Referendum Rabbits !

Share/Save/Bookmark

Referendum Rabbits !
by David ET
26-Nov-2008
 

Beware of rabbits! Not the kinds that freely live in the nature but those that come of the magician's hat. The kind that we don't know where they really came from and how they were planted there!

We have seen many such rabbits and magicians in the developing countries from Latin America to Africa and the Middle East. I am not only talking about the rigged referendums such as Saddam's 100% vote before US attacking Iraq, but I am also referring to those elections that may not have been planted such as the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territory or the previous election of Islamists in Algeria. History of the last centuries are filled with such examples.

After so many years of struggle by many individuals and groups, in 1978 Iranian people came to the streets in millions demanding democracy but once the dictatorial regime of Shah fell, with a quick twist of events, a referendum was put in front of the Iranian people and the unfortunate 98% approval of the Islamic Republic resulted in a history that we still live with. Elections such as the presidential and parliamentary votes in Iran during the past 30 years are other examples.

Although such elections and referendums may create the illusion of democracy but in reality they are not much different than the illusion of a rabbit jumping out of the magician's hat.

For the past few years certain Iranian oppositions, activists and intellectuals have called for a future referendum to decide the form of the future government of Iran. Although many have good intentions but the motives of the certain magicians behind this call are much different than the goal of a future democracy for Iran!

After the future fall of the Islamic Republic, the magicians do not want Iranians to have an ultimate and ON-GOING say in their future affairs but instead they want people to once again hand in the power to the new magicians in charge.

After the fall of the Islamic Republic a Secular Republic is the only valid option that exists for Iran. This is the only alternative that would freely allow all Iranians from left to right to freely participate in. Secular republic is our only choice IF and only IF we do not want to live under another dictatorship again.

Under a secular republic everyone can have a voice and everyone will have a chance to be in charge BUT NOT PERMANENTLY!

Under a secular republic, no one has the ultimate rule; no Royals, No Imams and NO SPECIFIC IDEOLOGIES. Everyone can form a party, promote its thoughts and ideologies and then run for different posts from cities to Provinces , from parliament to presidency.

If people and parties are properly informed and organized in a politically open environment then everyone has a chance to implement its ideas and if elected and their ideas are successful, they will be voted back in and if not, another person and another party will have their chance.

History has repeatedly proven that referendums in environments where there is not enough time, organizations and education to make informed decisions are prescriptions for more rabbits coming of the magicians hat and more decades of dictatorships under one name or another.

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from David ET
 
globalpublic

Referendum For A New Democracy

by globalpublic on

Do we need a Referendum For A New Democracy?

Are you concerned about the future of democracy? Do you feel democracy is under attack by extreme greed in countries around the world? Are you sick and tired of: living in fear, corporate greed, growing police state, government for the rich, working more but having less?

Can we use both elections and random selection (in the way we select government officials) to rid democracy of undue influence by extreme wealth and wealth-dominated mass media campaigns?

The world's first democracy (Athenian democracy, 600 B.C.) used both elections and random selection. Even Aristotle (the cofounder of Western thought) promoted the use random selection as the best way to protect democracy. The idea of randomly selecting (after screening) juries remains from Athenian democracy, but not randomly selecting (after screening) government officials. Why is it used only for individual justice and not also for social justice? Who wins from that? ...the extremely wealthy?

What is the best way to combine elections and random selection to protect democracy in today's world? Can we use elections as the way to screen candidates, and random selection as the way to do the final selection? Who wins from that? ...the people?


David ET

Dear Dariush

by David ET on

To answer your question. YES I did read your comment, all of it and I responded but not in length .

The first part of your comment had historical perspective and I simply replied: "regardless of arguing history, what matters is today "

The second part was YOUR solution which I replied and in summary said: "We already had 2500 years of monrachy, 30 years of Islamic Republic, lets give secular republic a chance too..There is always future chances for referedums in future if necessary in an open society""

I am sorry that you are upset with me and my views but I am sure you will get over  "Simply Ridiculous" me and me excercisng my right to express it :-)

 


David ET

Some seem to be confusing things

by David ET on

The concept of Yes we can too or Solutions for Iran is for everyone , monrachists included. Anyone who believes in those principals should unite.

