ELECTIONS

همه به حساب میان جز ملت

حالا شما جواب بدهید ، شاید نوبت من هم برسد .

بودن یا نبودن... بحث در این نیست وسوسه این است

بودن
یا نبودن...

بحث در این نیست
وسوسه این است.

□

شرابِ زهرآلوده به جام و
شمشیرِ به‌زهر آب‌دیده
در کفِ دشمن. ــ
همه چیزی
از پیش
روشن است و حساب‌شده
و پرده
در لحظه‌ی معلوم
فرو خواهد افتاد.

پدرم مگر به باغِ جتسمانی خفته بود
که نقشِ من میراثِ اعتمادِ فریب‌کارِ اوست
و بسترِ فریبِ او
کامگاهِ عمویم!
[من این همه را
به‌ناگهان دریافتم،
با نیم‌نگاهی
از سرِ اتفاق
به نظّارگانِ تماشا]

اگر اعتماد
چون شیطانی دیگر
این هابیلِ دیگر را
به جتسمانی دیگر
به بی‌خبری لالا نگفته بود، ــ
خدا را
خدا را!

□

چه فریبی اما،
چه فریبی!
که آن که از پسِ پرده‌ی نیمرنگِ ظلمت به تماشا نشسته
از تمامی‌ِ فاجعه
آگاه است
و غمنامه‌ی مرا
پیشاپیش
حرف به حرف
بازمی‌شناسد.

□

در پسِ پرده‌ی نیمرنگِ تاریکی
چشم‌ها
نظاره‌ی دردِ مرا
سکه‌ها از سیم و زر پرداخته‌اند
تا از طرحِ آزادِ گریستن
در اختلالِ صدا و تنفسِ آن کس
که متظاهرانه
در حقیقت به‌تردید می‌نگرد
لذتی به کف آرند.

از اینان مدد از چه خواهم، که سرانجام
مرا و عموی مرا
به تساوی
در برابرِ خویش به کُرنش می‌خوانند،
هرچند رنجِ من ایشان را ندا درداده باشد که دیگر
کلادیوس
نه نامِ عمّ
که مفهومی‌ست عام.

و پرده...
در لحظه‌ی محتوم...

□

با این همه
از آن زمان که حقیقت
چون روحِ سرگردانِ بی‌آرامی بر من آشکاره شد
و گندِ جهان
چون دودِ مشعلی در صحنه‌های دروغین
منخرینِ مرا آزرد،
بحثی نه
که وسوسه‌یی‌ست این:

بودن
یا
نبودن.

۱۳۴۸

//www.shamlou.org/index.php?q=node/160

"شرکت ..

...

یا تحریم؟

بحث در این نست

وسوسه اینست"

thanks

Disenchanted that's my unanswered point too.

nice quote thanks to dante alighieiri too.

Maziar

Iranians have to abstain from taking part in this "divine comedy

     Considering the predetermined outcome to vote is a joke. Considering those who are in prison to vote is a tragedy!

Thanks MM

Its good to be able to disagree without losing unity. As for the glass, I confess sometimes it looks  totally dry. But at least we have a glass to fill :)  Chi begam!

Ari

I may not agree with you in the "how" case, but I can tell you that we need more positive people like you who see an almost empty glass as moving towards being filled ;-)

Ari Siletz

Then try to convince me of your point of view. 

You need "convincing" that the IRI cannot be "reformed" into a democracy? Are you serious? If 32 years of history can't convince you, nothing can. 

MM

"The key is to take the Negahbaan council out of the equation."

Along those lines and being a "biggest change for smallest step" guy, how about deleting the following statement from Iran's civil code?

"The freedom of expression and dissemination of thoughts in the Radio and
Television of the Islamic Republic of Iran must be guaranteed in
keeping with the Islamic criteria and the best interests of the country."

Regarding appointments, how about deleting this statement in the civil code?

"The appointment and dismissal of the head of the Radio and Television of the Islamic Republic of Iran rests with the Leader."

