Parham

Darius

With all the apology for such an inexcusable delay in responding to you. I have been a bit busy in couple of other blogs. Hope you understand, and haml bar bi adabi nashe.

Yes your did answer the question perfectly and I appreciate all the incite and information you provided. Begoule maroof, Vasfol eiysh, nesfol eiysh.

Respectfully

-YT

Ari

You've lived too long in the US, it doesn't say that on Swiss Francs! :-)
Cheers.
p.s. Hope that day actually comes!

Parham

SmartAss

That was actually the subject of the other debate I started some time ago (called "Please discuss", if you want to search it).
I think it's debatable, to say the least, to see whether Iranians can or cannot deal with/adopt democracy.

Ari

We'll only be supposing we will have learned from the constitution of 1906, and won't be mixing up religion with the constitution at all.

capt_ayhab

Good question. I don't necessarily have the answer but the point is that my suggestion takes into account what Parham assumed which is that the IRI has been overthrown (we don't know how but its just the hypothesis which we admit as being the case) and society is supposed to have achieved a stage of self determination.

Under such circumstances the Judiciary is normally Free and independant like in all democratic societies.

However if we have to come back to the reality of today, it is obvious that my suggestion has political consenquences that have to be taken into account. Why should we even consider an Amnesty for the Leadership while we are in no position to even dictate our conditions to the regime ? Or worse would it not on the contrary be a sign of weakness and impotence to resist against the IRI ?

This is where I think that we need to clearly understand what we mean by Regime Change and how we concieve to put it into practice.  

This is the major dillema that we have faced as opponents to the regime in the past 30 years. There are those who consider that we can only overcome it by violent change, military attack or Revolution. Others inside the country who constitute the pragmatists within the regime suggest reform which to date was not possible depite the promising Khatami era that seemed to suggest a wave of hope for those who believed he would become an Iranian Gorbatchev.  

And then there are Others who think that we need to reach some kind of civil dissobedience in the style of Poland's Solidarnoc. That is my opinion also in that I think that the answer to change in Iran will come from empowering the civil society and NOT the Regime be it through civil dissobedience or by attempting to place secular members of Iran's civil society into key governmental positions or as elected members of the Parliament. In otherwords to create the dynamics that can bring the leadership into accepting secularism as a key component of Iran's political scene but also that they are an inevitable antagonist which they need to respect and co exist with even if they don't like them. From this point of View the Reformists are Not truly in line with this definition because they are not opposed to the regime and appear as trying to compromise with the realities of the system they hope to transform rather than being on the side of the people at large who demand real change but also more freedom.

The Reformers I believe have  failed to date in that they do not consider democracy as incompatible with religious governness and therefore play with words rather than attempt to challenge the establishment or contradict it. One can clearly see the limits of the reformists in this speach given by Khatami where he say's : "We do not want a Secular Democracy without Islam as a major component":

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUza-yhd9dM

In this he is even in contradiction with major secular revolutionaries of 1979 who refered to the Western Models of Democracy to justify their thirst for freedom and justice.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDuyvX3nDWM 

But which were alas ignored by Khomeiny and the Clerics who were in the stronger position and at the hight of their popularity

The Western Model of Democracy which is so strongly opposed as "decadent" or "Capitalist" by the Islamic Republic and its leadership who wish to reduce it to "War Mongering" Rhetorics by Neo Con's or the Bush administration is anything BUT That. It is first and foremost a model for self determination that guarantees individual freedoms and State Accountability towards the People at Large (Therefore the Majority) and which has proved to be functional regardless of which social or cultural background it is applied too. In otherwords it is not merely a Western Doctrine but a UNIVERSAL one. It just happens that is was developed by Western Philosophers of the 18th century and which  is mainly characterised by Secularism and reason to run society based on just laws drafted by the people and for the people as opposed to laws drafted by a dogma or a dictator or totalitarian state. This Western Philosophy developed and defended so adamantly by the Lumiere Philosophers like Rousseau, Voltaire or Montesqieu to name a few changed the course of Mankind's history and not just the Western World in that it defined the philisophical backbone on which all democratic societies ( Be them Republics like in France or the US or Constitutional Monarchies Like in Spain or UK or Parlimentarian Democracies like Canada) have to rely on in order to function both in practical terms but also morally.

