IRI

Freddy aziz

And what a surprise I only ever expect a moronic and wholly negative reply from my beloved Fred...I condemn China, Russia etc...  And for the record even though you choose to ignore what I actually say and like the true totalitarian fanatic that you are instead prefer to impute motives and personality traits to me, I am a LIBERAL.  It is possible to be liberal and anti-imperialist - MOSSADEGH - he nationalized Iran's oil resources braniac and stood against the British empire, while they employed every single dirty tactic at their disposal to destroy Iran's chances for independence.  

Chavez is more complicated - and what a surprise you immediately buy into the propaganda without even thinking twice - it was the CIA who tried to overthrow his democratically elected government and his own people that restored him to power.  He must be watched and criticized with equal vehemence if he abuses and exceeds the limits of his power.  THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. Just because you like Cheney et al. pulling your strings and making you dance to their tune please don't expect the rest of us to applaud while bombs rain down on Tehran.  If China meddles in the internal affairs of Iran and threantens to potentially nuke us then I will also robustly protest in the meagre capacity I am able...Both the US and Israel have threatened to attack our country, China hasn't and neither has Russia!  Because you don't care if the innocent blood of our people is spilt please don't expect the rest of us to stay silent and spount of inane and ignorant comments like yourself. 

ALL and all

One is the Fake and another is the image of real !!

Sorry but you are mistaken,

Sorry but you are mistaken, it is not as simple as you present, an elected official i.e. the president, appoints members of the supreme court (of course providing a spot is available) and then the appointment is confirmed by an elected arm of government i.e the senate.

Eskandar: US Supreme Court is not elected either

and it does have the power to disqualify candidates and decide elections which it did in 2000.

Setiz: Right on

You said it well. I agree with you.

Knowledge and Responsibility solely lies on the people.

At some point we, the iranians, should take responsibility for our own actions instead of trying to explain our actions by shifting blame.

As bad as the iranian regime is, unlike in the former iraqi regime, there is no serious penalty that we know of for not voting. Therefore those who voluntarily voted in this last election should bear the responsibility of throwing their lives and the lives of other iranians down the cliff.

Imagine what would have happened if nobody (or close to nobody) had voted in this last election; that may have been the beginning of the end of regime. This regime cannot survive without an apparent support from the people, no matter how superficial it may be.

We either like to have an authoritarian regime or a regime based on people's vote. If it is to be based on people's vote, then the people should take responsibility for their actions when they have the choice of not voting as an indication of disapproval of candidates.

As long as people do not take responsibility for their actions, let it be for being fooled so easily by exaggerations and deceits of khomeini, voting blindly for islamic republic system of government, voting for charlatans of different colors like khatami or ahmadinejad, or voting for the preselected parliament candidates, the fake seal of approval is in place and thus nothing can be changed.

We need to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions before we deserve a more democratic system of government. A democratic system is only meaningful when it goes hand-in-hand with knowledge and responsibility. If we cannot afford to be knowledgeable enough to read between the lines of lie and deceit, or if we are not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, we see no consequential difference between a democracy and an authoritarian system, and thus unprepared for a democratic system of government.

The intractable problem of the extremist lefties

The lefties’ problem is neither aggravated nor stem from write-ups such as this guy’s. It is not he who makes them “appear totally and generally hypocritical”. It is their lopsided sense of anti-imperialism that does the trick. Were they to condemn China and Russia with the same zeal for their imperialistic agenda in Africa and Caucuses, just to name a few, or nail  Cuba, North Korea with the same vehemence as they do US for its human rights infractions, then they would not be in the position that they are now.  Venezuela is another case in point, the silence of the lefties about the anti-democratic, tyrant friendly behavior of Chavez is deafening. And this antiwar thingy of theirs is another hypocrisy of theirs on top of many others.  When was the last time a lefty condemned Russia for its war of annihilation in Chechnya or mildly repudiated Islamist Republic’s bankrolling of many vicious terrorist organizations or its use of death squads at home and abroad?   I am afraid my wayward lefties the hypocrisy is inbred and within you all.