At the same time "I" have the right to my view (just as monarchists and others do) to what I think the future form of Iranian government should be.

Just as I should not expect you to not have opinions , you should not expect me either!

Yet our difference of opinions should not stop us from uniting for what we agree upon ! That IS the beauty of democracy.

What part of this is so confusing?! Do you expect me and yourselves to just leave our views and opinions? of course not!

Should our different views stop us from uniting for important  PRINCIPALS that we agree upon ? of course not!

Unfortunately we Iranians having lived under dictatorships for so long just see things black and white


default

If

by Anonymous Still Waiting (not verified) on

If in Secular Republic of Iran they give free housing and electricity, and bring petroleum money to my house, I’m going to vote for it. The Islamist Republicists didn’t keep their promise, so I want to change it.


Darius Kadivar

Another Quote for You Ignorant Republicans ... ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

La dictature, c'est ferme ta gueule, et la démocratie, c'est cause toujours -Woody Allen

Translation :

Dictatorship can be summed up by "Shut UP !" but Democracy by "Keep Talking"

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a3mk9sp0oE


Darius Kadivar

Deh ? Did You Even BOTHER READING what I wrote ?

by Darius Kadivar on

OH GREAT. Then Why did you not say it in the First Place UNITY ONLY FOR REPUBLICANS ? You Are Simply Ridiculous. The Issue of "YES WE CAN" as Iranians is to solve the differences NOT to gather ONLY People with the Same concept and Opinions. Even Obama is working with his Opponents.

You Don't Even Know what you are taking about ...

You are simply a Victim of YOUR PATHOLOGICAL Reflexes like Most Iranians Monarchists and Republicans included. Has 30 Years of the same behavior Not tought YOU ANYTHING ? 

YOU ARE THE STUBBORN ONE, NOT ME !

You even Confuse Socialism and Communism with a System of Government when they only represent Opinions. I refered to Stalinism and Nazism as TOTALITARIAN IDEOLOGIES That Shaped the 20th Century and the COLD WAR.

THAT My Friend Represents basically what has shaped 70 Years of World History in terms of confrontation of Super Powers. You want to Ignore THAT REALITY. Then don't bother understanding what led to the Vietnam War, The Korean War, the Creation of Israel and its successive wars, the Oil Crisis and nearly all issues that are resurfing in debates recurrently between diplomats and world leaders to impose their policies on us for Good or for Bad.  

What Iran went through however Unjust and Unfair WAS CONDITIONED By THAT REALITY. To the Extent that the REVOLUTION THAT YOU SUPPORT ( WHETHER RELIGIOUS OR SECULARS WHO SUPPORTED IT) has led to the ABSURD DENIAL OF HISTORY: Holocaust DENIALS AND Wiping ISRAEL.

IF HISTORY IS OF NO IMPORTANCE TO YOU, NATION BUILDING SHOULD ! 

First Start by Learning about WHAT you are talking about instead of accusing others and ignoring their arguments.

WHY DID YOU DRAFT A BLUE PRINT IN THE FIRST PLACE ? You Are not even Applying it to yourself !

LASTLY : When did I say I justified Divine Rule ?

YOU  Made Two Assessments : That the Shah was a Traitor and Corrupt. And Give Wikipedia Definition's of both to prove your point. Neither Apply to the Shah nor did you prove anything.

YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION:  What authority did Mossadegh as Prime Minister have to Demand the Departure of the Monarch who named him ( whether under the pressure of the population or not is IRRELEVANT to the Question) ?

Was Sending the Shah to Exile was Constitutionally Legitimate ? ... As a Lawyer He Should have Known Better and Know the Risks he was taking by Breaching the Constitution of the Land he accepted to govern upon election/nomination. HE KNEW THE RULES AND CHOSE TO PLAY IT HIS WAY ! 

