In the Western countries elections are a routine part of life. Decisions from small to large, filling potholes to creating a monumental social program such as health care and even wars are the result of some form of electoral process, local elections, broader province or state elections and finally the national elections. Open debates are part of this process and ideas can be expressed without fear of arrest and imprisonment. The police, military and courts cannot prevent you from expressing your opinion or fielding your candidates. Open debates, expression of opinions continue between elections and one's ability to organize around ideas are protected.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Since my last post I had a couple of discussions, one with a good friend of my own generation, and the other with a young woman who was born in Iran and raised in Canada. They had two fundamental criticisms of what I have been posting. One is that my posts are painting a dark picture and lack appreciation of what is happening in Iran. The other was that sanctions of Iran by the West are not helpful and are hurting the same people who came out in the street celebrating their electoral victory, and in a twisted way tried to show their opposition to the government.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
The reports indicate that Rohani, a supposedly "moderate" candidate has won the post of the president of the Islamic Republic, a secondary, maybe even a tertiary, executive position in Iran. The primary position is occupied by Khamenei, for life, as the supreme leader. Rohani seems to have won by millions of votes. He was supported by Khatami, a previous "moderate" president and also by Rafsanjani another supposedly "moderate" leader of the Islamic Republic, head of one of the councils of the ruling religious oligarchy.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
The election of the Islamic Republic President in Iran has been carefully staged to reaffirm the rule of religious oligarchy. Only a few days ago the NY Times reported on the hard-line stance that each approved candidate had taken on the nuclear dispute between the regime and the Western alliance.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Imagine a society of cannibals, at peace among themselves, surrounding a newly caught victim. All rubbing their stomachs, anxiously waiting for the end of the ceremony, when the sacrifice and eating begins. Could we interpret the rubbing of the stomachs equivalent to the vote of majority for the practice of their venerated custom. Could we call this a form of "democracy"? Different than ours but nevertheless it has the majority rule in there, albeit by rubbing of the stomachs. Were British anti democratic when they tried to stop these practices among South Pacific societies? Was that the sign of their "imperialistic" cultural transgression?