So the major problem that we faced in Iran was that for good or wrong reasons we adopted a religious doctrine rather than a secular one to bring about Revolution in our country. When we realised our error it became too late which explains why even the massive protests by  Iranian Women shortly after the Revolution where  they demanded that the laws on the mandatory veil be revoted or when they requested that the social rights acquired under the previous regime be maintained they were violently suppressed or ignored ...

So this brings us back to the question of why Regime Change and How can this be achieved without bloodshed or at least with little violence that have characterized Revolutions so to speak.

What I concieve as Regime Change is specifically a Velvet Revolution. What makes these Velvet Revolutions bloodless in general for instance in Poland or nearly all Eastern Block nations during the Perestroika and Glasnost years was that their was a strong and empowered civil society that had organized itself into a movement rather than a Political party. It aimed at changing the mentalities in the country by regrouping all members of the civil society be it intellectuals, journalists, unionists, clerics, student syndicates etc who shared a common aspiration for change without necessarily calling for Revolution. For instance Polands Solidarnosc strongest argument was to say that communism is incompatible with Democracy. So what was being challenged was not the notion of "freedom" or "national independance" and s"overeignty" that the Polish State was supposed to "guarantee" in its official stance and rhetorics ( even if everyone new it was not true) but the ideology on which the entire system was built upon. So communism became the Achilles Heal of the Jaruselski Government. Instead of attacking Jaruzelski directly and giving him the chance to send in the troops to crush the opposition ( which he did when he declared marshall law but the movement by then had gained such an international credibility and support that he could not execute someone like unionist Lech Walesa or the Intellectual Geremek who by then had become well known figures in the political scene) they prefered to challenge the ideology by pin pointing all the shortcomings it created for a healthy economy and collective wellbeing which normally the government was supposed to deliver and did not because it was repeating an obsolete policy incompatible with the realitiess of its time. Like in Poland, the Islamic sharia laws in Iran have become synonymous of an obsolete vision of justice. 

People like Shirine Ebadi are trying to challenge them on the judiciary level as we see every day. I believe that even she to some degree has come to the conclusion like Akbar Ganji that Reform has reached a deadpoint and the fact that she agrees to speak on such medias like VOA Persian deemed as a Pro Regime Change media is significant.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KRDuAEF_1s

A few years ago she could not do that or refused to do so because she was adamantly against the Opposition outside Iran but since she has realized that maybe this same opposition can be its best ally.  

This also proves that there may be avenues of cooperation possible between reform minded Iranians or political activists with the Democratic Opposition outside Iran. This does not mean that they need to rally around One Person be it Reza Pahlavi or Secular Jomhury Khah's (although they have no leadership) but that maybe a form of direct or indirect dialogue could be considered so that we can start moving into the same direction as a Movement ( And NOT Party) in demanding REGIME CHANGE rather than wasting our energy and fighting one another which at best proves to be counterproductive.

For instance When PirMoezan a Reformist accepted to go on VOA Persian it created an Uproar in IRan's leadership to see him on a Media Outlet like VOA without their approval:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2e-fgTkWX8

Since then Ebadi accepted to come and speak as well as other people from Inside Iran's political establishment deemed as part of the "Islamic Intelegenstia" who know that the Regime's survival depends on good relations with the West for economic purposes and security concerns.

This is where a Political Amnesty can help draw people from withing the system into a larger coalition of thoughts and dialogue with their opponents both inside and outside the country without the fear of a deadly confrontation. This can actually help isolate the leadership and radicals like Ahmadinejad and co who want to constantly play on the Fear Factor and threats of War to stop such contacts or dialogue.

Someone like Ayatollah Boroujedi, Ayatollah Montazeri ( who normally was named the Velayateh Fagih unlike Khamenei)  or Ayatollah Abtahi can very well become intermediaries between secular minded clerics and the secular democratic opposition and help extend this Iranian Solidarnosc Movement to the clerics who wish to see a clear separation between the Church and State.