We all are aware of the obvious

There is no doubt or secret about the pillars of IR and its non democratic realities. My issue is beyond that. Should we sit here and focus about the Iranian regime, while we know what it is, or is it better for us to share the same point of view and agree that the best solution to the Iranian puzzle is the lifting of sanctions and pressures from the west?

The writer of this article is coming from a point of view that Iran is fighting the world and staying strong with people's support. This attitude is not exclusive to him, many Iranians share his views. The point is that the pressures from the west have helped the IR to strengthen her position regardless of its complete shortcomings. Focus has shifted, as it has here!

I search for real solutions and have heard all that needs to be said. We are looping year after year and end up at the same point. I believe instead of being played, let's realize what is happening. The best answer is our support to the Iranian people inside. Even if IR remains, the good of the people will benefit Iran so we have absolutely nothing to lose 

It would take another 4

It would take another 4 years of Ahmadinejad for people to once and for all realize that their votes don't count.

In the absence of a way to do anything concrete to voice their abject misery and discontent, the mere act of voting, provides relief for pent up anger and frustration against the government. Those young people who voted are probably the ones who realized that their little social freedom was taken away by the hardliners because they did not vote in the last presidential election, and had no idea what the hardliners had in store for them.

Just listen to Ahamdinejad's lies before he became president:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOFLVwnkMQ

On Friday March 14th of

On Friday March 14th of 2008, another illusion of an elections was orchestrated by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Why would the Islamic ruling regime on purpose want to cook up its elections? Why must it so skillfully vet candidates and install its favorite proteges into official positions?

Why does the Islamic government so brutally stifles the freedoms of the inhabitants of one of the most natural resource rich countries, in accordance with millennia old rotting Islamic thought? The clique running the government of Iran cannot possibly be entirely irrational!

Here I will try to prove, in fact the Islamic Republic is acting rationally in entirety as a result of its economic and demographic realities.

In the world of economics, there is a concept called the "rentier effect", this idea explained, gives another reason why elections by governments as the Islamic Republic of Iran is democratically meaningless and redundant. Rentier in itself stands for: a rent receiving entity. The rentier effect finds a fundamental relationship between state run oil industries and barriers to democratization. In such countries a government relies to a large degree and sometimes almost completely on oil revenues for its budgetary needs, relying less on its citizens' taxes to run the government.

One might say this can be a good thing: less pressure on people to meet the government budget with their hard earned money in form of taxes, but in such economies, democratizing elements of free trade diminish or disappear.

There is less incentive for a "rentier state" to help its citizens increase efficiencies of trade through regulation or deregulation, and no urgent need to encourage an increase in personal wealth which would positively effects tax revenues. On the other hand this government has a huge incentive to increase its main source of oil income without attracting opposition from its citizens. Such governments kept unchecked, usurp the wealth of the people and would want to sell the future income from the same resources, as soon as possible.

In general governments that hold absolute legal and sole property rights to the country's resources such as the government of the Islamic Republic and the likes such as Libya, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and etc. do not need their people except for defense or the day to day operations of the government, such as stifling dissent and preservation of status quo. Such countries might as well be empty spans of unpopulated deserts, decorated with pumps and pipelines which deliver crude oil to savvy foreign clients, as efficiently as possible.

What is interesting is that the oil revenues collected by the government is calculated as part of the per capita GNP income by international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank, while that money is being used mainly on the security apparatus to keep the same individual in check. In reality a "rentier state" acts very similar to a colonial occupier with every reason to weaken or eliminate its existential threats.

On the day after the Islamic Majles (Parliament) elections of March 14th, we may see a different make up of candidates win, perhaps more reformists, or we may be presented surrealistically but entirely possibly, with the exact same candidates as the previous term. The bottom line is that the policies of the Islamic regime ruling Iran, will be evolving along the lines of assuring the survival of the establishment that has been in place for almost thirty years, serving the same economic interests. This, I say is rational, they are not totally crazy.