Tall order, but still a lower level of difficulty than dismantling the Negahbaan. But once we have freedom of expression, the rest should qucikly fall in place, including dismantling various tyrannical institutions and sending the VF to to the dark side of the Moon.

On a more practical level in the free expression arena, anything we can do to allow people to communicate ideas safely would be a step in the direction of getting rid the repression. Technology is part of it, but we should stay open to out-of-the-box ideas.

Amir1973: Count me in as one of the naive. Then try to convince me of your point of view. If you succeed before losing your temper, you have a part in helping us work towards a democracy. 

MM is right

As long as there is vetting of candidates there is no free election. That is why I was questioning the assertion that IRI needs to cheat. They did cheat last time which was stupid. But even if they do count the votes it is worthless.

Without a fair and level playing field there is not such thing as free election. Not only should all candidates be allowed; they should have access to media. IRI fails on all these accounts so counting or not the votes or nonsense.

Ari - to be short, there is a lot of hand-waving here

I would like to see massive support for reforms before IRI props up another khodi candidate as the opposition, and controls him later.  Buuuuut, what you, me and others can do is to advertize a democratic choice.  As you may remember, when David ET was editing his secular constitution here on IC, we were all looking for a Parsi alternative to the word "secular".  But, now, secular is a household name in the Iranian circles.

The key is to take the Negahbaan council out of the equation (election vs. selection), to take out religion out of politics and implement the UN human rights charter instead, and to send the VF to exile in Qum or Najaf (Najaf or court is my choice).  I am not asking for much!!!

Ari Siletz

As you basically point out, the future will tell. 

Actually, the PAST and the PRESENT wil tell. There is no denying that the "reform" approach towards achieving democracy under the IRI over a projected 200-year period has been a complete and utter failure in achieving either regime change or even an iota of fundamental reform. You know what they say about trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results....

Our biggest cultural obstacle to democracy is equating positions which are acted out with opinions which are discussed.  

The first and biggest present obstacle, cultural or otherwise, to achieving democracy in Iran is the Islamist regime. For there to be any possibility of achieving democracy over X number of years, that obstacle first has to be removed. Anyone who does not understand that is, at best, naive and at worst, an IRI monkey in the wrench meant to keep the opposition going around in circles endlessly debating sham "elections" (while the Syrians and Libyans are in the process of overthrowing their regimes, along with the necessary sanctions and embargoes).

In Defense of Royalty I'd Rather Quote from Niall Ferguson ;0)

"When the stakes are high, whether in an absolute monarchy or an elective dictatorship, the likelihood of ugly scenes will also be high. Nevertheless, I would hypothesise that, taking all the world’s polities over the past hundred years, the world’s republics have, on average, witnessed more succession crises than the world’s monarchies. 

For the reality is that the United States remains quite exceptional in the durability and (one civil war aside) stability of its republican institutions. Few other republics would have come through the knife-edge election of 2000 without a shot being fired. Only think what is currently happening in Mexico, where the loser in July’s very close presidential election is talking openly and ominously of « civil resistance ».

Kings — and queens — have their shortcomings. They can seem a little quaint. But maybe there are worse ways of choosing a successor than good old blood lineage."

First Published In The Daily Telegraph (Sept 10th, 2006)

Hmm ... Seems Relevant to 2011 too ...

Do the Republics of Gaddafi, Saleh or Bachar El Assad Ring a Bell ? ...  

;0) 

More On The "R" Word ...