Once again, I think that the major issue is to isolate the most radical elements in the Iranian leadership by empowering members of Iran's civil society who can then stand out as true representatives of the aspirations of the people rather than mere and shy reformists who are simply seeking a political promotion or glory. This is where I agree for instance with Azar Nafisi

//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5321612120640608789 

when she say's that any negotiations between America and Iran with or without Pre-conditions has to be done in perfect transparency with the knowledge that what counts is the People's true struggle for freedom and NOT the Regime's soul will interests. We have to make sure the ball is in the Regime's court and that America is fully aware of the dichotomy between the Regime's rhetoric and the true aspiration of the Iranian Nation.

I am not sure if I answered your question but what I can say is that bringing to justice those responsible of crimes or corruption will truly depend on how we define REGIME CHANGE and how we can implant it in practical terms...

But your question does imply the dillema we are facing in that:

1) A radical violent regime change policy would most certainly result in the immediate punishment of the likes of Khamenei and Rafsanjani or SAVAMA Agents maybe even without a trial like back in 1979. But then is that the best possible solution given that we know that it will at best satisfy the thirst for vengeance but not justice.

2) On the otherhand A General Amnesty at this stage of our struggle appears to be too early a concession to the Regime's Henchmen who could then definitively escape justice.

My understanding of Regime Change is a gradual Empowering of the Iranian civil society that can bring about an "Implosion" of the Regime as opposed to an "Explosion".

In order to guarantee a minimum transparency we should strive to empower individuals in Iranian society outside the current political establishment who can help build this Iranian Solidanosc movement or simply join it one way or another. That way maybe even some competant people within the Iranian Judiciary known for their Honesty like Shirine Ebadi or others can be allowed to investigate or suggest uncorruptable colleagues like current or former lawyers to be named as head of the Justice system to conduct or supervise the trials in all fairness and independance.  

But at this stage all this is just wishful thinking ... What needs to be done is create the dynamics of cooperation and trust between different and often opposing views in regard to what we want for Iran and its future.  

Darius

A Question, I see the the point you are making but:

Assuming I agree with the amnesty, don't you think that this amnesty, specially if it is given at the early stages of the change, will be construed as amnesty form judicial indictments as well?

-YT

I think some of us have the order of things wrong

It seem to me that some of us are trying to come up with a "system" that we can put in place which will then forever take care of everything. Democracy or any other system is not going to keep everything running smoothly. In the West it is NOT democracy that keeps people civilized, happy and in cooperation with each other, it is PEOPLE that are civilized, happy and in cooperation with each other that RESULTS in democracy. So I think some of us are looking at it backwards.

Now if a group of Iranians inside or outside of Iran had reached a very high level of civility and were THEREFORE unified (as opposed to fighting each other more than fighting problems in Iran), THEN they would have great power and they could "push" Iran towards increased civility, modernity and democracy FASTER. But for that to happen, even we (as opposed to the current rulers) need to raise ourselves to that higher level. It is not possible to simply take a Western style democracy and export it into a society that is not really able to receive it. It would be a little like giving a native of a remote village in Africa a brand new Ferrari and expect that he'll figure out what to do with it and he'll figure out how to build proper roads, gas stations, etc for it. It is NOT possible - or at least not practical. So we have to look at what that individual can manage in terms of accepting progress and modernity and democracy, etc. Otherwise our solution will simply backfire and cause more harm than help. Need I mention Iraq and Afghanistan?

capt_ayhab and Parham

Maybe I did not express myself correctly or you misunderstood. Please read again.

Political Amnesty does not give Judiciary  immunity.

Even if Khamenei and Co are confered a Political Amnesty they will not escape an investigation and therefore trial.

The Purpose of separating the two is to allow the Judiciary to work in all independance and without being subject to any form of governmental pressure including in its investigations.

A political Amnesty is aimed at preventing civil war or any violent situation that can backfire if one considers regime change as an option. Thus the Army will see no particular reason to fear a purge like during the Islamic Revolution.

If one considers Franco's Spain, when Juan Carlos came to power the military was simply asked to make an oath of allegience to the Crown.

