Parham

Perhaps we need to define what we mean by "democracy"

If the goal is truly to implement a democracy, "rule the people by the people" rather then what we personally think is good for the Iranians, then we need to give them that choice and respect their choice, i.e. vote on a new constitution and based on that respect it fully. If in that constitution, religion and state were not separate, then so be it.

If we setup an army to keep it secular, then wouldn't that be itself a sort of dictatorship?

P.S.

If I was that dictator and could rule Iran, I would adopt the US constitution as a base and build upon it (little change though). But before that, I would surly take care of a few in Iran and have fun with it, just to take advantage of my short lived power.

Mehrdad

Truth is you cannot have a democracy in Iran right now

I mean, the way you are describing it here. This is because democracy requires that people can handle democracy. You cannot have a democracy in a place where people are not mature enough to have a democracy. This may come as a shock to a lot of us but current Iranian regime is as democratic as the people can take! But by that I mean AVERAGE Iranian, not Tehranis or the minority educated people who have either visited other countries/cultures or at least have good access to such information through Internet or sattelite TV, etc. Ignorant people will elect ignorant rulers!

Parham

This is a very interesting blog.  I am thinking about your questions and learning from various contributions.  Thank you.  

Parham

I was referring to those group and their leaders who actively participated in attacks against Iran. Those group and their leaders must be court marshaled for high treason.Leaders and propagators of current regime must also be cleansed out, with fair and just trial. The type of justice they themselves never gave to Iranians. If it was up to me, I would suggest court marshal again, charges, high treason and crimes against nation of Iran. UNFORGIVABLE.

As to people with Marxist or communist ideology, as I said, any and all groups must be allowed to participate and or form a political party.  Otherwise there would be no democracy.Must mention though, there must be clear and concise declaration in the constitution as to separation of religion and government PERIOD.

BTW Parham, this is an interesting and informative blog, good job dude.

-YT

A general question

All, SmartAss's comment actually made me think:
What if the radical islamists DO actually make up the overwhelming majority of Iranians, or at least those who will vote? What would have to be thought of in the constitution to avoid that they step over the line?

An army that guarantees a secular government, like Turkey? Actually, SHOULD the constitution be secular -- meaning religion and state would be kept as separate as possible?

Ari

What measures would you take to keep them "peacefully balanced off" against each other?

About the "reserve theory", do you mean the country should keep several constitutions at hand? Wouldn't it be better if the communists or the islamists just took turns at parliamentary elections (IF they got elected) actually?

TheMrs

Say the democracy is on, the Islamic party has three candidates for the majles, government, or whatever. These three candidates are Mousavi, Karubi and Ahmadinejad.

Knowing our compatriots and from what we see these days, there will certainly be complaints against Mousavi (never even mind Ahmadinejad) for having acted against human rights while he was Prime Minister during the IR period (PM, not President). The accusation will consist of not having said anything as prime minister while the killings of 1988 were taking place. Now whether that will entail an investigation or not, will depend on the future laws. But let's say "not having done anything" doesn't consist of acting against human rights, the way it is in most countries around the world.

What would you do in that case? What should be done?

Hypothetical

Assuming there’s a reliable judicial system and free press.

Who would represent anyone accused of a crime? That’s their party’s problem! If 20 members from the Green Party of Iran are accused of those crimes, or if the party as an entity or a previously ruling regime is under investigation, the remaining members have to deal with it. Maybe they have to accept a withdrawal from that year’s elections. Or, they would dissolve it and create another party called Environmentalists for Iran. Maybe some individuals will leave the party and run as independents or create their own environmentally conscious party. If they have any balls, they would even purge their own party of criminals, hand over evidence and cooperate with the authorities, not to mention they would issue public apologies and work on the reputation of their party until such time that people are ready to give them another shot.

At the end of the day, no matter what option they choose, they’ll have to sell their excuses, ideology, candidates etc to the voting public. This means they’ll have to answer to people’s questions, to the media and stand other candidates’ shots.

As for bavafa’s comment, being an agent falls in the same category of crimes against the Iranian people. There would be no slowing down of the process. As part of pre electoral warm ups, there would be a set time where depositions can be filed. In the next round of elections, the process would continue, anyone who is charged with these crimes has to step aside.

I guess I would only add that maybe being under investigation wouldn’t be enough to eliminate a candidate. Formal charges are required. But being under investigation probably creates too much bad press for the individual anyway. And the crimes can be defined so lower level corrupt individuals could go to trial and still run for office, if convicted, they have to pay people back or something. They probably won’t be elected a second time around.