LAST WORD: David Starkey debates with Maryam Namazie on the monarchy

HISTORY FORUM:The Monarchy with David Starkey (Cambridge University)

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights' 

Related Blogs on "Legitimacy":

pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)

RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy

Amirparviz

I wasn't ignoring your comment, just confused by it. Mark Twain had a very negative attitude towards royalty. I'm not familiar with the quote you refer to (can you cite source?), but In A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court Twain says,

"It was pitiful for a person born in a wholesome free atmosphere to
listen to their humble and hearty outpourings of loyalty toward their
king and Church and nobility; as if they had any more occasion to love
and honor king and Church and noble than a slave has to love and honor
the lash, or a dog has to love and honor the stranger that kicks him!
Why, dear me, ANY kind of royalty, howsoever modified, ANY kind of
aristocracy, howsoever pruned, is rightly an insult; but if you are born
and brought up under that sort of arrangement you probably never find
it out for yourself, and don't believe it when somebody else tells you.
It is enough to make a body ashamed of his race to think of the sort of
froth that has always occupied its thrones without shadow of right or
reason, and the seventh-rate people that have always figured as its
aristocracies -- a company of monarchs and nobles who, as a rule, would
have achieved only poverty and obscurity if left, like their betters, to
their own exertions."

Twain isn't the right person to recommend your point of view--which is what confused me. However if we were in a quote repartee exchange regarding your point about RP's stated positions it would be with this quote from television pioneer Donald McGannon:

"Leadership is action, not position. "

Ari Nothing on Mark Twains Wisdom

or do you disagree with the need to have a leader?

Thanks Mammad

Yes, if the Greens come up with creative ways to effectively participate and have a significant impact in a process where not voting is part of the offensive strategy, then we can move on to what this strategy would be. You have already delineated the broad outline: reduce voter turnout by informing people of longer term interests. As a further detail you have suggested that this long term interest would be presented as an economic one. It's probably too early after the students' article, but has the "message" been developed into "talking points," methods of delivery etc.?

I also see the upcoming elections as very meaningful. My last paragraph was a prolepsis to anticipated responses to the effect that the election is meaningless. My comments in this blog refer only to contexts in which the election is viewed as important.

MM

I quite agree with your points regarding selection vs. election at the top and pre-screenings. I see this as separate issue than the fact that any form of participatory process that involves the common people will accelerate the fracturing of the regime. Yes it's a game but if you've ever played monopoly, you know how it can lead to resentment and raised hackles. Friendly soccer games break out into riots and violence because the human brain has a hard time telling the difference between what's real and what's pretend. Noting this effect and suggesting applications for it shouldn't be dismissed as intellectualism: people cry in movies!

Ari, Mark Twain observed that when many people work for a goal

yet they have no leader, they are just a mob with no leader.  And his words not mine, that makes them "beneath pitiful".

So the first thing the people need is a leader before they make any decision what to do.  Who leads them?

Next they need to unite behind the goals of that leader which they chose.

Reza Pahlavi says he stands for a National Referendum to chose the constitution of the country and while standing for a constitutional monarchy is 100% prepared to accept a republic if the people choose it.

Since he has known that this system has been a lie from the very begining and non-reformable I can see the wisdom in his leadership.

Now you list me the views of other leaders that have gven their solution and lets decide whether we have a better option for a leader to follow. 

Or else in Mark Twains words, if we act in a beneath pitiful way, voting or not voting who really cares, we will end up with beneath pitiful results.

Ari

The article by the four imprisoned student leaders - Momeni, Jamali, Asadi Zeidabadi, and Malihi - says that the Green Movement was born as a result of an election. Thus, if the Greens do nothing for the upcoming elections, it would imply that the situation has calmed down. They do not advocate voting, but as I said in my last comment, advocate using the opportunity for informing people.

I do not agree with your paragraph before the last. The point of informing people is to educate them that even if AN distributes some money to buy votes, for example, this would represent a temporary bandage for a long-term problem, namely, that economic problems will never be truly solved unless the system is first democratized. So, they should set aside their short-term interests in favor of the long-terms ones. I still believe that a large number of people will vote, but the goal is to reduce that number to, say 35-40 percent, rather than the typical 55-60 percent for such elections.

I do not agree that the upcoming elections is meaningless. First, it will have huge implications for the confrontation between Khamenei's supporters and AN-MA team. Second, the democratic opposition must develop a strategy to be heard loud and clear; otherwise, it might be marginalized for a while. As I said, participating in any elections is not just voting. The most important part is using the opportunity to advance one's views.