A few years later when a general did his coup, this allowed the Spanish King (same thing if we have a President)  to have the legtimacy to interfere in favor of the Parliamentarians and Democracy and thus put an end to this forceful attempt to end Parlimentary Democracy by a megalomaniac general. In addition it preserved the Army from participating in the Coup which could have had a disastrous result on the entire democratic process undertook after Franco's death.

Some bad news, perhaps

To keep things concrete, our wonderful 1906 constitution begins by declaring Twelver Shiite Islam as the nation's official religion. This reflects at least the cultural power of the Zeinabites. As founding fathers/mothers of our hypothetical constitution we may not be able to agree on the issue of the complete separation of church and state, and end up with a compromise as with 1906. Ugh!

So that we can feel better about it, I will briefly critique Dr. Abbas Milani's talk videos kindly provided by Darius Kadivar. Milani suggests that one of the pillars of modernity is the separation of church and state. Despite his verbal dismissal of orientalism he seems to believe the Western orientalist myth that this occured as a result of European rationalism and enlightenment. He does not challenge himself with the idea that the rationalism followed religous wars that devastated Europe. The separation followed the dictates of a historical reality that held a gun to Europe's head. This was not the case with Iran. Many Iranians believe that Shiism actually helped strengthen Iran against the ottoman threat and other internal sources of national disunity. In this light, we cannot expect Iran to harbor the same disgust with the marriage of church and state that made it so easy in Europe to perform the divorce.

Our democracy will be forced into the unique imprints of Iran's own history, the main commonality with Western democracies being the principle of political tolerance, perhaps no further. This is the Iranian crisis that could end up paralleling Europe's religious crisis, transforming its politcal culture. And as you can see, the constitutional drafting team should be prepared for debates of a more homegrown nature.    

Ari

Well, I assume those parties will only come after the constitution is conceived and put to use, right? The ones writing the constitution are the ones thinking about this blog post on iranian.com, really. They could be part of Zeinab or Aryamehr or Lenin, but that's not exactly pertinent here. They have been asked the same question anyway.
I hope this makes it clearer.

Request clarification

I'm probably not understaning your question. Are we talking about including the inputs of Zeinab, Lenin, and Aryamehr parties in the draft stage of our constitution vs. simply allowing them representation in our system after we've drawn it up by ourselves?  Please expand on or rephrase: "Wouldn't a democratic constitution actually work towards getting clauses that could cause prejudice to anyone..."

Ari

I absolutely agree, except... Wouldn't a democratic constitution actually work towards getting clauses that could cause prejudice to anyone (be it majority or minority) out, ideally?
Maybe you're talking about laws that would be passed after the system is on a roll, meaning in the parliament.

Maybe

Whatever works. As the saying goes, Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage. With these groups I would worry more about power grabs into the military than whatever paperwork may be collecting dust at Zeinab party HQ that they call an "alternate constituion." But if you insist on addressing it as a priority, let me reassure you that everybody wants their own amendments to any constitution. And different ammendments create effectively different constitutions, even if we still call it the same constitution. As a US example, a constitution that says marriage is the union between a man and a woman is essentially different than one that enumerates gay marriage as a right. Each leads to a different kind of social order, perhaps radically different. Immunity to change has never been a marketing plus for Democracy. What makes it a good buy--its main feature-- is its political tolerance. And if we buy this emotionally expensive and hard to maintaion system and hesitate to use its main feature, we have bought a Ferrari where a Peykan would have done.

Ari

I must admit I still don't get you. So you're saying "let's keep an extra constitution or two on the side in case all else fails, and let them constitutions be islamist or communist"?

Darius
I'm not sure if amnesty would do it in the case of some of these guys, actually. Do you believe that yourself, or are you not talking about total amnesty?

Bijan A M

I see your point and I was not trying to be argumentative either. Fact of the matter is, the maturity of the nation comes with the practice of the philosophy[democratic government] itself.

If you recall, first few months after the Akhund mutiny, there was for fact few short months of true freedom of expression and media. During that period, Akhund was able, with the strategic minds like Beheshti, consolidate the powers by recognizing the opposition to clerics, and creation of Shepahi groups.

Once they consolidated the power, and given the freedom of expression, they were able ro pinpoint the possible sources of opposition and eliminated them all. 