Why include and what conditions

What conditions: Our  hypothesized democratic system must be kluged to keep non-democratic groups sufficently weak or at least peacefully balanced off against each other.

How much easier can it get?

I agree with Mrs. and only

I agree with Mrs. and only add that if any one is proved to be an agent (working directly or indirectly) for a foreign government (whether friendly or unfriendly to Iran).

As for the too high number of depositions goes, it needs to be determined if this is done to block progress and push one group aside or it is legitimate. You can not allow one who has serious blood on his/her hand to become part of the system and rule. My 2 cents.

Mehrdad

P.S. I am not talking about the common Basigi or MKO foot soldiers, rather those who had the power to set policy and directions.

Darius

I always thought there is only one royalist party/group in France! What do you know, right? :-)

anonymous fish

Glad the subject interests you.
About the moderators, from what I understand, there aren't any left anymore, just the editor-in-chief himself. Or maybe I'm wrong?

TheMrs

What if there were depositions of requests for investigation in crimes against humanity left and right (at least overwhelmingly) for those representing the "hardliners" (and the "reformists") as well. Who would represent them then? What should be done?

SmartAss

Please provide support for your argument -- what makes you think the majority will vote for them if it were confident of its vote?

Captain

What if the group said they'll put down their arms and only fight politically? Would you have a problem with them then?

Well

My only problem is with the group who have proven to be traitors to Iran. I am talking about MKO, and any other group who sided with the enemy of Iran.

Asides from that, any and all ideologies should be able to have a representative and or affiliated party, who can participate in a free and open election, be it monarchy or communist and what ever in between.

Otherwise it will be a democracy.

-YT

Guys

Although I'm tempted, I won't interfere. But good going...

I wonder who disagrees with what's been said. Usually, the mere mention of the MKO, or hardliners, or... brings down a load of hard-pouring opinions. Hmmmm.

No one disagrees? Everyone wants the MKO or the hardliners to play too?

YOU will play with them?

You can't allow the hardliners of the current ruling class!

If you do, and if you really have a democracy, they will simply take over the power, as they are the majority in Iran and turn it back to IR! So you have no choice but to kill them all or something - haha.

For Abarmard's Knowledge ;0)

The Republican Party of Great Britain:

//www.republicanparty.org.uk/

List of Political Parties in Great Britain:

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom

Royalist Parties in France:

Action Française (France)

Alliance Royale (France)

Rassemblement démocrate (France)

Nouvelle Action Royaliste (France)

Legitimists, Orleanists and Bonapartists (France)

Political parties France

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_France#Royalists

YES to all 5 Groups if a Constitution is defined first

Yes Elections need to be free and allow all parties to participate however there is also a pre-requisite and that is to define under which system of government and therefore Constitution we want to operate.

This is a crucial issue for Nation Building requires that the nation agrees on a common democratic political framework within which all political parties can express themselves in total freedom. Accepting the Democratic nature of government will already naturally force extremist or undemocratic groups into self contradiction towards their own constituencies and therefore in a kind of natural selection reduce them either to self disolving themselves or renaming themselves. So in such conditions the MKO for instance will need to redefine itself entirely since they have already determined in advance who they want as President: Marjane Rajavi ... So this will put them in contradiction.

So unless they accept this Pre-requisite of a Constitution they will have no opportunity to participate in Free elections. As for Monarchists they were the first to call for a referandum so they only risk to see the establishment of a Secular Republic and in that case Reza Pahlavi has clearly stated that he won't oppose it and won't run for President but is willing to serve his country in any other capacity as a simple citizen. So that in itself is a guarantee to those who fear the monarchists of trying to highjack the elections since they cannot contradict their leader Reza Pahlavi. I leave any other person who claims to the same title of King or Queen lets say a Qajar Prince to move forward if they wish to offer a different monarchical vision but to date such a person does not exist nor do I think they would be considered seriously by Iranians in general because most people draw parrallels between monarchy VS Republic and Pahlavi Vs Republicans ...

Now Back to your Question:

Today in Western Democracies ( if we consider them as a reference on which we want to build our democratic state ) this democratic political framework is called the System of government which exist in two functional forms today:

1) Secular Republics: France, The US (even if there are specificities to the American Constitution), Federal States like Germany, Italy, Finland etc ...

2) Constitutional Monarchies: Great Britain, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Benelux, Denmark to name a few ...

This is why Drafting a Constitution in ALL TRANSPARENCY needs to be submitted to the approval of the people at large.

In nearly all countries where a velvet (that is bloodless) revolution took place the Constitution was what guaranteed the establishment of political freedom and therefore parties.

