Democracy and Natural Right

A Philosophical Response to Trita Parsi

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Democracy and Natural Right
by ganselmi
13-Feb-2009
 

"[If] principles are sufficiently justified by the fact they are accepted by a society, the principles of cannibalism are as defensible as those of civilized life." -- Leo Strauss

In his recent opinion piece on the recently-announced candidacy of Mohammad Khatami for the upcoming presidential elections in Iran ["Him again"], Trita Parsi proscribes the steps he believes the purportedly reformist cleric Mohammad Khatami should take in order to fulfill the broken promises of his previous stint as President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. What most stands out from Mr. Parsi's article however, is his characterization of the elections themselves: "The Iranian presidential elections will not be democratic by Western standards," he writes, "but they won't lack excitement or fierce competitiveness."

This statement not only reveals a great deal about Mr. Parsi's political assumptions, but also epitomizes the morally and intellectually contorted stance assumed by all those who endorse as legitimate the political life of the IRI -- while knowing full well that elections in Iran are an utter sham.

The operating term here is, of course, "Western standards."

The use of this term implies that the Iranian people's legitimate demand that candidates for high office should not be disqualified by unelected bodies on dubious ideological grounds is somehow a "Western" convention. To insist on allowing more than one political party to contest the polity only reflects a "Western" bias. If only critics of the regime were more open-minded and "tolerant," they would come to see that the IRI's elections are democratic by other-than-"Western" standards!

Unfortunately, the dominant politically correct, multicultural discourse of the West itself lends credence to such viewpoints. Mr. Parsi, in other words, places the moral perils represented by the relativism dominating our media and campuses on full display.

Where then can supporters of truth and democracy turn to find recourse against this reigning relativism? Thankfully, a number of thinkers from across the political spectrum have recently taken it upon themselves to critically interrogate contemporary relativism (the Marxian-psychoanalytic philosophers Alain Badiou and Slavoj Zizek are shining examples).

The most cogent refutation of relativism however, comes from the German-American political theorist Leo Strauss. Strauss was a lifelong student and proponent of natural right, the philosophical quest to seek what is right by way of nature and, crucially, as separate from ancestral authority or communal convention. That is, the search for universal moral insights that transcend tribe and nation. While rooted in pre-Socratic philosophy, notions of natural right have been tremendously influential through subsequent centuries. When the American Founding Fathers, for example, spoke of "self-evident" truths, they were referring to natural right: what is right is naturally and universally so and hence self-evident.

Strauss's insistence on the primacy of natural right put him directly at odds with relativism. "To reject natural right is tantamount to saying that all right is positive right, and this means that what is right is determined exclusively by the legislators and courts of various countries," he wrote. "If our principles have no other support than our blind preferences, everything a man is willing to day will be permissible." Therefore, "the contemporary rejection of natural right leads to nihilism -- nay, it is identical with nihilism."

Echoing Strauss, we may ask: what is more nihilistic than the attempt to mask the oppression of freedom and the negation of equality under regimes like the IRI under the false pretense of multiculturalism? What Iranians dissidents and opponents of the IRI seek has nothing to do with "East" or "West," and everything to do with the recognition of their fundamental rights, which are natural and universal.

After all, ancient Persians were responsible for initially propagating notions of universal rights. "Some time before Plato," Strauss tells us, "Herodotus had indicated ... the place of the only debate which he recorded concerning the principles of politics: he tells us that free discussion took place in truth-loving Persia."

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by ganselmiCommentsDate
Nine Theses
4
Jul 13, 2009
Postcard Diplomacy
69
Mar 22, 2009
Rehabilitating the Shah
41
Feb 02, 2009
more from ganselmi
 
default

Similarities between Iran's and Cuba's so called Elections

by Comparison (not verified) on Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:18 AM PST

Since Cuba became a one-party republic and the Communist party became the official political party, Cuba has been both condemned and praised by certain Cuban groups, international groups, and foreign governments regarding democracy. Although the media is controlled by the state, the Cuban government contends that the Cuban political system is democratic. The nature of the political participation in Cuba has fostered discussion amongst political writers and philosophers. Varied conclusions have been drawn, some of these have led to Cuba being described as a dictatorship, grassroots democracy, a Soviet democracy or a revolutionary democracy [1], but not a liberal democracy. [2]

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba


  •  
default

To Daryush

by Safsateh (not verified) on Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:11 AM PST

why are you getting defensive?

he is just saying that there is no such thing as Eastern democracy, Islamic democracy, or Western democracy.

Democracy is Democracy, it does not have any adjectives and it is the same for everybody, no buts or ifs about it.


