Hard-core fundamentalist leads Iran presidential vote

[Ramo]

Your use of the tem revolutionay secularist is far from neutral. One could well want some elements of Islamism in the Iranian govt without wanting power lodged in a group of unelected mullahs.

That's exactly the direction Moin campaigned on. Abolishing the sovereign decree, etc. And again, he stood for election. What was unrepresented were the revolutionary secularists.

Indeed, Sistanic, Jaafari and others in Iraq (which has viewed and reacted to the Iranian system) whom we are repeatedly told are "Islamists" dont want a role for the clergy in govt.

To clarify, their opposition isn't confined to unelected clerics in gov't, but elected clerics as well. That's why there isn't a PM Sistani.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"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."

By your definition those folks would have been revolutionaries had the oppression remained effective. Only when they were no longer oppressed, did they return to the status of reformers.


"No election ever does. You call Germany's elections always undemocratic because there is no legal way for a Nazi to run in Germany?"

Godwin invoked.


"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!"

One who, AFAICT, was not considered a reformer by many Iranian reformers.


"What happened is that the sectors who would generally vote for a reformer boycotted the elections

"

Perhaps because they understood whats really going on better than you do?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo


"That's exactly the direction Moin campaigned on. Abolishing the sovereign decree, etc. And again, he stood for election. What was unrepresented were the revolutionary secularists."

Khatami in theory was against the soveriegn decree, but did nothing effective when the mullahs overrode him. AFAICT the reformers thought Moin would be the same.



"To clarify, their opposition isn't confined to unelected clerics in gov't, but elected clerics as well. That's why there isn't a PM Sistani. "

I thought there WERE clerics on the UIA list, and several now in the National Assembly. Though not senior ones, and they specifily chose a non-cleric as PM.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

By your definition those folks would have been revolutionaries had the oppression remained effective. Only when they were no longer oppressed, did they return to the status of reformers.

No. They would become revolutionaries when they decided that instead of participating in the system, they would seek to change it in a manner not proscribed by the exiting laws.

That is what Revolutionary means.

Godwin invoked.

By you. The question is simple, and you walked right into it: you said that because and election does not represne the "full spectrum" of political opinions.

Don't make statements if you can;t honestly backed them up, but instead have to hide behind pithy answers. After all, in the uS Nazi's can run. But not in Germany.

So either answer the question, or accept your point was wrong.

One who, AFAICT, was not considered a reformer by many Iranian reformers.

And Chafee is not considered a trusted Republican by the right wing of that party. Your point? One's politics are not decided by other's opinions of it.

Perhaps because they understood whats really going on better than you do?

NO, because they are losing hope in the path of reformism.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Godwin invoked.

"By you. The question is simple, and you walked right into it: you said that because and election does not represne the "full spectrum" of political opinions.

Don't make statements if you can;t honestly backed them up, but instead have to hide behind pithy answers. After all, in the uS Nazi's can run. But not in Germany.

So either answer the question, or accept your point was wrong."

Godwins law was formulated for a reason. But here goes:

It is absurd to compare a POV supporting basic democratic principles, with Nazis, who supported the most hateful, murderous, totalitarian regime on earth. Banning the Nazis was a basic defense of democracy in Germany.

Now can we conduct this discussion without an elaborate discussion of the Nazis? Godwins law was formulated because the phrase "how about the Nazis" tends to result in the end of serious discussion. I expect it will do so here.

One who, AFAICT, was not considered a reformer by many Iranian reformers.

"And Chafee is not considered a trusted Republican by the right wing of that party. Your point? One's politics are not decided by other's opinions of it."

AFAICT the reformers who called for a boycott are tbe most dedicated liberal democrats (small l, small D) in Iran, and I choose to defer to their charecterization. YMMV.



"NO, because they are losing hope in the path of reformism."

If you define reformism, as you apparently do, as hope for change within the system, you are correct, and that loss of hope has sound basis, I think, in the events of the Khatami years. They have NOT lost hope in the path of change, or the prospects for freedom, however.

