a more federal system to protect the interests of regional groups? You know: a secular, area-based approach rather than an ethnic/reigious one.

As for my mix (just for a laugh), I am a mixture of Kurish, Azeri and Yazdi, which I guess is what makes me a tough, progressive pacifist i guess :) 

Peace!


default

Dear Niloufar Parsi

by Kurdish Warrior (not verified) on

Let me explain that why Iran wouldn't end up like Lebanon nor Iraq. As for Lebanon, well there won't be another Iran to interfere with our domestic issues. Also Iranians tend to be more nationalist than Lebanese’s who its Shia population raise Hezbollah flag rather than Lebanon’s. As for Iraq well there is no sense of national identity either as the country was created about 60 years ago by the Brits. And also here again there won't be any country like Iran to stir trouble domestically. As for you whom are mix, I rather see it positive from my point of view. You might even end up getting 2 VIPs government jobs. One as a Persian the Other as….... The question is can you handle it :) But seriously hope that explained that we can't compare Iran with the two.


Niloufar Parsi

Kurdish warrior

by Niloufar Parsi on

Interesting perspectice you got there. I fully agree about the sharing of resources and cultural diversity parts, but your choice of the Lebanese model is rather surprising. Lebanon is a bit of a disaster really, and many people agree that its sectarian constitution is part of the problem. The 1989 peace agreement that ended the civil war included a promise to get rid of sectarianism in the cosntitution. It has not been implemented yet, and look at them today.

There is another country with such a model: post-Saddam Iraq! Is there another way of sharing resources without assigning jobs to people on the basis of ethnicity? And what happens to a mixed one like me with parents from different parts of the country? I would never get a government job! :) 

Peace!


default

To start with

by Kurdish Warrior (not verified) on

First A Secular state Then write a new constitution where some rules are quite similar to Lebanon as our country is diverse also. Government should be formed with A Persian, A Kurd, An Azeri and A Baluch nominated and elected by congress for the main posts in the country. Iran's resources will be divided fairly to all Iranians. All political parties, as far as they are moderate and not militants can participate for the progress of future Iran. There should be referendum towards two things (Mosques to be turned into libraries or School and that the language should be changed in terms of writing like Turkey for example. Also other minorities like Zoroastrians, Jews and Bahais should gain more seats in the (Majlis). Woman should have the same right as Men and will be protected by law. That’s good points to start with..


Niloufar Parsi

Decentralise!

by Niloufar Parsi on

What a BIG question!

First step would probably be to write up a new Constitution. For this there is a need to elect a council. So an interim 'national unity' government would probably be in charge while the Constitution is being drafted to be put to a referendum probably within six months to a year.

But I would also push for local councils to be elected to run affairs of municipalities and local communities. A key to promoting democracy is to engage people in running the affairs of their own neighbourhoods and communities. Ownership and engagement at all levels!

So there can be a two-way flow in the process of drafting the Constitution from the centre to the local communities and back. This would also keep administrative affairs running at the same time. 

Peace!


Abarmard

Interesting question

by Abarmard on

Unfortunately once you realistically think about running a government, especially in Iran, you probably first think about those who want to take the system from you.

Stability comes with more military and police force to control a possible chaos unless the trust of people is there.
One reason that I don't believe any system would become democratic in Iran is because I don't believe that we as a nation have come to understand the term and the meaning of the social responsibility.

I hope I am wrong to think that the people would do a quick acts in order to benefit for themselves and their family in the short run. Similar to the revolution era, when the majority cared nothing about the injustices against their own neighbor, as long as it was not them. The political groups were not different either and actually enjoyed the crack down of the regime so they would have less competition.

When you walk in any neighborhoods around the cities in Iran, you do not feel that the people have a sense of citizenry. They don't care about their neighborhoods or other people. Everyone is for themselves. Therefore socially the national trust decreases and the government uses this scenario to form a dictatorial state, where guns and force would control for the sake of a few who hold the wealth of the nation.

Another factor is the oil and lack of personal involvement in the developments affairs of the nation. The hands of the majority of the people is towards the government to share the wealth, so social involvements, a must in a democratic states become minimal.

Many might say that we will privatize the wealth. In Iran that equals something similar to the breakup of the Soviet Union, where the rich of the system become the official owners of the wealth, again. That does not fully translate to a dictatorial State, but the democracy in a sense that exists in western Europe is not possible for us, as I see it. These are the internal issues embedded in our society as a norm, one must also consider the external issues or threats. We are rich and live in a strategically located region. Good luck with all that.
-----------------------

What I would do?

Probably ask those who are more aware about the economy to first establish a banking system fit to handle all our capital demands. Then decrease the usage of cash or even make it illegal so the government could fully track the transactions for any individual and businesses.
I would allow the Ostans or provinces to handle all their affairs and just collect a federal tax from them. Every Province that is in an economical struggle gets a portion of the central government for assistance. That would be a five year plan and they must do innovative plans to get out of their situation.

The oil and gas income must be divided based on population and their income to the entire country, but the regions that hold the natural resources should get more of that money. It's theirs first.

Politically the law of land would be based on the International Human Rights declaration and I would bring many of the articles from the 1906 constitutional revolution in to the constitution of the land.

Many other things could be dreamed about, but you asked realistically. I believe if what I have said above is implimented, then I would have a very short life, at least in politics. I am certain that I would not be allowed to do what's best for Iran, the least would be a sudden attack to our soil and some conservative dictatorial man would take the country back and ruz az noe, ruzi az noe...