If you want to read about three of the four student leaders, see

//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbure...

Mammad

Ari

A direct result of IRI elections is the proclamation by "Doctor" AhmadiNejad, in his most recent interview, that Iran has the highest form of democracy and he represents the majority of the people of Iran.  Basically, giving legitimacy to the IRI.

//www.roshangari.net/as/sitedata/20110908095519/20110908095519.html

I can also understand the argument that people want to vote and reform the government, via their vote, from within.  But several arguments go against that line of thought

* The candidates are pre-screened and selected from a "khodi" list.

* The real power resides within the un-elected councils, and ultimately the un-elected VF. 

* The method of working from within the government was a big failure when M. Khatami was (s)elected, and every move of M. Khatami was undermined by the VF-circles.

So, if advocating voting in IRI (s)elections, there has got to be a path towards a change, otherwise, in my opinion, IRI voting is a waste and it just gives legitimacy to the Mullahs.

AMIR1973 If this Regime were to go tomorrow

I doubt we would become a democracy from tyranny right away.

We might even see a dictator since the people in Iran feel and say frequently that is the only thing that will save Iran.

Give it 10 years to have an economy and restore freedom first.

Then probably 1 to 2 generations at most provided we are wiser about selecting patriotic people, not populists. 

Amir1973

As you basically point out, the future will tell. And once again, if the opposition consensus is to boycott then I grumble and boycott. As long as unity is understood, dissent is constructive. Our biggest cultural obstacle to democracy is equating positions which are acted out with opinions which are discussed. That's the point I (and hopefully you) understand best.

Ari Siletz

If the Islamist regime "evolves" into a democracy via your apparent prescribed route of choosing from among a roster of Khomeinist, Guardian-Council approved "candidates", then I too will change my assessment (and in something less than 200 years). The first and biggest current obstacle to democracy in Iran is the Islamist regime. For there to be ANY possibility of democracy whatsoever, the first order of business is for the Islamist regime to be removed (look at the USSR, apartheid South Africa, Eastern bloc countries, etc -- and many of those states executed, raped, and tortured far, far fewer of their own citizens than the IRI has and were therefore, in principle, more "reformable"). It will not "evolve"; it will not "reform" in any fundamental sense. Attempting to "reform" it will always lead to the same dead end street (and nothing would make the Islamists happier than to continue another 32 years -- or 200 years to use your timeframe-- sucking up the country's resources while the same charade of elections goes on and on and on. Period. Do you or do you not understand that?

Amir 1973

If any one the falling/fallen "Arab" regime's Syria, Libya etc. quickly settle into a democracy I will change my assessment about Iran. 

Mammad

You seem to have researched the election field quite well. Have there been any arguments from the "truel" Greens (as one of your links differentiates) to the effect that boycotting the elections will marginalize the Green movement? I ask in the follwoing context: In the US even followers of parties that have no hope of winning and would rather not vote, decide to vote strategically for one or the other big party. If the two big parties are running neck to neck a tiny minority can get concessions out of proportion to its size.

Also, your last link proposed that boycotting will make people aware of the shorcomings of the system. Those who don't vote are already aware of the shortcomings and if as you predict a lot of people vote anyway, will this not marginalize the Greens who turned down the chance to participate in a national process that has the risk of involving a majority?

For some readers: It can't be argued that the elections are meanigless
anyway otherwise the IRI factions wouldn't be spending so much effort
trying to win it.

Questions (and comments) for Ari Siletz

You keep saying that it took the U.S. two centuries to "evolve" towards democracy. Are you saying that the IRI "democratization" effort is a two-century work-in-progress? If so, then folks should just come out and say "we don't expect free elections, free speech, free press, etc now, but we do expect it around the year 2211." I don't believe I can recall the last time a real "opposition" political movement aimed to achieve its goals in 200 years, so this might be a first. The protestors in Syria, Libya, etc say they wan't the regime to fall now -- nothing about the regime evolving towards something in 200 years.