Listed below are links related to the "rentier effect", some with very interesting Iran related comparative data. You judge for yourself whether we need fundamental and radical change in Iran. There is hope for the future but it depends on what we do today, so take action, and start by boycotting the Islamic Republic, and expose their evil existence for all to see.

1- OIL AND THE RENTIER STATE: IRAN'S CAPITAL FORMATION, 1960-1997
//www.luc.edu/orgs/meea/volume4/oilrentier/oi...
2- Does Oil Hinder Democracy?
//muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/world_poli...
3- Rentier state
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_state
4- Dutch disease
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
5- Resource curse
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
6- Short from a blog
//onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2003/02/oil_...
7- Oil and Democracy
//oildemocracy.blogspot.com/
from:
//saggezard.blogspot.com/

ما اکثریت

ما اکثریت شهروندان ایران با هر طرز تفکری ......میخواهیم انقلاب ملا خور
شده به خاک و خون کشیده خود را دقیقا از روز کودتای بر علیه بنی صدر
در ایران ادامه دهیم

در این انقلاب مردم ایران با جهان بینی های مختلف - مذاهب مختلف
قوم های مختلف شرکت فعال داشته اند

و بنا بر بد شانسی تاریخی عقب مانده ترین یعنی مرتجعین مسلمان شیعه
ایران به قدرت رسیده و دست به کلی بی قانونی مردم کشی ریدن به کل
استراکچر مملکت و تا دلت بخواهد فجایع زدند

Yes all elections are

Yes all elections are selective, but the bodies which do the selecting are usually elected themselves or accountable in some way.  Sorry but this is not the case in Iran. 

Respectfully,

Eskandar

The problem of double standards

With all due respect Mr. Ommani it is a position such as yours which makes those of us whom are against a possible US attack against Iran and US imperialism more generally appear totally and utterly hypocritical.  Reports coming out of Tehran and not only those pro-Western media outlets you mentioned have made it very clear that the polls were far from busy and the participation far from enthused.  Many individuals were drawn to voting stations with the promise of food rations and such.  If we are to condemn US foreign policy and its expansionist agenda, we must also condemn Tehran's half-baked elections and the fact that when all is said and done, executive power in the final analysis is in the hands of one unelected individual, Ayatollah Khamanei.  Even people whom at one time worked or came out of the revolutionary movement such as Kadivar and Soroush have criticized this constitutional setup as predicated on a deeply slanted and ideology laden vision of Shia Islam. With all the rhetorical skill and talent in the world this fact can not be gotten around - there are no checks and balance and all power ultimately resides not with the people but with one man.  This is of course ignoring the fact that majlis candidates are vetted and their 'Islamic' credentials examined before hand - as JJ has pointed out, you would be excluded from this process as would I.  Even Khomeini's grandson Ali Eshraghi was temporarily prevented from running.  Congratulating the Islamic republic is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to any anti-imperialist critque and undermines the continued struggle for a free and independent Iran.   

Participation?

Degree of participation by voters means nothing in Iran's case. Millions have voted in elections in Russia where the Putin gang have excluded and jailed opponents. The entire population of Iraq voted to keep Saddam Hussein in power. Same in Egypt and Hosi Mubarak. Do you want Iran to be in the same club? Millions of votes bring legitimacy only when the same people have the right to freely stand as candidates. Those who say Iran's elections are fair or relatively fair, may want to ponder this fact: You yourself would not be approved as a candidate in any Iranian election. Are you less qualified, less intelligent or less caring about Iran than those select few who are approved as candidates? When even the moderates, who believe in the Islamic Republic, say the elections were unfair, how can the rest of us defend the elections?

Only in the twighlight zone of IRI you hear such nonesense

- Candidates are tightly hand picked

- People are put under fear that if they don't have that stamp in their birth certificate for the vote that they might get harressed yet despite fears most people this time do not show up

- Lorry loads of IRI militia are reported going from one voting station to the next

- The country is high jacked by a small group of Imam Zaman Cultists who think by shedding the blood of the 70 Million this Arab son of the 11th Imam who never existed and even if he did he would not care about our Iranian nation is going to apear and God knows do what for us and our failed economy!