True guardian of a democracy are the people themselves. Once they get the taste of what it is to be free, they as a nation will make certain they do not lose it again, as we did to the akhunds. 

I am thinking this is the type of social maturity you are referring to, which will come with practice[living the free life] of life and freedom.

Regards

-YT

Serious

I'm not pulling your leg. Both Islam and communism promise individual dignity, have a sense of collective vision, and present a picture of a just society. The problem with snake oil isn't what the bottle said it could do, it's the fact that it didn't do what it said. In this light, our democracy has to pass the efficacy test just like any other system. If the results are bad (say, an Iranian Israeli Public Affairs Commitee gets a choke hold on our foreign policy), we would say the problem is not with the theory but with the implementation. But Islam and Communism can say the same about why their idealism failed to become real, and attempt fixes, just like we would with our democracy. 

Obviously the survival of Iran is a higher priority than its form of government, and this why we should preserve all her ideological resources. Intrerestingly, Islam and communism would try to eliminate us, differentiating the most promising extra ingredient in our democratic system: the principle of political tolerance.

Parham, Darius

Darius you say[In otherwords that all civil servants working in the administrations,
deputies, military, ministers and even former Presidents etc and even the current Velayateh Fagih should not be pursued for their political
affiliation or ideas.]

I agree with this statement, allow me clarify my position. No individual should be prosecuted for any form of political, religious, ethic, sexual orientation, language or gender. HOWEVER, leaders and people of the power who have signed the order for mass murders, and taking up arms against the mother land, should be and MUST be held accountable for the crimes they have committed.

Bestowing amnesty to these leaders, is equivalent of giving amnesty to a rapist or drug dealer. Giving amnesty to revolutionary cleric judge who signed the summary execution of 1000 of our best at the middle of night, or the executioner guard who raped 16 year old girl before execution, is  a CRIME in itself.

These people, with due process of law, MUST pay for their crimes.

-YT

Dear My two cents

Rights of minorities[in this context minority is referred to political parties who did not win the election] are , as the rights of entire nation, protected by concise and comprehensive constitution and fair and just civil and criminal laws. In another word, nation is ruled by LAW and not by guns.

IF, democracy is defined as voice of people, it will be impossible for every voter to vote for only one party/person, unless there is only one party[i.e. Rastakhize Meli, or Hezbollah].

Majority in the context of democracy is defines as person/party who gets at least 51% of the votes in an unadulterated and fair election.

Thanks for you observation though.

-YT

We should separate Political Amnesty & Judiciary Investigations

I think that national reconciliation requires a general amnesty regarding all government officials and civil servants at least that is what I understand is what is advocated by Reza Pahlavi for instance if ever the regime change occurs in Iran.

As he Said this is Not about ENTEGHAM JOUIEE ...

In otherwords that all civil servants working in the administrations, deputies, military, ministers and even former Presidents etc and even the current Velayateh Fagih should not be pursued for their political affiliation or ideas.

However that does not mean that they are above the law. An independant judiciary should have the possibility to launch an investigation against them if they are suspected of crimes during the past 30 years of existence of the Islamic Republic.

But it appears to me that any type of arbitrary trial as the ones reserved to the ill fated officials of the Shah's regime by the Revolutionary courts in the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution should be excluded.

History will judge them and their record if it has not already.

But if Evidence of criminal activity (and I believe there are many against several members of the current leadership) is presented then a possible and fair trial should take place according to civilized norms of justice.

For instance a current Candidate running for the upcoming Presidential Elections, Mohsen Rezaei is suspected for the arrest and execution of Sadegh Gobtzadeh and He is currently on the official Wanted list of Interpol, for allegations of "crimes against life and health, hooliganism, vandalism and damage" related to the current human rights situation in Iran and the 1994 AMIA bombing case. Is he Guilty of these Charges ? THAT Is Up to a Fair Trial to decide. But he certainly is certainly accountable to an explanation to say the least and a Fair Trial seems the only way of determining if he is innocent or guilty.

This may sound unfair in regard to the families of such people like General Rahimi or Prime Minister Hoveyda who were executed after a mockery of a trial, however I am afraid this is the minimum requirement if we want to establish a society where the rule of law is on the side of the citizen and individual rights rather than hostage of a government and its political agendas (justified or not).

