Hard-core fundamentalist leads Iran presidential vote

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by GePap
If one of them decided to run on an independent line, yes, they would.

Oh, and Iran they don;t have parties like here in the US. if you knew ****, you would know, but of course you don;t, so your comparison, besides being a failure, is also ignorant.

Not that I expect much more from you.

When did I ever say there were political parties in Iran? If you're going to call people ignorant, you would do well to at least base your criticism on actual events...

Not that I expect much more from you.

[Ted Striker]

The younger generation in Iran actually saw it to be favorable for the Americans to do a regime change in their country. But after we broke Iraq, they saw how painful it was, and decided that wasn't such a good idea afterall.

The hardliners actually turn a blind eye to some of their activities (like drinking booze, etc), and in return, they play nice with each other. Sortof like they have bought them out.

Though there is still repression in many aspects. I wouldn't be speaking out against the government if I was there.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"And of course, as is most common with your commentary, your wrong.

On DanS's notion that the Iraqiu presidential elections were undemocratic. Hmm, they had 6 Candidates for President.

I had 2 credible candidadates last time I went to the polls, and the winner does not even have to win a mayority if the popular vote, but a Byzantine system of state caucauses.

Should seem obvious that the Iranian model is so much less democratic...."


You had two credible candidates cause we have a first past the post system. If enough people want to vote for a third party they can - historically the major parties are smart enough to incorporate the more appealing ideas from third parties.

This is in contrast to a system where an unelected body actually limits who can run based on ideological litmus tests.

[lord of the mark]

maybe its more interesting to hear what an Iranian nobel laureate had to say:

TEHRAN (AFP) - Nobel peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi made an impassioned defence of her decision to boycott Iran's election, which goes into a second round on Friday, and launched a stinging attack on presidential candidate Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.


Ebadi told AFP in an interview that she was not voting because she deemed the entire election was illegitimate, adding it was of little difference whether hardline Tehran mayor Mahmood Ahmadinejad or former president Rafsanjani won.

"I have protested from the start about the electoral law. For me the only option is civil disobedience and this is the least we can do. The votes are not just, because they are not free," she said Thursday.

"The votes that come out of the boxes are valid as long as they have been the results of a free election. Can you say Saddam Hussein's regime was legitimate or the elections fine just because he got 99 percent of the votes?"

Ebadi's stance on the election, which she says is not fair as the unelected Guardians Council has the power to choose who stands in the first place, has been criticised by some liberals as an irresponsible luxury at a critical time for the country.

[lord of the mark]

"Moein: Having entered the scene with Ayatollah Khamenei‘s extra-legal verdict, Moein is probably the ugly duckling of elections turning white on 17th of June. His speeches have gradually turned radical, from promising to appoint a vice-president for Human Rights to “criticizing extra-legal verdicts”, to inviting the marginalized nationalist groups to join his camp. His authority if he were to be president is something doubted."


he did NOT call for the abolition of the Guardian council and expediency council, or the full liberalization of Iran. Like Khatami, he was not a real reformer.

[lord of the mark]

IHT:

'During his campaign, [Ahmadinejad] brushed off questions about tolerance for political dissent and release of political prisoners. "Which political prisoners? The ones in the United States?" he asked sarcastically when a reporter asked what he would do for more than a dozen political prisoners here.'

[Imran Siddiqui]

he did NOT call for the abolition of the Guardian council and expediency council, or the full liberalization of Iran. Like Khatami, he was not a real reformer.

In order to be a reformer, you MUST be a total wacko radical! Nice to see LOTM lives in a different world.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

he did NOT call for the abolition of the Guardian council and expediency council, or the full liberalization of Iran. Like Khatami, he was not a real reformer.

In order to be a reformer, you MUST be a total wacko radical! Nice to see LOTM lives in a different world.

Imran now thinks that abolishing rule by unelected bodies of clerics is total wacko radical

Apparently folks like Ebadi dont think so.

[lord of the mark]

Martin Woollacott, The Guardian:
Ali Shah is the disrespectful nickname Iranians have in recent years bestowed on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme religious leader of the Islamic republic.

It captures what they see as the monarchial aspirations and the clear limitations of the man who took over the function of "guiding" the republic from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini 18 years ago and who now, after an election that has put his man in as president, controls all the major institutions of the Iranian state.

Those years have seen a slow draining away of legitimacy from the republic and its leaders, and in particular from Khamenei, who could never match the dominating presence of Khomeini and who could not stem the increasing hostility of most of the Iranian people to political religion, but who nevertheless has been determined, along with his satraps within the system, to maintain his grip on power.

The ultimate destination in a journey of this kind is an authoritarian state without authority, and that prospect seems much closer today in Iran. For years the men in charge of the key positions in Iran, including the Council of Guardians, the judiciary, the security ministries and the security forces, have periodically been able to recapture some popular support by allowing reformists a margin for manoeuvre in parliament and in the presidency, particularly under President Mohammad Khatami.

