Current Events

hamsade ghadimi

You asked me a question; I replied right away. Then you came back with a "smart"comeback. Then I asked a question and am still waiting. How about being fair and showing me the respect I showed you.

Democracy and Rights

Thank you all for the good discussion.  Indeed democracy and human rights go hand in hand.  We can't talk about these things or any meaningful reform with addressing the very fundamental question:

Should government be answerable to the people or to God?

The stances of Bakhtiar  and Musavi has been very clear on this.  The big question is what is the stance of the Iranian people?  As long as a sizeable and vocal and powerful part of our population (not necessarily even a majority) believe that tha answer is to God, we can expect very little meaningful change in Iran.  The truth is, in a closed society like ours, nobody really knows for sure.  History will tell.  I hope the outcome will be good, and I trust our people to make the enlightened choice in the end.  It is just a matter of time.

hamsade ghadimi

You asked me something and I gave an honest answer. Now how about I ask you:

• What proof do you have they did not count the votes before the last obviously fraudulent one.
• When I see an accusation I look for motives. Please tell me the motives IRI had in the past to cheat? They hand picked the candidates so it was not like there was a chance of getting someone they did not want!

That begs the question of why did they cheat last time? My response is: Khamenei dislikes Mousavi. Simple as that. He let personal feelings get in the way of logic. It was in all ways better for IRI to let Mousavi win. Obama was ready to lift sanctions and make a deal with them. Meanwhile it would have appeased the population. It would have reinforced the IRI. But Khamenei being and old and vindictive decided to cheat. Here we are.

Problem is...

... you people keep comparing everything to what happens in the US. The American system might be a democracy, but it is not the most perfect of all of them.
Look at so many other democracies out there, there are a lot of them. Plus, every system has to adapt to its own environment, so it doesn't mean something that works somewhere will work elsewhere. The important thing is to have the main ingredients there and get it going (AND stick to it)!

vpk, that's exactly what i

vpk, that's exactly what i thought.

hamsade ghadimi

do you base this statement on evidence or you just making stuff up?  

I base it on what my family members in Iran told me. That is their opinion nothing more. I figure they know more about what is going on in Iran than your or I because they live there.

Majority Vote

Well interesting discussion! I actually partially agree with Abarmard. That is why a free nation needs a bill of rights. To protect against tyranny of majority. You may for example ban legitimate religious practices in a democracy. In the USA they play a fairly delicate game around it. For example the use of Peyote in Native American religions. It is allowed under very restricted rules. Rastafarian use of marijuana is not. In the Prohibition days cultural practices of many Europeans were banned. Because they included use of wine or beer. So you bet democracy may be tyrannical. Now to particulars:

• The Kuwait vote was not democratic because it did not include women. It is sort of a catch-22. I am not even sure if it would be valid if women had voted.
• In USA right to vote is routinely taken from convicts. I think it is BS. In my opinion right to vote is a fundamental right which should never be taken away even from someone serving a life term.
• I do agree you cannot have an Islamic democracy. Not because of the freedom part. Rather because Islam is based on Sharia or law of Koran. Democracy is based on law of "man" not "God".

inside information?

vpk, you say: "Up to recent times they actually did count the votes. It has been gradually getting worse."

do you base this statement on evidence or you just making stuff up?  

Prophet

I think you got your answer in my post below to Abarmard.

Abarmard

Majority voting for no women's right to vote is not democracy! That's what I'm trying to tell you. If you don't protect the rights of the minority, you don't have a democracy.
That's why democracy has to be based (only) on freedom and nothing else. That's why you can't have an Islamic democracy. The two terms don't go together.

Prophet

The idea is that you won't get any "ordered change", or "transition" with Mousavi. Transition into what?
That's what we've been discussing, fyi.

Parham & hamsade ghadimi

I think you both are underestimating Iranian people. 