Mr Ommani, unless you are carrying a Pol Pot mentality of wanting Iran completely destroyed so that you can make your own version of lefty dictatorship of Masses and start with year zero I can't in my wildest imagination see why you would be so cheerful about such an election?

What's a gutzpah

The word is chutzpah. This is a propaganda piece but what's that got to do with extreme leftists and hatred of capitalism?

Degree of participation in Elections

Most of the "comments" on Mr. Omani's article are not even comments. As usual with most of the articles that are posted on this site that try to analyze the situation in Iran - correctly or incorrectly - the author is viciously attacked, ridiculed, etc. If we believe that Mr. Omani is wrong, can we not say anything intelligent to prove him wrong?

The OVERALL degree of people's participation in Iran's elections is never a measure of how popular is the political system. Just like any other country, a lot of people are pragmatic enough to know that, whether they hate or support the political system, they live within the system.

For a variety of reasons, a certain percentage of the population always participates in the election. This is particularly true in small towns and villages, where, for example, people trust their Friday prayer Imam, their relatives, etc., or there is a local competition between two or a few people over what is being elected. Those who ridicule such statistics forget this. They are mostly from large cities, and always think that things are the same everywhere in Iran. They are not.

As unreliable as they may be, statistics indicate a consistent pattern over the years during the reign of the IRI:

1. About 20% of the population never participates in any election. Unlike Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mobarak of Egypt, or Asad of Syria, the IRI has never claimed 99.99% participation. The maximum was 80% when Khatami was elected the first time in 1997.

2. Around 50% of population always participates in the election, for a variety of reasons, some of which were mentioned above. Of
this, about 15% is the constant vote that the conservatives always receive from Basij, ultra religious people, etc. The rest are common people.

3. That leaves about 30% of the population which may or may not participate.

The degree of enthusiasm of people for an election is, therefore, measured based on

1. the fraction of the 30% that actually participates in the election, and

2. the percentage of people from midsize and large cities, where people are more informed, better connected to the world, more educated, etc., who participate in the elections.

Enthusiasm does NOT imply SUPPORT for the political establishment. It only means that people have found something interesting among
the vetted candidates.

The IRI has the constant support of 15% of the population. But, the exiled Iranians forget, or do not know, two facts about 15%:

1. The 15% is also armed among the Basij, Sepaah, etc.

2. If IRI is to be overthrown, this 15% has absolutely positively no place to go outside Iran. Therefore, they would fight to die, rather than allowing the system to be overthrown. Thus, a revolution would mean a bloodbath.

Therefore, the political system will change only when,

1. Even the 15% recognizes that the system is no longer sustainable and must change, and the changes are even in their interest;

2. The movement for change is broad and strong. People go to Iran and see that most people are unhappy; they use all sorts of profanity everywhere, from private discussions to taxis, against the ruling establishment. Then, they mistake this for strong support for a quick overthrow of the IRI. That is not correct.

The key questions are: What percentage of the unhappy people is willing to fight for change as enthusiastically as that 15%? What fraction is willing to pay the price? I am guessing that, AT THIS MOMENT, only a small fraction. We see this small fraction in the feminist movement, labor movement, etc. But, this is still a sort of elite, not containing a large fraction of the people at large.

3. A viable alternative to the IRI emerges. Wrong or right, many people within Iran do not see any alternative yet. All the talk about Reza Pahlavi, or anybody else living in exile, is sheer fantasy. Realistic people - those who have lived and worked within the system, people like Akbar Gangi, Naser Zarafshan, Shirin Ebadi - know this. The alternative must develop within Iran.

About Khatami: He was not a safety valve, as some claim. If he were, they would have allowed him to improve the situation to make common people (not intellectuals, university students, informed and active people, etc.) more comfortable or happier, but they did not. As he said once, they created a crisis for him every 9 days over an eight year period.

Laugh when people mention Pahlavi "freedom and democracy" too!