[Ramo]

Khatami in theory was against the soveriegn decree, but did nothing effective when the mullahs overrode him. AFAICT the reformers thought Moin would be the same.

You realize that perception isn't necessarily the same thing as reality right?

I thought there WERE clerics on the UIA list, and several now in the National Assembly. Though not senior ones, and they specifily chose a non-cleric as PM.

SCIRI is of a very different opinion from the likes of Sistani (and probably Da'wa).

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo


"You realize that perception isn't necessarily the same thing as reality right?"

Given the difficult of judging individuals in a county 6000 miles away, whose media are mainly in Farsi, and whose discourse is subject to censorship, I defer to the liberal democrats in Iran. YMMV.




"SCIRI is of a very different opinion from the likes of Sistani (and probably Da'wa)."

Dawa had no clerics on their share of the UIA list? Has Sistani actually said hes against clerics even being elected to the national assembly? Im surprised.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Godwins law was formulated for a reason. But here goes:

It is absurd to compare a POV supporting basic democratic principles, with Nazis, who supported the most hateful, murderous, totalitarian regime on earth. Banning the Nazis was a basic defense of democracy in Germany.

Now can we conduct this discussion without an elaborate discussion of the Nazis? Godwins law was formulated because the phrase "how about the Nazis" tends to result in the end of serious discussion. I expect it will do so here.

And explination fails.

National Socailism IS PART OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. There are people who believe in it. Your statement was that an election that does not represent the political spectrum is somehow less democratic than one that does.

You say that the party had to be banned to protect democracy in Germany. Regardless of whether that is accurate, 50 years hence, I assume you would think that Germany's 'democracy' is strong enough, to, as the US does, allow people of any political party to run, NO?

So the question stands. You say all parts of the political spectrum need to be represented for an election to be democratic: so, is Germany less democratic than the US because it bans parties?

AFAICT the reformers who called for a boycott are tbe most dedicated liberal democrats (small l, small D) in Iran, and I choose to defer to their charecterization. YMMV.

So what? So you agree with them most, and thus "leave it to them"? Are they more expert on Iran than Ayatollah Khameini??

It is deeply disingeneous to decide that "this group must be right, so how the label people is what matters". The question would be, does the Average Iranian Voter think of Moein as a reformist candidate.

If you define reformism, as you apparently do, as hope for change within the system, you are correct, and that loss of hope has sound basis, I think, in the events of the Khatami years. They have NOT lost hope in the path of change, or the prospects for freedom, however.

Which is a different path from refomism.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"And explination fails.

"National Socailism IS PART OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. There are people who believe in it. Your statement was that an election that does not represent the political spectrum is somehow less democratic than one that does."


I am not going to debate the role of Nazism on the political spectrum. Smart man, that Godwin.


"You say that the party had to be banned to protect democracy in Germany. Regardless of whether that is accurate, 50 years hence, I assume you would think that Germany's 'democracy' is strong enough, to, as the US does, allow people of any political party to run, NO?"

Since I am apparently such a poor forecaster of politics, why would you want me to make forecasts about German politics?

AFAICT the reformers who called for a boycott are tbe most dedicated liberal democrats (small l, small D) in Iran, and I choose to defer to their charecterization. YMMV.

"So what? So you agree with them most, and thus "leave it to them"? Are they more expert on Iran than Ayatollah Khameini??"

Im sure folks disagree. If you trust Ayatollahs Khameni's view of politics more than that of Irans liberal democrats, I think it perfectly reasonable to use his charecterizations.


"It is deeply disingeneous to decide that "this group must be right, so how the label people is what matters". The question would be, does the Average Iranian Voter think of Moein as a reformist candidate."


Well given that the average eligible Iranian didnt vote, the average voter is a biased sample.


"Which is a different path from refomism."