Parham: What makes you think people here don't understand minority rights? After all most of us have lived in the West long enough to have a pretty good idea.  Would you please give some proof that Iranians don't understand this.

hamsade ghadimi: When people vote in a rigged election they force their hand. If no one voted IRI would rightfully say their guy won. It was the last presidential vote that proved IRI is cheating. Without it all the things in past 2 years would never happened.

Remember IRI is not North Korea. Up to recent times they actually did count the votes. It has been gradually getting worse. So when people vote they force the regime to cheat. The more they cheat the worse they look. And that's good!

I think AN is delusional and truly believes he is beloved and popular. I think he does love Iran. He also does have some real following. I would not put it beyond him to switch once he gets over his denial. Once he accepts the corruption of the system he may well rebel against it.

Stranger things have happened in other parts of the world.

In Kuwait

Many years back there was a referendum whether women should be allowed to vote, and majority voted no. That's democracy vs. Rights!

A Democratic system in the West has its historical prerequisite. It is majority rule, however in the systems established in Western Europe has come to also mean Freedom. The freedom and Rights are not an integral part of a system. In US the people have struggled and fought to gain Rights such as Women Rights, Equality rights and age rights. Under a democratic government you may have slavery, enforce religious beliefs, and limit the flow of information. This is historical fact and not an opinion.

Most "Iranians" do not mistake democracy to rule of majority, most people mistake democracy with Freedom and Rights.

Similarly it has become a habit to mistake a despotic system with a dictatorship. They mean different things, however most people understand what one means when they wrongly use those terms.

Parham

Please allow me to explain. I am not comparing Mousavi and Bakhtiyar as individuals. What I am saying is that they both represent "keeping the regime" but changing it. Now I am not a fan of Mousavi.

I also have no idea if people want him or not. That may only get determined with free elections which are not happening now. All I am saying is that I do not automatically dismiss him. I would much prefer a well ordered change than a chaotic radical revolution. Because the damage done in a revolution is usually great. But a transition that allows the military to remain intact is safer. It keeps the separatists in check. It also keeps foreign powers from getting more ideas. 

One more thing...

I don't know why most Iranians mistake democracy with "rule of majority". That's not it, actually. It's sometimes even a lot more "guaranteeing the rights of the minority" while implementing the will of a certain majority.

i.m.o.

It's actually democracy that's a simpler concept. "Rights" doesn't mean much without something as a backbone to guarantee it.
As for freedom, it's actually the prerequisite to all of the above.
So you see how far we are where we're standing.

Friends......

زیاد نگران "انتخابات" آینده نباشید، چون که به نظر میاد کار این رژیم ولایت وقیح ممکنه قبل از این "انتخابات" قلابیشون تموم بشه. اگر هم نشد، بی‌ خیال، بذارید یک "انتخابات" دیگه هم بزنن، دلشون خوش باشه. از قدیم گفتن: دیر یا زود داره...

Good discussion

There was a time that if this kinds of discussion happened, IRI rapist and so and so would be thrown. We have moved forward and that's good.

Words such as democracy have been misused. If you use Rights and Freedom then you express yourself better. Democracy doesn't necessarily yield to freedom, a rule by majority could result in despotic behavior of a system. But encouraging rights and freedom of people under any label or system is what most modern society seeks.

A society needs to move together to reach Rights.. In Iran the fastest social movement is the speed of bottle neck, which is the traditional sect. I believe they are still the majority of the population mix.

When one says "I want democracy", to every part of that society it means something or another but if one says I want women rights, then we are closer to grasping the terms and what it brings.

Prophet

Bakhtiar did stand for democracy, Mousavi does not. I don't think there should even be a comparison there.

How would you know the majority wants a Mousavi/Karrubi/Islamic Light system? Even if they did, would that warrant the annihilation of the rights of others?