Iran has never been "free" or perfectly democratic. But for you to judge outside the country is ridiculous and idiotic..... and worse, you call for attacks on Iran. You're not even entitled to discuss democracy given that you're a proponent of dead Iranians so you can be content in how democratic that nation is. That's disgusting.

It Cracks me up

When I see people discuss the so called "Democratical Process" under the Islamic Republic.  

Here is my question to those people: Can a Democracy be built on a foundation that is anti basic "Human Rights" ?  

JJ has to be neutral

Is preatty shame that Jahanshah reply to this view. I like Iranian because everybody from different side can send and publish his article. JJ as a head of this website has to be neutral. Why he has to show that even if he allowed the writer of this article to publish his not agree with him. Why he never answer to people who wish that America attack Iran. Ahmadinejad is a result of american policy in Middle East and the same way Hezbollah and Hamas is the result of Israeli policy.

Fake election

All candidates belonged to "khodiha" with heavy screening and election was fixed at every stage including counting the votes. Also the figures don't add up.

Popularity?

Yes! Popular among the least educated, the most brainwashed and the lower classes of the iranian society (specially southern Tehran)

Poular among the children of those same Iranians who behaved themselves like savages on khomeini's arrival 'and' funeral.

You'll see the IRI's popularity the minute after they lose power and fall into population's hands. You'll see what real popularity means sooner than later!

Kamangir

APRIL FOOLS IS ON FIRST OF APRIL

Please republish Ardeshir Ommani's post on April Fools day.

Henry Ford also offered endless chiioce of colors.

Back in the 30's when Henry Ford was mass producing cars. He also offered to customes any colors they wish for their new and shiny car. As along as it was black.

Here too, Iranian voters had all the choices vote for any candidate he wishes to, as long as he votes for a conservative one.

The demise of the regime was

The demise of the regime was slowed down by election of Khatami et al, which was no coincidence. It was a built-in escape valve within the system of oppression.

The power grap by the fundamentalist ideologues should have happened sooner to accelerate the final collapse of the regime.The flip side is further isolation internally and the shrinking of its power base. Iranian need four more years of Ahmadinjad and the hardliners to wake up.

In strategic terms, the purges as well as the election outcome vote will render the ruling clique as a whole more vulnerable and fragile and further diminish its power base within the regime, which is exactly what we need to reach a critical mass.

More analysis:

Unfortunately, in confronting a more brazen Tehran the West continues to subscribe naively to the idea of internal factions' non-existent covet or capacity to initiate, let alone sustain, any sort of change.

In what was dubbed as "engineering the elections," Khamenei and his handpicked President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad devised a sophisticated scheme early on to purge key candidates belonging to the factions affiliated with former presidents Ali-Akbar Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami (the so-called reformers), while allowing those, which have either no chance of winning or little weight even if elected, to remain in the race to prevent a similar boycott as four years ago, when less than 10 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots.

Out of nearly 7,600 prospective candidates, the Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council disqualified no less than 2,700 candidates. Four former ministers, 30 deputy ministers, 10 governors and 73 Majlis deputies were among those receiving the ax. One-thousand others withdrew their names, knowing full well that they could get past the watchdog agencies.

As things stand now, even if all of the remaining rival candidates make it to the Majlis, they would end up with no more than 50 seats in the 290-seat Parliament, and will be in no position to challenge the pro-Khamenei faction's controlling power.

Clearly, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are keen to grab every single lever of power by allowing the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to gradually slither into and eventually dominate the regime's main power centers.

Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali (Aziz) Jafari, the IRGC commander in chief, speaking at the convention of IRGC's paramilitary Bassij Force, held in February, clearly stated, "If the Bassij desires a role in the elections — which I believe it does with the blessings of the Supreme Leader — it should safeguard, complete and expand the trend which has already been set in motion."

Ironically, the regime's attempts to solidify its own rule are wrought with unprecedented complications. The purge of rival factions in the midst of the Majlis election process is an indication that the regime feels immensely vulnerable and weak, prompting it to close ranks.