That is why I beleive a Political Amnesty should be separated from an Independant Judiciary system.

In otherwords Regime Change is NOT about Vengeance: Be it Individual or Collective !

This is where the role and responsability of the political establishment that will derive from the civil society will have an essential role to play in maintaining civil peace and guarantee the freedom and independance of the Judiciary System. 

As a matter of fact in order to refer to the history of a country I know well and that is FRANCE after WWII. De Gaulle did not execute General Pétain and very few members of the Former Vichy government were tried or executed. I think Laval who was the Prime Minister was the only person to be executed after a fair trial. Another case which although not comparable directly given that it was about WAR Crimes are the Nuremburg Trials which are also an example of meticulate investigations into War crimes. It is quite remarkeable that despite the extent of crimes commited by Nazi Germany during WWII, only 11 people were condemned to Capital Punishment for Crimes against Humanity. Not Much considering that their direct responsability in the outcome of WWII cost the lives of 50 million people worldwide ...

Obviously at the time the  most notorious criminals suspected of running the Concentration Camps were not amongst those judged at the Time for they had either fled to Argentina, Syria, Egypt or South America and were pursued in the decades that followed by either Israel or European Courts.

But the Trials served as a reference in judging a System: Nazi Germany and its ideology rather than Just the people who runned it. For it was not just a question of catching the criminal who did the dirty task of killing people or sending them to the Gas Chambers but to judge the one who Ordered it. In otherwords even if Heinrich Himmler ( who commited suicide in the Bunker) was not put on trial his role was clearly demonstrated during the Trial. And Yet neither Himmler nor the Head of the Luftwaffe Goering ever personally killed any of the Jews in question and yet their responsability in ordering the massacre of killing or their deportation was brought to evidence.

I believe this should also serve as a model to follow if we are to judge the leadership or those reponsible of the massacres of 1988 in Iran or of political assassinations of the likes of Bakhtiar or the Forouhars. That would be the only way to serve both the pursuite of Justice but also the Truth (both of which are obviously linked).

All

Captain
A question for you then: Don't you think if the likes of Rajavi and Khameneyi are "court marshalled" as you put it, that already makes way for the next armed militias against the democracy?

Mehrnaz
Thank you, I appreciate your comment.

SmartAss
I swear to you, I've seen a lot of Tehranis who think like the "non-Tehranis" you talk about and even worse, and I've also seen non-Tehranis from the most remote villages that are a lot more open-minded than anyone you would consider "civilized".
That's such an incorrect stereotype.

Mehrdad
That's a different topic, but I'd argue with you about the US being a true democracy.
However, this question for you: Let's say you don't separate church and state, what happens if this crowd comes in and wants to impose the weirdest religious laws (raed "az man dar avardi") on people? What would you do then?

Bijan A M
So are you saying they shouldn't have a say in Iranian affairs? If so, why? Aren't they Iranians?
Again, I'd argue with you that the US is a real democracy. Think: McCarthyism, the two-party state, etc.
Btw, I think capt_ahyab was referring to SmartAss's comment more than yours, right captain?

Ari
lol! That was funny! I like the way you put it. "DUI". Haha!
But I still don't get your idea of going to the Islamist or communist state if the other one fails. Are you joking there??
The getting fed up of the people will still have democratic solutions according to you, no?

hossein.hosseini
Thank you. So what election would that be (the one all groups participated in)?

Darius
Thanks for the Milani conference.

FYI/FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Abbas Milani a lecture Modernity in Iran

I highly Recommend the listening to this very interesting conference by Dr. Abbas Milani:

CONFERENCE: Abbas Milani a lecture about Modernity in Iran

Haven't we been there?

Hello everyone,
Good post Parham and nice discussions.  I just wanted to point something out.  If I am not mistaken in the early years of revolution all the groups you have mentioned, with the exception of #3 (Monarchists) were somewhat free and participated in the election.  Now look where we are. Doesn’t that tell us something? 

While I agree that all groups should be allowed to participate, in reality, even in the most open democratic systems, there are always 2-3 groups that keep going for a long time.  For example look at U.S., there are many Presidential candidates, but it is always a democrat or a republican that goes to the office.