Democracy baba, democracy. Think. Please.

voting means

voting means democracy??? 

is there an assumption that the votes will be fairly counted?  an assumption that anyone is free to enter the race for an election? an assumption that people will not suffer consequences for who they vote for or if they decide to protest the outcome of an election? 

north korea and sadam's iraq regularly held elections.  did they have democracies?

on the issue of reform: is it not against the law in iran to change (reform) the constitution?  isn't the charge called 'mofsede fel arz' and 'zed enghelabli'?  has mousavi vowed to be faithful to the constitution and the nezam?  just a few questions inquiring minds want to know. :)

Parham

There are degrees of "standing against" a regime. For example Bakhtiyar did not stand against Monarchy. But he did stand against dictatorship. It was the same reasoning as yours that kept people from backing him up.

If people had supported him we may now have democracy. Not to mention avoided the war and IRI. If Mousavi wants to reform the system it is fine. Maybe I think IRI is not reformable. But I am one man not the whole of Iran. If majority want to give Mousavi a chance so be it. Remember both South Africa and Soviet Union were unreformable. Both got reformed! Maybe it is a pipe dream but sure beats American bombing. It also avoids the risk of dissolution; wrecks Western plan!

The main thing about democracy is to accept our will may not "win". If enough people disagree with us then we got to give in. At least over issues open for discussion like how to go from IRI to freedom.

You'd be lying through your nose...

... if you did make that claim now, wouldn't you?

I don't claim to be "fighting" for democracy.

Everything is sacred

Of course you need guts

But for the right cause!

And respectfully, how the f..k would you know if I or other people on iranian.com have had the guts to stand for democracy or not? The least is we haven't stood for thugs... For starters, I don't see you posting your real name and picture here!

And yes, Mousavi does want a continuation of the Islamic Republic. Again, he's only standing for his cause, which is "Islamic Republic Light" -- whatever that is.

"Voting means democracy and they all agree with that part."

Does it, really?? I should actually rest my case here, you know? And I think I will.

That'll teach me (once again) to come here and debate things with some of the readers.

This Is What I Wrote On 7/23/'07!

"For Ahmadinejhad and the militarists running the affairs in Tehran, war is one option. However, if they cannot have a war and both domestic and international pressures continue to build up, they will have no choice other than carrying out a coup before the next presidential elections. The events of the last two years all indicate that the politically bankrupt regime of the IRI will not tolerate even the pseudo-democratic charade they call, elections."

No guts no glory!

First of all you definately NEED guts to achieve democracy in Iran.  It just doesn't happen automatically and they don't serve it in a platter!  

People here on i.com are tearing away their shirt collars screaming democracy but if they ruled Iran for a day the first thing they'd do would be to hang all the IRI supporters and Basij and IRGC!  Wouldn't they?  No really wouldn't they?  So democracy my arse!

Khomeini said no demorcay, Jannati and that Ayatollah Khatami said no democracy but they all asked, actually they issue fatwas, people to "vote".  Voting means democracy and they all agree with that part.  Now because they rig the elections doesn't mean in "theory" they don't believe in democracy.

You and Khatami and Ahmadi and Karoubi and Prince chubby and all the rest, ALL talk about democracy but how many have had the guts to do something about it?

Mousavi wants to keep the regime as is?  This regime is unreformable and thus he doesn't want democracy?  He is wasting his life under arrest and duress because he does NOT want democracy?  Yep that must be it!  Those who do NOT want democtacy end up being arrested and humiliated!

I have given up beating the dead horse but as we say in Farsi I have let go the wool coat it is the wool coat that is not letting go! 

Everything is sacred

No "theory" there...

Just simple 2+2. If you don't want democracy, you won't get it. No matter how much guts you have. Again, this is not a race to show who has more guts. It's not an attempt to see who is more admirable and who is not. Heck, it shouldn't even be about people praise, really. The goal is trying to obtain freedom and democracy.

What's so hard about that to grasp?

"Ahmadi has some followings and if he bolts against this regime and his followers follow, then that is good."

See, that's where I start doubting the sincerity of the position that's being presented. Mousavi and Karrubi (and Khatammi and...) do not stand against this regime. They want the continuation of this regime. Stating anything contrary to this would be trying to fool people.