If we're asking, as we started to, whether the Iranian elections were genuinely democratic, then we can say that important elements, which seek peaceful change, and want to make the system more democratic were excluded. That they were excluded, and thus can hope for change only outside the system, does not make the system democratic. That the Nazis, an anti-democratic, totalitarian party, is banned in Germany, does not make the Iranian system democratic.

[lord of the mark]

Carnegie Endowment
Cracks in the Land of the Ayatollahs

By Michael A. McFaul , Abbas Milani
The International Herald Tribune, June 17, 2005
STANFORD, California
On the surface, the presidential election campaign in Iran underscores the weakness of the Iranian democratic movement and the futility of elections under Iran's current Constitution.

Most of the would-be candidates were barred from the election by the hard-line Guardian Council, the unelected mullahs who control Parliament. And many leading democrats, disappointed in their hopes that President Mohammad Khatami would be the reformer he had promised to be, have called for a boycott of the vote on Friday.

Beneath the surface, however, there are encouraging signs for the future of Iranian democracy.

Most important, the election suggests that the ruling elite is not united. Even with most of the candidates disqualified, the campaign has been nasty and competitive, an indication that the monolith of clerical power is beginning to crack. The front-runner, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, and the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were once twin pillars of this monolith; now they are at each other's political throats.

While some in the West call Rafsanjani a pragmatist, he has remained one of the most influential leaders in the Islamic Republic since its creation and a stalwart of the regime. Yet in this election campaign, Khamenei has allowed the press to publish detailed accounts of some of the Rafsanjani family's illicit financial gains.

While some analysts have posited that the divide is a mere rhetorical ploy orchestrated to create drama for the election campaign, the attacks have been so virulent and so personal that seems unlikely.

The attacks on Rafsanjani, and emerging differences among clerical institutions over his candidacy demonstrate a clear division within the ruling elite. This division is not about ideology, but about control of economic resources and political power.

In transitions from authoritarian rule in other countries, a factional feud between different wings of the ruling regime was a condition for the beginning of political liberalization.

Moreover, the two leading candidates - Rafsanjani and Mostafa Moin, a doctor who was the minister of science under Khatami and Rafsanjani - have both made statements challenging the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic and its current leadership.

Both have even called for new limits on the power of Khamenei and his colleagues in the Guardian Council - a reform pledge that President Khatami never, not even once, made.

(LOTM - Moin called for LIMITS on the GC, not its abolition.)

To varying degrees, both candidates have also claimed the mantle of democracy and promised political reform. Outsiders should not interpret this rhetoric of reform as a sign that either candidate (especially Rafsanjani) is sincere in his commitment to change, but it can be interpreted as a genuine challenge to the supreme leader and his autocratic hold on power.

Third, both Moin and Rafsanjani have promised to improve relations with the United States, another affront to Khamenei. In recent days, the Rafsanjani camp has been telling its supporters that recent statements by the Bush administration, exhibiting less militancy toward Iran, are de facto indications of America's approval of his candidacy.

For everyone except the extreme right, it has become clear that normalizing relations with the United States is popular enough to be a campaign promise.

The regime has also seemed genuinely worried about lower voter turnout. Moin was initially disqualified from running by the Guardian Council, but Khamenei intervened and allowed Moin in the race. This extraordinary move was, according to some, intended to bring reformist voters to the polls. Others have suggested that it was intended by Khamenei to take votes from Rafsanjani.

The regime also started a campaign of rumors, threatening dire consequences for those who do not vote. That students will not be able to get their grades and citizens their passports are among the less ominous of the threats. This is significant because powerful, stable, autocratic regimes do not worry about low voter turnouts.

For an election that was supposed to be a nonevent for those committed to democratic change in Iran, these developments are encouraging. Contrary to the claims of the regime and its apologists, the current clerical despotism is far from stable.

Unlike recent votes in Ukraine or Georgia, this election will not bring down autocracy. But it may sow the seeds of discord within Iran's dictatorship and lead to a genuine democratic breakthrough sooner than most think.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Godwin invoked.