I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO TELL ME IT WAS GOOD OR BAD (FOR I ALREADY HAVE THE ANSWER AND SO DO YOU, IF NOT SEE QUOTES BELOW ) , OR MAKE A MORALISTIC STATEMENT BUT IF IT WAS LEGAL ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE NATION !

Since you are Fond of Wikipedia then I am sure you will find the adequate Answer if you cannot answer this simple question by yourself !

In Which Monarchy or Even Republic can the Prime Minister or Vice President Take Over Power ( Justified or Not) By kicking the Sovereing or President OUT OF OFFICE and Still claim that he had the Constitutional Right to do it ? THAT IS SIMPLY A COUP. What Followed was a COUNTER COUP From My understanding.

NOW DOES THAT MEAN I THINK COUP's ARE A GOOD THING ? ...

GROW UP FOR HEAVEN's SAKE !

BESIDES I AM NOT ADVOCATING RESTORATION OF THE MONARCHY HERE BUT RALLYING DEMOCRAT's And THEY INCLUDE BOTH GROUPS: Republicans and Constitutional Monarchists as far as State Building is concerned but ALL Political Sensitivities as far as Public Opinions are shaped by them or represent a constituency.

THE SOURCE OF TYRANNY MY FRIEND IS TO BE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST WITH US BUT WORST WITH YOURSELF !

Best,

DK

Quotes About Law, State and Corruption:

Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, two men are called a Law Firm, and three or more are called a Congress. -- John Adams

My body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm ... it is I who suffers, not the state. -- Mark Twain

The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free. They are the lovers of law and order, who observe the law when the government breaks it. -- Henry David Thoreau, Slavery in Massachusetts

 


David ET

ENOUGH with DEVINE Mullahs, Shahs, leaders

by David ET on

I did NOT call monarchists traitors. I said SHAH by definition did an act of treason by asking a foreign force (CIA) to topple an elected prime minister of Iran.

As for rest of your comments, regardless of arguing history, what matters is today and I do not see how committing the nation to anything permanent would serve us good!!  considering that it would AGAIN most likely lead to a dictatorship of some sort, whether it is monarchism (permanent), Communism or Socialism , etc...

Where a plain secular republic will give any leader and ideology including Reza Pahlavi or any of his family to be a leader if s/he wants to and get elected with more legal power than a ceremonial monrach .

I just DO NOT GET this insistence Why do we always have to  lock ourselves up with a family, a religion or ideologue and why not let everyone have a chance ...I JUST DO NOT GET THE INSISTENCE to exclude some ... !!!!!!!!!!!

We already have 2500 years of monrachy, 30 years of Islamic Republic, lets give secular republic a chance too..There is always future chances for referedums in future if necessary in an open society for change...Lets get ride of Islamic first and stay with republic and stop all this division and move forward. Cyrus the great died more than 24xx years ago, Mohammd died 13xx years ago but we Iranians are alive and suffering in 2008!


Darius Kadivar

Dear David ET You are contradicting yourself

by Darius Kadivar on

You propose a common platform for unity and the first thing you do is attack the monarchists and call them Traitors in your previous  comments to your blog with the Open Letter to RP . This is far from pragmatic and I should add you are in addition wrong. My answer would require an article and I don't have the time to develop my arguments in detail but will sum it to the following answers to your allegations of corruption and treason of the Pahlavi's:

