View Single Post
Old 06-11-2009, 01:01 PM   #21 (permalink)
Willravel
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
So basically, the election of Mousavi is the potential bridge to detente with Obama in office.
The election of Mousavi would represent the people choosing the more progressive of the several choices the clerics offered them. Don't you think that will speak in volumes to the international community? Don't you see? It's not Mousavi himself, but what he represents that I'm hopeful about. It's his platform that the people are supporting, and that platform is one of progressive reform.

To be honest, it's a lot like Obama. He's a centrist, but his election win represents a positive change in the voting public that is generally seen internationally as a move away from Bush policy and toward more reasonable policy. Even while Obama is supporting indefinite detention and is maintaining the debt problem, America is already in a better international position as far as our foreign policy is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
If Ahmaninejad was a puppet, Mousavi will be too because they will be beholden to the exact same group that approved their nominations. If Ahmaninejad was acting at the behest of the clerics (and I'm pretty sure that he was NOT), then what is going to influence Mousavi? How would his election possibly be any different?
It's not a behest kind of thing, it's more of a "pressure from above" thing. This election is different because it may not be won by someone running on a platform of being isolationist and strictly anti-West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
"The clerics" is a misnomer. It's one cleric who really matter, Khamenei. He appoints the Council of Guardians. He is the real seat of power in Iran, especially if you've read their constitution. Any movement is going to come from his office, not the President's. Like I said, the President's office is a bright shiny thing that distracts from the real movements on the Iranian landscape.
Khamenei and the Guardians aren't the only center of power. The Majlis carry power and influence as well. Anyway, if we're under the assumption that Mousavi is being allowed to run by the Supreme Leader an Guardians, they're willing to allow a more progressive face represent them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
The Supreme Leader appoints the Council of Guardians. All 12 of them, who are all mullahs or clerics. At election time, the Council, among it's other duties, reviews each potential candidate for acceptability to religious (and political) doctrine and submits the names to the people for election. The Supreme Leader is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces and appoints all judges. He approves all cabinet appointments. He shares responsibility for foreign policy.
I read the wiki on the Iranian government back in 2004 or 2005, and I've since looked at it now and again. None of this is the issue, though. The issue is whether or not a Mousavi win would represent a shift in policy in Iran from Ahmaninejad's hard-liner isolationism. I know the chances are small, but they are still present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
Will, I think that you're trying to apply democratic ideals to a theocracy, and that's just not possible. The Iranian system works very differently than pretty much any other system in the world. I think you need to do your own research if you're going to understand what this election is going to mean in real terms.
It's not that simple. The Iranian government isn't democratic by any stretch, but the people do freely vote and those votes can be seen. Moreover, the candidates that are allowed to run represent the interest of the real power seat in Iran. Unless you're suggesting that Mousavi's platform is completely false (I don't think you're suggesting that), you must admit that his calls to end the isolationist policies of Ahmaninejad could represent a real change in policy.

Something just occurred to me. A democratic theocracy can be neither, but Iran is going though social changes that could represent an eventual move away from theocracy (not now, but eve eventually). When that slow transition starts, you're going to see an Iran where both elements of theocracy and democracy are present. It's not directly linked with the thread topic, but thinking about theocratic democracies lead me to an interesting thought.
Willravel is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360