So if we consider that the Islamic Republic is removed a new Constitution has to be drafted and approved through an internationally supervised election known as a Referandum. Such international supervisions have actually been taking place in the past in other countries such as in South America where someone like Jimmy Carter a former President ( but it could also be the UN Secretary) and a commision ( accountable to the UN) was present in order to verify if the democratic process during the elections is respected or not.

Once the Constitution is formally accepted by the majority then Elections can take place in order to elect the government officials and the Parliamentarians, senators etc ...

As Parham said in Republics Like France Monarchist Parties are tolerated and I would add that in Constitutional Monarchies like Great Britain or Spain, Republican Parties can run for any office (except King or Queen) as long as they do not call for violence , promote racism or hate nor wish to operate outside the constitutional rights to which they are entitled as others. But they can very well demand through elections to change the constitution into a Constitutional Monarchy or a Republic ( depending under which constitution we live in) and in the same way a Communist can call for a different political system as long as it does not try to fight it in the streets or through forceful methods.

This is actually bound to happen if the Islamic Republic is removed one way or another because of the bad record of the regime but also because there are many different political agendas which will naturally appear due to competition between different political aspirations and sensitivities of the population at large. So each will try and have its piece of the cake.

This is why a Democratic Constitution that would define the form of government and institutions needs to be approved by the people at large so to also avoid the marginalization/humiliation of those who wish one form of government to another. Their rights need to be taken into account and respected.

Last Point:

1)If the Monarchy is chosen in that case the transition is called a RESTORATION. In most cases Restoration has historically been bloodless.

2) If the Republic is chosen then it is called at Best a TRANSITION at worst a REVOLUTION. Which has most often been bloody like in Rumania in recent years or at best been a bloodless Velvet Revolution( often thanks to a wise political opposition) like in Poland or Tchekoslovakia or East Germany etc ... 

But in Both Cases it is called REGIME CHANGE.

So those who want to associate REGIME CHANGE with FOREIGN MILITARY INTERVENTION are not Only Hypocrites But Lying to themselves as well as others ( probably due to lack of knowledge than harmful intentions).

The Simple Fact that our Friend Abarmard answered your Question means that he also calls for REGIME CHANGE only he tries to disguise it under the word Reform (something that has reached a deadpoint today).

My humble Opinion,

DK

Anyone who is interested in

Anyone who is interested in participating in the elections should be allowed to do so, it should be fair game for all parties. The more the merrier. However, any individual being investigated for crimes against humanity or being investigated for crimes against the Iranian people should be barred from running for or holding public office. All participating parties have to agree that violence (in any form) won’t be tolerated. And that their term in office will be limited to 2 terms of 4 or 5 years each. As part of the election process, people will demand answers and debate. This will automatically weed out people who aren’t fit to serve. And it will also force parties and individuals to talk about past affiliations and their ideology. Based on which they may or may not get elected.

This is hypothetical of course so I’m assuming we have a judicial system that can deal with election grievances and criminal accusations.

parham

very interesting.  i look forward to more comments and discussion of this.  it might very well be the format under which iran IS governed one day.  well done.

but in answer to your question.  yes, i believe that all factions and/or representatives should be allowed to participate.  without going into specific differences, these groups represent republicans, democrats, independents, religious, social, etc.  i agree with 2cents and abarmard.  as long as any group does not bear arms or incite violence, they are ALL iranians and should be heard.

very interesting.

ps.  moderators are just up to their old tricks...:-)  guess JJ changed his mind.

Abarmard

Did you know there is a political group in France that still wants monarchy, even 300 years after their revolution?

And by the way, we're assuming the constitution will be implemented (for once!).

Costitution allows that

But unfortunately is not being followed.

I believe that the Iranian system needs to gradually accept different parties within the system that represent different social classes and ideologies. I only see two small problem with the list above that the Monarchist can't be a party in a Republic and the MKO will not be happy unless they rule, I assume

the rest are absolutely doable. In time Iran will form a better shape of a representative democracy, we are in early stages.

Irandokht

What you are doing here is trolling.
Any decent web site would have banned and deleted what you have written. obviously not this one.

(in fact, this is the second time I post THIS! means this post was deleted instead!)

I was going to read your blog

But after seeing your recent comment on Negar's blog, I don't think you're qualified to blog about democracy.So I won't waste my time.

Maybe you should keep your promise...

IRANdokht

YES as long as they do no take up arms to fight the opponents

I say yes to all.

After all, if they are all Iranians or carry Iranian citizenship they have every right to be part of the government but on the condition that they do not take up arms to fight one another or plot to eliminate one another physically.