1) What you call Theft, I call Golden Parachute. ;0) The Shah and his father built Iran from the rubble. It is all the more logical that he put money aside for himself and his family's future. If I had to be cynical I would say that He fixed the rules so finding his people ungrateful for all the job he took what he felt was his due. I even think that most Iranians particularly those who did the revolution would say "Noosheh Jooneh Khoda Biamorz".  You may consider this unfair and unjust but how do you evaluate the wealth of a King by divine Right. ALL Previous Dynasties in Iran took their share of what they felt belonged to them. They were all absolute monarchies and trying to judge the last Shah's behaviour in this regard with a republican and Western Democratic mindset is inadequate and biased. It does not mean that morally you are wrong but judging a historical era with moral standards shaped by the passage of time and influences you acquired in the West does not make your assessment fair nor truly objective. Its like if I would make the following statement that the Roman Empire was "corrupt" because they had orgies and sent the Christians to the Lions. Well they also founded the basis of the modern institutions that run modern time Republics today. The Pahlavis founded Modern Iran both institutionally, educationally, socially and economically in less than 50 years. Nothing that the Islamic State developed in the past 30 years would have been possible without the Pahlavi's reforms in terms of abolishing serfs and land distribution or the White Revolution despite their shortcomings. Does that Mean the Pahlavi's were perfect ? Certainly Not but without them Iran would have looked more like Afghanistan and its tribal society than the modern society it is and which the Mullah's wrongly try to claim the credit.

2) Treason: DEFINITIVELY NOT. What you and Stephan Kinzer call a Coup, is simply a Counter Coup from the point of view of the Absolute Monarchy which Iran was after all and always has been. The King was King by "divine" Right. Call it absurd, obsolete maybe but not Illegal. No one had challenged Reza Shah other than the British and Russians when they invaded Iran and forced Iran to accept their Presence to guarantee an Allied victory against Nazi Germany on the Eastern Front. They even had the Tehran Conference held in Tehran in 1943 without the Shah's participation (which was already humiliating for him and his people) and Iran nearly starved from hunger in order to satisfy the War Efforts. In exchange they accepted to consider the Shah and Imperial Iran as having paid their share in the fight against Nazi Germany and Iran was considered not as an "Axis of Evil": Germany + Italy + Japan, but part of an "Alliance of Good" Fellas against the Nazi and Fascist Beast. You have to put yourself in the mentality of the time to understand the moral dillemma the Shah had to face when the ENTIRE world was involved in the most bloodiest AND Most Sophisticated Wars of ALL TIME for it had led to the two Atomic Explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So wanting to resist the will of the Allies in restrospect would have been foolish for Any politician and I would say that it also fragalized Iranian society which was gradually benefitting from American help ( in opposition to British Help) to recunstruct itself and benefit from the new era of peace. The Shah made a speech at the United Nations in 1948 where he calls on the Free World to help his "poor" nation to reach the same levels of well being like all European countries devastated by War and shortages due to it.

Shah of Iran at the United Nations 1948

Honestly with all the ideological confusions and weakness' of democracy in Europe before WWII in preventing Adolf Hitler to come to Power ( and Germany was a Democracy when he came to power) the virtues of democracy however noble seemed more like a luxury for an inexperienced society like Iran ( at the time) than an utmost necessity. What people wanted and not just in Iran was to rebuild their countries and benefit from the joys and priveledges of Peace and not War. Iran's nationlistic ambitions were similar to all third world countries or societies that were gradually aiming self determination and rejecting colonial powers. The Shah's father had tried to do that precisely iand we saw what happened ... So the Shah was adamant not to do the same mistake and adopted a more flexible attitude. Now one can consider it cowardly, I call it pragmatism. Mossadegh simply was against such pragmatism and like in the case of most Iranians he was impatient for IMMEDIATE Results. That created chaos and we know that it was also a delicate situation after what happened in Azerbaidjan to afford another decade of uncertain alliances and unstability. A look back at that Era in the light of history prove that the Shah understood the dangerous dillemma of being victim to Soviet intervention, worst invasion or cuba like crisis that not even Mossadegh could have avoided despite his calls for nationalism. Freedom of Press in a country like Iran meant simply being confiscated by the Left Wing and most extreme elements of society all the more that they offered "Rabbit" Solutions(to copy your metaphore)  to satisfy everyone "immediately". It is natural and obvious that the communist rhetoric would have seduced the majority of the Iranian population which was poor. Why wouldn't it after all Third World Countries and their puppet Soviet or Left wing Republics all used demagogy to lead their people and often led to dictatorial regimes and not democratic secular Republics as we understand them today or in the Western World.