The first-round election for the majlis, Iran's parliament, on March 14th was a parody (see article). The problem was not so much the stuffing of ballot boxes or a rigged count as the disqualification of hundreds of reformist candidates under a system of double vetting by the interior ministry and the Council of Guardians, an unelected body empowered to inspect the religious credentials of those wishing to stand. Although some reformers were allowed to slip through the net and went on to win seats, the pre-election vetting was plainly designed to put a ceiling on their numbers. So although a real political competition is taking place in the majlis, this is no longer between conservatives and reformers, as it was in the 1990s. Iranian voters are nowadays allowed to choose only between different flavours of conservatism.

What is at stake in this fight between conservatives? Less, alas, than many outsiders hope. The majlis elections are a foretaste of the bigger political dust-up that will come in 2009 when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes up for re-election as president. At present, he is the big-talking standard-bearer of the ultra-conservatives, the so-called “men of principle” who hope to keep the flame of revolution burning through rigid enforcement of Islamic rules at home and shrill confrontation with Satanic foes such as America and Zionism abroad. Ranged against him are the people the West habitually labels the “pragmatic” conservatives, grouped loosely around the familiar figure of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president Mr Ahmadinejad routed in the presidential election of 2005.

The limits of change

The final balance will not be clear until the second round. But even if the pragmatists prevail in parliament and win the presidency in 2009, Iran's posture in the world might not change. The three likeliest presidential challengers—Mohsen Rezai, Ali Larijani and Mohamed Baqer Qalibaf—differ from Mr Ahmadinejad in tone and on economics, but not much on the substance of foreign policy.

All hail from the ideological Revolutionary Guards and seem no less eager than he is to assert Iran's nuclear “rights” or turn Iran into the great power that bested America. Besides, the presidency is the junior position in Iran. Towering over the president and majlis alike is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, who shows every sign of having approved of the freezing of the Tehran spring and none, yet, of wanting to reach out to Iran's foes.

//www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?...

All countries have "filtering" process for candidates for .....

The filtering process for those who may run for a public office is different in different coutnires. In US, the media sticks its fingers inside the behind of candiates (after FBI "background check"!!!) to find out what they ate and when!!. We have seen this also in the current presidential elections in US where even the pastor of a church for which a candidate attended is an issue and fair game to disqualify (or try to disqualify) a candidate. In iran we don't have that kind of a system where filtering is done by the media. We need to have someone look after background and lives of the individuals who want to hold public office, and perhaps be exposed to secrets of our beloved nation. For example, recently a person with name Abbas Abdi who was supposedly a "reformist" candidate and was disqualified went on German Radio (Farsi program) to complain. If a disqualified candidate in US has done such a thing (interview with a foriegn government sponsored radio -- let alone a percieved enemy) he would be turned into a "shish kebob", let alone be allowed to run for public office forever. So that is the story. What is fair and what is unfair and the biases, cannot be avoided in any system and in any election, one way or the other. Iran's filtering system is not perfect, but should be in place and should be improved.

A/B

Mehdi,

Here's what you said:

I am waiting for some strong response in comments
by Mehdi on Wed Mar 19, 2008 05:57 PM CDT
Anybody? What do we do now?

And here's a strong response:

You must be joking?

I am waiting for some strong response in comments

Anybody? What do we do now?

It's somewhat true AND false!

Some points to add

-Iran is not a system that can be called democratic, but it’s also unfair to look at those who got benched and say that this was an unfair election!

Any election in anywhere in the world is selective. The electoral would select those who are best fit to run. As I understand, after all those reformists who were not able to run, there were still plenty of them left that could have gotten the votes if people wanted. In the west they are many that could run legally but not realistically, in Iran we are not there yet.

-The author makes one point that I believe to be true. The more sanction and pressure from the west, the more power the IR will gain. It has become clear that the best policy towards Iran would be an open policy, where the west would deal with the Iranian regime the same as any other regimes in the region. Then the chances for the people to overthrow the IR if they see it fit would increase. Iranians are voting based on the threat and they want the strongest in power that would guarantee a retaliation if they are attacked. It seems natural. The war in the United States was the reason of G.W. Bush’s reelection and the regain of the power of the Neocons.