This misuse of Godwin is, ironically, doing what Godwin was supposed to warn against. Debate is effectively ended when one side claims "Godwin", especially when Nazis are a legitimate topic of debate.

I half expect to walk into a WW2 thread these days and find someone claiming GODWIN! It's ridiculous.

Godwin's law was meant to warn against people saying "X is a Nazi" or "Y are just like the Nazis". Not comparing the Nazis in legitimate debate.

When talking about the entire political spectrum being representated, the banning of Nazi parties is very, very important. They are a part of the political spectrum and aren't allowed to participate.

on you, LOTM.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Godwin invoked.

This misuse of Godwin is, ironically, doing what Godwin was supposed to warn against. Debate is effectively ended when one side claims "Godwin", especially when Nazis are a legitimate topic of debate.

I half expect to walk into a WW2 thread these days and find someone claiming GODWIN! It's ridiculous.

Godwin's law was meant to warn against people saying "X is a Nazi" or "Y are just like the Nazis". Not comparing the Nazis in legitimate debate.

When talking about the entire political spectrum being representated, the banning of Nazi parties is very, very important. They are a part of the political spectrum and aren't allowed to participate.

on you, LOTM.

They are an antidemocratic party. Whether a democracy should allow antidemocratic parties to participate is a valid disagreement, but its obviously not comparable to banning a party BECAUSE it advocates democracy. Im sure the mullahs have all kinds of good reasons for their ban, but I really doubt even THEY assert that banning the "secularists" is done to protect democracy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Godwin invoked.

This misuse of Godwin is, ironically, doing what Godwin was supposed to warn against. Debate is effectively ended when one side claims "Godwin", especially when Nazis are a legitimate topic of debate..

are there Nazis in Iran? Are we discussing Nazi ideology, or WW2? No, GePap is making an analogy from a policy directed against democrats, to one directed against Nazis. This is on the order of someone suggesting that Al Jazeera should be censored, someone else invoking free speech, and then the original censorship advocate saying "well what about the Nazis, would you have censored them" The question of censoring the Nazis being a distraction from censoring Al Jazeera. Cause Al Jizz still, vile though they may be, doesnt actually advocate mass murder, AFAICT.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They are an antidemocratic party. Whether a democracy should allow antidemocratic parties to participate is a valid disagreement, but its obviously not comparable to banning a party BECAUSE it advocates democracy.

Changing the goalposts . You said the FULL political spectrum should be represented. Now anti-democratic parties don't count in your prior statement? Why not? Because you realize it is indefensible because of other countries?

are there Nazis in Iran? Are we discussing Nazi ideology, or WW2? No, GePap is making an analogy from a policy directed against democrats, to one directed against Nazis. This is on the order of someone suggesting that Al Jazeera should be censored, someone else invoking free speech, and then the original censorship advocate saying "well what about the Nazis, would you have censored them" The question of censoring the Nazis being a distraction from censoring Al Jazeera. Cause Al Jizz still, vile though they may be, doesnt actually advocate mass murder, AFAICT.

Perhaps this is a LOTM can't see the forest from the trees thing. Are their Nazi's in Germany? Yes, yes there are. Do people consider Germany democratic? Yes, they do. Does Germany allow the FULL political spectrum to participate in elections? NO... Nazis can't run for office. Therefore does requiring the full political spectrum to run doesn't equal a democratic election... or else you'd have to conceed that Germany doesn't have them.

It's akin to saying Al Jazeera should be censored, someone invoking free speech saying free countries have them, and THEN the third person saying is Germany not considered a free country because they ban Nazi speech, not your inane example of "would you have censored Nazis".

No one is asking what you would have DONE. They are asking what you consider democratic.

To further drag this out just reflects incredibly badly on your reading comprehension.

[lord of the mark]

JeeZus K Christ.

Ok, Let me restate. A country that is otherwise democratic, that includes the FULL POLITICAL SPECTRUM, EXCEPT parties which are totalitarian, racist, AND support genocide, ARE democracies. Which is not relevant to the case of Iran.

Are you happy now?