So then you have Mossadegh (a Qajar) who comes and jeopardizes this status quo by calling for nationalization and in the process starts blaming the Royal Family whose Founder Reza Shah is the father of Iranian Nationalism and NOT Mossadegh. And he forces the Shah and his family to leave the country. What an Insult ? Any person in the Shah's shoes would feel offended and besides it was also Constitutionally illegal of Mossadegh to challenge his king so directly. Sure from a Republican point of view and again with the biased approach of Kinzer that reason's from a Purely Democratic Society, Iran NEVER WAS this may seem shocking. But from the point of view of a system of government that reposes on the very person of its monarch, the Shah had All the Rights and Legitimacy to do so even by force.

The Shah was King after all and his naming of the Prime Minister however popular placed him above his prime minister and even the People's choice ( if the term "people" truly had a real meaning in Iranian society). Now you guys claim that Mossadegh invented Democracy overnight ? That seems to me a little shortsighted and presumptuous given that Mossadegh was first and foremost struggling for Iran's economic independance. That this is a pre-condition to total independance is true but that Independance is synonymous to Democracy, is merely wishful thinking. The proof is that Nasser Nationalized the Suez canal in Egypt and where was Nasser's Egypt a Democracy. And even Egypt was miles away from the USSR yet it was basically a Russian Satellite until Anwar Sadat broke away ( helped by the Shah by the way) from his Soviet Advisors to join the "Free" Western Alliance.

So My Conclusion is that The Events of 1953 however unfortunate were not an act of Treason by the Shah but simply taking charge of what his country's imperfect constitution allowed him to do. Otherwise then Reza Shah and ALL the Kings and Queens of IRan up to Cyrus the Great should be considered as Traitors.

Treason with your reasoning is Relative. These Kings and Queens may have been Tyrants or Authocrats ( this applies more to the Shah than the term Tyrant) But Treason CERTAINLY NOT. No more no less than the Monarchs and Kings of Great Britian.

So it all boils down to our conception of Statemanship and nation building which is dependant of the Constitution of a country. The 1906 Constitution and all the philosophy behind it inspired by the progressive ideas of the French Lumieres, the French and American Revolutions as well as the British Magna Carta was trying to find a remedy to authoritarian rule in our country by suggesting a Constitution that would define the exact role of the monarch and limit it to the ceremonial role by giving birth to a Parliament. That is why the Constitution drafted after the Belgian model proposed a seperation of Powers. The Revolution was crushed but like the American Battle of Alamo or the 300 Resistance at Thermopylae, if the rebellion was crushed the idea prevailed and their defeat ultimately became a victory in disguise that of giving their country a Constitution. If it was never applied it nevertheless existed on paper. Neither the last Qajar Shah's followed it, nor did Reza Shah so why should have Mohamed Reza Shah apply it to the letter given that it was never applied before him. So yes The Shah is at worst partially guilty of not respecting the Constitution ( although he did so for at least 12 years before Mossadegh defied him publically) but so is Mossadegh for not taking into account the fragility of a Status Quo where the exact role of the Constitution was not clear nor was it submitted to general debate after more than half a century of existence. Mossadegh made the same pathological mistake that you seem to have reproduced with your Open letter and this reiteration and that is Target the Wrong Guy !

You Ask Immediate Allegience to a cause lost in advance because you preach Unity on One hand and immediately after start behaving in contradiction to what you have preached in the first place.

What is the use of unity ( YES WE CAN ? ) when you refuse to accept those who do not share your Republican vision of things. The Idea of a Referandum is Precisely to clarify the situation that needed to be back in 1906. Something that Shahpour Bakhtiar a follower of Mossadegh wanted to apply and which explains why he even accepted the position of Prime Minister of the SHAH and NOT the REPUBLIC. Therefore under the Legitimate Constitution of the Country ( However Imperfect) with the bid of redrafting at the Ballot Box with the help of PEOPLE and NOT THE THUGS killing and burning in the Streets who then took Power and imposed the Result on the people having to vote under dubious circumstances and in Fear.