Mr. Ommani: May I ask you

Mr. Ommani: May I ask you what parallel universe you've managed to live in?

Endorsing *state-selected* Islamist candidates who must have proven their loyalty to the Suprme Leader (Agent of God) in an absurd election is not the sign of regime's popularity.

Iran's recent Election
IRAN'S ISLAMIC OUTRAGE
March 17, 2008 --

LAST Friday's election in Iran - like every vote there since the 1979 revo lution - violated fundamental Islamic principles. But, then, so does the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran itself. No one can become a candidate in Iran without the approval of a body known as the Council of Guardians. The regime, in other words, doesn't trust individual Iranian Muslims to uphold Islamic principles in their political choices. Yet the fundamental principle of individual personal responsibility - which can never be abdicated or delegated - is one of the most striking recurring themes in the Koran. Various schools within Islam put different emphases on this duty, but having a council of fallible humans negate the free will of Muslim citizens is totalitarianism - not Islam. Thus, the "Islamic Republic" is neither Islamic nor a republic. The authoritarianism of such institutions as the Council of Guardians is supposedly justified as necessary for preserving "the Islamicity of the state" - a goal that is claimed as another teaching of the Koran. That, too, is false. The claim that a state can be Islamic is false from a religious point of view and has no support in 15 centuries of Islamic history. There is no mention whatsoever of the state in the Koran. Islam does not prescribe any form of government. Rather, the teachings of Mohammed emphasize the community of Muslims and each Muslim's responsibility for conducting public affairs. True, Muslims everywhere, whether a majority or minority of the populace, are bound to observe sharia as a matter of religious obligation. But this can be best achieved when the state is neutral regarding all religious doctrines. Any principle of sharia that has been enacted into state law, simply because it is a principle of sharia, is no longer religious - for Muslims would then be observing the law of the state as such and not freely performing their religious duty as Muslims. (This does not, of course, prevent a Muslim from supporting, say, laws against pornography or prostitution on the basis of his or her moral beliefs. But, then, the same holds for citizens of other faiths.) The notion of an Islamic state is in fact a postcolonial innovation in the thinking of some Muslims - an "import" of a European model of the state and of a totalitarian view of law and public policy. In essence, then, today's Iranian system is no different from the former Soviet and Nazi regimes - or from the Arab nationalist Ba'ath dictatorship in Syria (and formerly in Iraq). That the repression comes in the name of religion doesn't make it any less totalitarian. A true and valid return to Islamic values, in Iran and elsewhere, requires allowing individuals to practice religion unfettered by political leaders who claim to speak in the name of the Divine. This is the clear demand of Muslims everywhere. Consider "Who Speaks for Islam," a survey, published in February by Gallup, of 50,000 Muslims in more than 35 countries. A clear majority of those polled said they don't want religious leaders to draft their constitutions. The survey also confirms that large majorities of Muslims want to protect free speech and reject attacks on civilians as morally wrong. It also found Muslim women demanding equality and respect for their human dignity. Gallup did find a majority of Muslims saying they want sharia to be a source of legislation and religion to have an important role in their societies. Plainly, much great public awareness is needed of such concepts as the inherently secular nature of the state and the critical role of the principles of constitutionalism, human rights and citizenship. Islamic beliefs, as with any other religious and philosophical principles, will unavoidably have some connection with politics. But a proper understanding of the Koran's teachings can regulate that connection - indeed show the necessity for separation of sharia and state. The question is how to transform attitudes of Muslims on these issues. Human-rights advocates should, of course, speak out about the Iranian election and call it what it is - a mockery of democracy. Just as important, however, Muslims must speak out. The "religious" state that the Iran's ruling clique hopes to perpetuate in Iran is, in fact, a form of heresy - completely antithetical to Islam's true teachings. As a Muslim, I demand - and the Koran promises - the right to practice my religion freely.

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im is a law professor at Emory University and author of "Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Sharia."

//www.nypost.com/seven/03172008/postopinion/o...