And what about the experiences of Germany, Japan, and Italy? In 1945, all 3 states were ruled by harsh totalitarian regimes. Within a few years, all 3 had been set on the course of becoming democratic states (in many ways, quite liberal ones at that). Should the U.S. instead have pushed for a two-centuries democratization project (based on the U.S. historical record you keep quoting)?

no way jose!

Ari khan I don't agree with that vote any way so we can have our voices heard.

cause by participating it means agreeing on legitimacy of that regime

just saying.

Maziar

There are two separate questions here

One is whether all those INSIDE Iran who oppose the hardliners and their supporters call for boycott of the Majles elections. In fact, they already have. Mousavi just dismissed the Majles elections as hopeless.

//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbure...

Unlike what the article says, Khatami has set conditions that will not be fulfilled by any stretch of imagination. In a recent private speech to a group of people - recorded and then leaked to outside the country and never denied by him, which was publicized by Mihan - he said that they should not participate in the elections. In fact, in that speech he says that since 2005 participting in such elections has been wrong. Thus, no significant figure in the opposition INSIDE Iran will run or ask the people to vote.

The second question is whether a large number of people will vote. My bet is they will. Most commentators here speak in abstract terms. But, Majles and city council elections in Iran are actually quite competitive - not free, not fair, but competitive - in many SMALLER towns and districts around Iran. Local competitions, ethnicity, family ties, etc. play roles. In addition, people do not look at these elections as abstract as most commentators here do, or the way presidential elections are viewed. The Majles deputies often help bring projects into their districts. They try to being funds into their district. This has nothing to do with elections being free, fair, or competitive. The fact is, once they are in, they try to do such things. The VF regime uses such realities to claim that the fact that a large number of people voted means that they are happy with the regime, which is of course not true. People, in their lives, are pragmatic.

There is another factor in play here, which the article also points out. The Ahmadinejad-Mashaei team will spend billions in smaller towns to bring out people to vote for their candidates. Many reliable reports from inside Iran indicate that they have amassed vast resources for this purpose. That has really worried Khamenei and his supporters. There is not a single day in which Khamenei's supporters do not make a claim about AN-MA team and what they are trying to do. They are now making the same accusations against AN that the Greens did right before the 2009 elections:

//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbure...

Finally, participating in elections is not just voting. In my view the voting must be boycotted (even though many will vote anyway), but the opportunity must be used as much as possible in any way possible to inform people, to make them aware of the shortcomings of such elections and those of the regime, etc. Read the excellent analysis of four student leaders who are currently in jail:

//www.kaleme.com/1390/06/14/klm-72006/

See how realistically they look at elections and compare their views with some here.

Mammad

Ari

Ari,

It took Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens or Homo Erectus thousands of years to become humans. And it took Europe centuries to come out of the Dark Ages. That doesn’t mean that Iranians (who are bright and quick learners) have to go through the entire experience to be able to establish a democratic government in Iran.

After all wasn’t that what Mashrooteh and Mossadegh experiences were all about?

We already have the recipe, we just need good cooks in the kitchen!

Faramarz

US democracy was not always as it is now. It too evolved.

Until 1860 not all white males could vote unless they owned a certain amount of property. In some states you had to pay to vote! And this poll tax issue wasn't quite settled in all states until 1966. Freed slaves couldn't vote until 1870, and the issue wasn't really settled until 1965. Not to mention that they had no rights whatsoever when they were slaves. And I'm sure you are aware that American women could not vote before 1920 and Native Americans were not considered full US citizens until 1924.

Regarding religion and political participation in the US.

The Delaware Constitution of 1776
said "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house,
or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat... shall... make and
subscribe the following declaration...: I... do profess faith
in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy
Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy
scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine
inspiration."

There were other such religious restrictions that favored protestants to the exclusion of Catholics, Jews... That all changed over time.