Bakhtiar Last Interview as PM

Khomeiny's Response To Bakhtiar Calling Him a TRAITOR

You on the othehand are blurred by your own prejudice and I am afraid biaised judgment of your country's history and the realities of a 100 year old Struggle for Democracy and Individual Right ( which we now call Universal Human Rights ) deeply rooted NOT in the Events of 1953 or 1979 but the Constitutional Revolution of 1906.

That is why I have been saying from the begining that given the fact that the emotional and nearly epidermical reactions in both political camps ( Secular Republicans and Constitutional Monarchists) whome I believe each have their valid arguments in defense of their favorite form of government and based on the fact that it is difficult to convert a staunch republican to become a monarchist and vice versa that the best is to reach a common understanding, which I personally think should lead towards NOT a Party BUT a Mouvement like SOLIDARNOSC where All Political ideas would be tolerated and debated by Iranians of All walks of life ( From Intellectuals, to Union Leaders, to political and human rights activists while keeping an eye on the major target: REGIME CHANGE Toward A Democratic and Secular System of Government. This system of government has to also be one that exists today based on the Western Models of Democracy that have proved their efficiency and credibility and not some new form of democracy with no head and tail. In otherwords not a new ideology source of division and useless debate but one of the two existing models of governance that guarantee both civil rights ( Human and Individual) and democracy ( Separation of Powers: Legislative and Executive) doted with a Parliament. The ones we know are in two categories: Secular Republics or Constitutional Monarchies. The Choice of a Western Model is motivated by the fact that they are all shaped by the philisophical and intellectual ideas of the  18th and 19th centuries that have shaped modern democracies as we know them today. They are Transparent and unambiguous (while allowing Right Wing and Left Wing, Conservative and Progressive ideas and parties to co exist while opposing one another in the democratic process) unlike Ideological Systems or States like those fatal totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century that created Hitler, Mao or Stalin. In otherwords If you are a Republican you will most probably look towards France or the United States as models of government and hopefully not a thrid world potentate Republic like Cuba or Venezuela, equally if you are a Constitutional Monarchist you would most preferably look towards Great Britian, Spain or any other European Monarchy and not the Thailand or Tibet. In otherwords it is like going to the Market and purchasing the best in terms of quality and price. The Western Models of Democracy again are those who have proved flexible and lasted the Test of Time so why go for the worst if we can afford the Best not only for us but for our children ?  This also explains why the Reformist of the IRI are misleading themselves and their people into trying to re invent Democracy by suggesting a Theocratic Democracy or Islamic Democracy. Because Democracy IS Democracy, no need to re invent it. And besides there is no Islamic or Christian Democracy ( even if this form exists as parties in the West) because modern Democracy's require a seperation of the spiritual from Politics. In the case of Iran it is all the more an absolute necessity given ALL the Crimes commited in its name and which have dirtied Religion and Religious values which has been prejudicible to those who have Faith in God or any given Religion in our country.   

So to be able to achieve or have this choice (which in both cases would lead to our major goal and that is Democracy) we need to find common ground.

Otherwise we are all simply digging our own graves with the type of pathological reaction that has maimed us as a society, and not just within the opposition groups outside or inside Iran. for the past 30 years in not offering nor being in a position of offering a viable alternative to the current mess.

Bakhtiar Said it Before ALL OF US:

My humble Opinion Too,

DK

PS: Well it seems My Answer turned into an Article after all ;0)


David ET

Dear Dariush

by David ET on

I did acknowledge in the article that :"For the past few years certain Iranian oppositions, activists and intellectuals have called for a future referendum to decide the form of the future government of Iran"

With all due respect to them, many of same  intellectuals were also the ones who supported and suggested the previous referendum or Islamic Republic and got us in to this mess to beging with and look at the result now! We can not blindly follow each other like last time just because its politically correct or so and so said so!  We have to be realistic.

Referendums and elections are great tools but if performed in the proper atmosphere.

I repeat: "History has repeatedly proven that referendums in environments where there is not enough time, organizations and education to make informed decisions are prescriptions for more rabbits coming of the magicians hat and more decades of dictatorships under one name or another."