They just want this regime with a different type of (mis)management. They want this regime with certain superficial freedoms added so that people get the impression of change, they want a different crowd absorbing its wealth (albeit people who are more or less from the same clan) and in any case, they don't exactly stand against the idea of a "leader" who can step in at any time and change things around at his will! Let's say they even managed to abolish the idea of a leader having all control (which seems impossible), the crucial laws of the land are all based on notions that are open to interpretation! It's just a dead-end, no matter how you look at it.

Now praise all you want the "courage" of those who stood up, you will not solve anything of the nation's pains.

In other words, it's a dead horse baba, stop beating it!

Responses

I agree that the elections are rigged. But it was the voting that rocked the IRI. I totally disagree with Rainbow. Demonstrations right now based on ethnic regions are a recipe for breakup. I oppose that.

Yes many of these people were once parts of the IRI. But people change and should be given a second chance. We should not put them all in the same basket. There may be people who at one point were IRI insiders. But now genuinely realize the problems with IRI and want to change it. What is wrong with that? Are we just going to hold our breath until USA comes and bombs IRI away! That is not very helpful or good for Iran.

The best thing is if the system is "reformed" or rather re-done as Apartheid was. That will happen as big wigs one by one break away from Khamenei. I have listened to Karroubi and he sounds pretty sane. With each one a group of followers goes along. If AN breaks off that is the end of IRI and far less damaging that a USA attack. If he were to take such a bold step I will gladly shake his hands. I won't vote for him but applaud him for courage. No dictator holds to power without support.

All Reformist are part of IRI

Mosavi,karobi,khatami,kadivar,soruosh,yazdi ganji,and so on,are part of IRI they are ctriminal,thives and laghing at you guyes with their agents among you to ocupaying your mind and waste your time.

while they do the buisness as usual.

the reformist are all employed part time by IRI,their job is to deter the attention and determination of iranian people form the down fall of this murderous regim.

the reformist never stand for human rights,democracy,women libartion,personal privicy,human dignity,cultural value.

IRI regim is a combination of bunch of drug dealer,pedephile,and political prostitute .

the solution is to support the demonstration in Azarbayjan,continue the demonstration in all city and strik at work plce.

There is no limit to stupidity & ignorance of those who will be foold by reformist.

I don't want to rehash these old discussions.

The reason I posted on this thread was because Mousavi was let out of his house arrest and the first thing he said is to dig in deeper and say the next elections will be a sham.  This is news worth talking about but not haggling about! 

Neither Karoubi nor Mousavi had to do this.  They're both well off and over 65 and could've easily just went down in the sunset into retirement, like we'd normally do, although I'm not as well off as they are!

Mousavi was working in an art gallery and his wife was teaching at a university.  Karoubi was also well off and had a rich wife, which Ahmadi made fun of during the debates.  But they made a pact during the debates to stand against the cheating in the upcoming election which they did.

They're not in the same category of other political prisoners rotting in jails but the risk they took and continue to take is not minimal.  How'd you react if mob comes to your house supported by police and put graffitti all over your house like they did with Karoubi's house?

You want to minimize their effort?  Fine.  I don't like Ahmadi one bit but if he ends up like Mousavi and Karoubi and says the same things they're saying and end up in house arrest, I'd give him credit.  Ahmadi has some followings and if he bolts against this regime and his followers follow, then that is good.  

When Khomeini came to the scene he didn't care which groups were gathering under his lead.  He didn't need Tudeh or MKO or other Marxists.  They were just fringe elements to his revolution.  Most of them were middle class who were well off during the Shah so they wouldn't be the dealbreakers.  He didn't even care about the needs of the middle class, he just said no more women in beaches! 

Reform is a bad word in this website but it isn't in Iran.  It has lost a lot of steam in Iran, which is good, but it is not all but abandoned.  People are still worried about jobs and how to care for their families and they rather not start all over again. 

You're talking about theory and what's written in books and that's not how it works in Iran.  I don't know what exactly they want.  I don't know what will be the next spark that starts something but the Iranian people have moved together and responded together to different events.  Whatever!   

Everything is sacred