While in theory we might want to think that all have an equal chance, in reality they don’t.   I think the key is to allow the opposition (whoever they might be) operate and have their say as long as they are peaceful.  That’s a hard one in ME because as soon as a group comes to power, their number one goal is to crash the opposition.  This IMHO would take a LOOOONG time.

No offense intended….

It looks like my previous post has rubbed some people the wrong way. For that, I’m sorry. However, I insist in believing that “there will be no democratic constitution anywhere”, as long as the people (masses) don’t have an appreciation for true democracy. You cannot force-feed democracy to masses. You cannot export democracy.  People have to develop the appreciation for it and fight for it.

You don’t need a Phd to appreciate separation of church and state. You don’t need a college degree to appreciate freedom of expression, freedom of religion (or lack of it), individual rights, …. The rule of law..etc..

And, I never passed judgment on the awareness of Iranian people. All I said was we won’t have it in Iran until such time that most people appreciate it enough to fight for it. These presidential elections or any other elections in IRI have nothing to do with “Democratic Constitution” .  Velayat-e Faghih and Democracy are contradiction in terms.

To capt. : Correction

Democracy = System of government in which state power is held by MAJORITY of citizens through elected officials with full respect and protection for the rights of the MINORITY.

otherwise it would be the dictatorship of the MAJORITY!

capt_ayhab

Good point. Most people confuse Democracy with freedom or civility. Reason being that the Democratic countries have those attributes also. But India is a Democracy without the civility (and very corrupt).

DUI

Democracy?

With all due respect, I keep seeing people refer to Iran and Iranians by saying that [they can not handle democracy], or [they are not progressive enough to know what it is] or [masses are not developed enough] etc etc etc......

Lets see , do we mean to say that people of Iran are not mature enough to enjoy freedom? They are not mature enough to know what it is not to be afraid that their homes and businesses get raided? You mean they are not mature enough to know if their daughters and wives are getting beaten and oppressed on the streets?

Are we saying that Iranians now are more backward than USA in 1775? or we are more backward that French back in 1779?

People need not to be PhD holders and college educated to enjoy freedom. Claiming Iranians are not mature enough for democracy is just like saying for someone to go to school he/she must be educated first, and that schools only accept educated people. How one can get educated without going to school?[spare me with home schooling theory]

Democracy = System of government in which state power is held by MAJORITY of citizens through elected officials. Nothing complicated about this is there?

-YT

Parham

Your question is somewhat ambiguous (at least to me). You say:

“Let's say the rule of the Islamic Republic has come to an end one way or another, and you're part of a group that has to conceive the next democratic constitution of Iran. The question is simple:Will you allow the following entities to participate in the politics of the country?”

If you are talking about conception (or drafting) of a democratic constitution, I’d say none of the group you have listed have anything to contribute to conception of a democratic constitution, not even the reformists nor the monarchists.

There is nothing in those groups belief system consistent with democracy (other than maybe some monarchists).  However, if you are talking about an Iran after its conception of democratic constitution, then every one of those groups have the freedom to participate in the political process (within the rules of democratic constitution).

In my book democracy doesn’t mean capitalizing on people’s lack of awareness. I assure you we won’t have a democratic system in Iran until such time that the masses will develop a sense of what the true democracy means. I know I will be hammered by many for saying this, but, I sincerely believe that the United States Constitution gets as close to a democratic constitution as it can get. Whether it is practiced and how it is practiced is subject of a different debate.

A very good explanation by Shahir Shahidsaless

I just saw this link in the new section, but it heavily relates to the discussion on this thread:

//www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KE15Ak01....

Mr. Shahidsaless, in my opinion, has a very accurate grasp of what is going on in Iran and the issues relating to modernization, etc. I think the AVERAGE Iranian is faced with a dilemma. On the one hand they want to keep their "traditional" ways and on the other hand they would like some progress. These two seem to be in conflict though. With "progress" comes disappearance of "traditional ways." I think this is very similar to when the Native American had to face the White man. Some chose death over coexistence, if it meant they would not be able to live their own way. A clash of cultures. Such clash could be controlled if the leaders are wise and if enough smart people take action and responsibility.