Darius Kadivar

Akbar Ganji supports Referendum & Boycott IRI elections

by Darius Kadivar on

Akbar Ganji initially a strong supporter of former President Khatami did his hunger strike in 2005 calling for a Referendum of the current Iranian Constitution in his Republican Manifesto questioning the validity of the Referandum of 1979. He also called on Boycotting Iranian Elections under the current theocracy which he has concluded IS NOT REFORMABLE. He remains against  Regime Change through military means but believes in International support of the CIVIL SOCIETY in Iran  (From this point of view he finds common ground with Reza Pahlavi ) and believes in a secular Democracy (Seperation of Religion From State Affairs) which he sees incompatible with the current theocracy and its suppressive nature. Which Brings us BACK to the INITIAL DEBATE: Regime Change is Inevitable BUT Not Through Foreign Military Intervention which has also been the position of RP in his book WINDS OF CHANGE: The future of Democracy in Iran in which he called for the moral support of the democratic forces in Iran.

Below I highlight some of the comments made by or about Ganji in the press:

Yes. I mentioned in my first Republican Manifest that as long as the regime is not willing to accept a referendum, all elections in the Islamic republic must be boycotted. My reasoning was that one should not cooperate with a dictatorial regime and give it legitimacy. When you participate in an election -- either as a candidate or as a voter -- you are actually cooperating with the regime and legitimizing it. I believe in delegitimizing the regime, and therefore I believe that I did the right thing. I am not unhappy with results. In the previous eight years, we were fooling ourselves believing that we could get anything done within this system. Interview in 2006 with Radio Farda
 

At first, Ganji had hoped that Iran's transition to democracy could be accomplished through reform and from within. So he threw his support behind the 1997 campaign that brought former president Mohammad Khatami to power. But by the end of Khatami's first term, Ganji had concluded that reform was impossible within the boundaries of the current constitution. He broke away from many of his comrades, and from the circle, to endorse the idea of a national referendum. Since the Islamic republic had been voted in through a national referendum in April 1979, Ganji and a handful of others put forth the idea of repeating that referendum as a peaceful way out of the current impasse in Iran. From Washington Post article by Roya Hakakian in 2005

Wikipedia Profile of Akbar Ganji

Speach of Akbar Ganji at Google translated by Author and University Professor Abbas Milani watch Conference here


Darius Kadivar

DR. Abbas Amir Entezam Suggest's Referendum ...

by Darius Kadivar on

In his Letter to the UN Secretary General dated October 8, 2008 the Longest imprisoned Political Prisoner in Iran and former Ambassador of IRan to Sweden and Spokes Person under the Government of Mehdi Bazargan:

See Paragraph:

In my proposal for referendum, I declared that if the Iranian people within the framework of free, fair, and democratic elections, chose the system of clerical rule, I will accept the vote of the people, and continue my civil struggles for the establishment of a democratic republic. Based on the same logic, I believe that the supporters of constitutional monarchy have the same rights as those of all others including to be present in Iran’s political scene as long as they, in theory and in actual practice, accept principles and basics of democracy, the right of the people to determine their own destiny, progress, justice, and territorial integrity of Iran. Abridgment of the political activities of citizens is an emergency matter that can only be justified within the framework of the rule of law created democratically and to the extent that it would express a national consensus, and even this abridgment could only be justified temporarily.

As a regular citizen, and in the name of defending democracy and human rights, I will defend, with all my being, all the citizens of Iran regardless of their religious, cultural, and political preferences; and will be willing to pay any cost to defend the rights of those with whom I politically disagree. In order to institutionalize the democratic rules of the game, I do not regard paying any price as too heavy. Even if any Iranian citizen would support constitutional monarchy, monarchy, socialist republic or any other form of political system, on the condition that it would not be in contradiction to the basics and standards of human rights, I will defend their civil and political rights with all my life and fortune.

Read More Here

And Wikipedia Profile of Dr. Abbas Amir Entezam