But, with the subversion of the 2004 parliamentary elections by the conservatives, who banned most liberal candidates and made the resources of the state available to the rightwingers, that era began to close. It is now definitively over, with the election to the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former mayor of Tehran whose politics are fundamentalist to the point of simple-mindedness, marking the point at which the Khamenei regime has passed over into a fearful consolidation of power that has no room even for a loyal opposition.

Khomeini, whatever else may be said about him, was a man big enough in his achievements to spread his aura over the whole apparatus that the revolution created, even though he ejected the liberal partners, both secular and religious, who had helped make that revolution.

Khamenei and his fellow conservatives, by contrast, have increasingly come to depend only on the security state, and upon the physical coercion, or the threat of it, which that dependence implies. They have also begun, as it increases, to admit representatives of the security arms into the inner circle of power, hitherto confined to clerics and a few devout laymen. Ahmadinejad is himself a former Revolutionary Guard.

Certainly, the losing candidates in the presidential election charge that the assets of the security state were deployed on a large scale to ensure his victory. The meetings of liberal candidates were disrupted, mysterious bombs went off - presumably the contribution of the intelligence services - government money was said to have been made available in large quantities and the volunteer militia groups, which dot every community, were on hand as unpaid election workers and enforcers. In addition, there are so many of these people - 300,000 in the militia, police, and Revolutionary Guard, not counting the regular armed forces - that the impact of their votes, if directed toward a particular candidate, is bound to be significant.

Whether such support was as extensive as some of the losers claimed, it was not the only reason Ahmadinejad won. His diatribes against corruption and his pledge that oil wealth would be used to improve the lives of ordinary people had an impact. Yet this is precisely the field in which he cannot deliver.

The Islamic republic is both a corrupt regime and one where connections count for everything. All but an honourable handful of the clerico-political class have enriched themselves, some illegally and some by simply taking advantage of their positions. Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad's main opponent in the election, is one of the most prominent examples, and he suffered for it in the campaign. But among the men who helped get Ahmadinejad in are many who have profited as much or almost as much. Is Mr Clean going to go after them?

For western countries, the main problem represented by this victory is that it entrenches those least sympathetic to rapprochement with Europe and America and least likely, in particular, to give way on nuclear enrichment, which the Khamenei regime is trying to turn into a nationalist touchstone.

The regime's dilemma - which is that it needs western investment and expertise if it is to provide the prosperity that will help it stay in power, but fears the corrosive political impact of dealings with western countries - will intensify. Its confrontation with the US will almost certainly sharpen, and the possibility of a US attack, if there is no concession on nuclear matters, while still not high, will increase.

What is both worrying and hopeful for Iranians is that this consolidation of power has a last-ditch aspect about it. Khamenei has increased control, but the regime has lost flexibility and much of whatever legitimacy remained.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Imran now thinks that abolishing rule by unelected bodies of clerics is total wacko radical

Apparently folks like Ebadi dont think so.

It is in Iran's political spectrum... and Ebadi would be considered a wacko radical.

Just like people like Bush, who are within the US spectrum would be a crazy right wing wackjob in any European country... countries have different political spectrums.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It is in Iran's political spectrum... and Ebadi would be considered a wacko radical.

Just like people like Bush, who are within the US spectrum would be a crazy right wing wackjob in any European country... countries have different political spectrums.

From all i can gather Ebadi is far from considered a wacko radical. You the difference between Iran on the one hand, and US and Europe on the other, is that in Iran a large segment of opinion is actively suppressed.


From reporters without borders, 2003:

"Iran remained the biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East, with 10 journalists in jail at the end of 2002. Once again the year was marked by very many suspensions of newspapers, legal summonses, arrests and prison sentences for journalists. The regime's reformist wing protested against these attacks on the media but were unable to restrain a legal system under the control of hardliners."

[GePap]

Maybe LoTM you are missing the distinction between "Reform" and "Revolution"

Asking for the Council of Guardians to be removed would be a very difficult political step. NO sane reformer will run on such a platform because they would lose.

You see, it seems in Iran reformers actually attempt to get elected, as opposed to making stands that take them nowhere.

Winning a Nobel Peace Prize is nice, but how does it actually affect the people on the ground??

Oh, it doesn't really, unless the other side actually gives a damn, which they don't.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


When did I ever say there were political parties in Iran? If you're going to call people ignorant, you would do well to at least base your criticism on actual events...

You made a party based comparison. In a system without organized parties, it makes no sense.

Your usual nonsense.

[Vince278]

Now here's an interesting tidbit.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vince278
Now here's an interesting tidbit.

I believe we have a thread on that tid-bit.

And as I said there:

Wow. How irrelevant.