  •  
Daryush

I don't agree with your statements here

by Daryush on Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:40 AM PST

I don't know Mr. Parsi, but from what I read here I don't agree with you. I live in Iran. I know that we never had democracy and I am sure that no land has ever became democratic over night, besides Iraq and Afghanistan!

I don't want to go that route, Iraq or Afghanistan. So the "philosophical question here is, what are my options? I live in Iran and I don't want to die in a conflict. I love my life and enjoy my friends and family. I don't want harsh and uncertain situation rule Iran. You do? Come and live here and say that. If you don't have that where you live, then you should understand where I am coming from.

I see Iranian elections primitive steps towards democracy. It certainly is much more democratic that China, Russia, or arguably many other places around the region. So it's not a "total dictatorship" and not a "total democracy", so it's not democratic in the western concept. That's what I believe he must have come from.

Iran is certainly is better with having elections that not having one. I, as a citizen of Iran like it much more. I don't see why that's so hard for you to understand?


  •  
Ari Siletz

ganselmi

by Ari Siletz on Sat Feb 14, 2009 04:18 PM PST

I saw Trita Parsi's article primarily as policy advice to Washington in the context of the current political layout. Though he mentions Western standards as an aside, he does not base his arguments on the premise of relativism.  For example he advises Washington not to wait for moderates in power to negotiate with Iran. His reasoning: conservatives would be in a weaker position to undermine a process they started themselves. This is smart advice, relativist or not.

Certainly long term philosophical debate is critical to any discussion of Iran's political future, but the coupling between day to day policy and overall political philosophy need not be as strong as you seem to take it. While you may be correct that the house needs a redesign, Trita Parsi is meanwhile rearranging the furniture for the better.


  •  
default

Yes, let's blame the West but West is only 400 years old

by Babajoon (not verified) on Sat Feb 14, 2009 03:05 PM PST

When Iran was an Empire, there was no WEST.

Now that Islam and ayatololaghs have run Iran to the gournd after centuries of feeding dogmas and superstitions to Iranians, OH MY GOSH, BAD BAD WEST.

Iran could have been not only the America of today but could have had a few countries in its back pockets too. But, it does not.

Why? Because of the bad bad west.

Here is five things every Iranian can do to fix this situation:

Step 1. Use Cyrus's Declaration of Human Rights, as the "Bill of Rights of Iran" NOT Ayatololaghs ghoran.

Step 2. Pass the word...

Step 3. Pass the word...

Step 4. When the opportunity arises, go to step 4.

Step 5. No more ayatololaghs. Throw them and their mosques and dogmas into the trash heap of history where they should have been thrown 1,500 years ago.

Step 5. Celebrate your achievements!


  •  
default

A vocal path.

by Francesco Sinibaldi (not verified) on Sat Feb 14, 2009 01:38 PM PST

You live
near a vocal
path, and always
a young bird
returns in your
head like a
beautiful song
in the light
of a white dream...

Francesco Sinibaldi


  •  
default

oostad: I hate to break it

by badoom (not verified) on Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:02 PM PST

oostad: I hate to break it to you, Iran is already subjugated by domestic enemies of Islamist stripe and it will self-destruct if it continues the Islamists path; and Leo strauss doesn't have to lift a finger in that endeavor.


  •  
Ostaad

ganselmi, no wonder Stauss has become the guiding light for...

by Ostaad on Sat Feb 14, 2009 04:56 PM PST

neo-con(artists) and political SUV salesmen who resort to sugar coating their destructive aims with "natural rights" and other useful concepts to justify war mongering, occupation, pillage and even Apartheid. The way you and other neo-cons manipulate the concepts borrowed from Strauss are not different from the way the religious fundamentalists to terrorize and violate the "rights" of others. Both are basing your subversive thoughts and actions on something "natural", "fundamental", "god-given", etc.

I am no philosopher, but I know this much, that when anyone talks about "natural something" and, at the same time, opposes the concepts of relativism and multiculturalism, that person is advocating fundamentalism, violent extremism and even opportunism.

Back to Iran. There are no elections in Iran. What we have in Iran can be best described as a "selection". I base this on the fact that the vetting process negates the fact that the "elections" are free and open. But relatively, I'm sure Leo Strauss would cringe at this thought, the Iranian current style of choosing representatives is a lot freer than during the Shah.

The problem with your argument is that no one is trying to "mask" anything about the current Iranian regime and its despotism. Iran's political activities are an open book. The message that some of us including Parsi are trying to convey is to warn against the plots and ploys by those who resort to Leo Strauss and the like to support the efforts by Iran's enemies so Iran would be either subjugated or destroyed.


  •