|
I'll agree that the shift away from theocracy towards democracy is interesting and conflicting, but I also agree that this thread isn't the time or place for that conversation.
The Malji has little power and the little that it does wield is completely beholden to the Supreme Leader and the Guardians. Again, all candidates are vetted by the Guardians before the election. And even after election, they don't have much to do. Most legislation runs through the executive - which is where Ahmadinejad has screwed up the most, by the way - and they have some minor influence over various cabinets posts (mostly via no confidence votes). It is not exactly a hotbed of change, and they cannot act without approval from the upper levels of power. If you're implying that the Majli shares power with or has the same influence as the Supreme Leader, the Guaridans or the President for that matter, then I think that you need to go back and do more research on Iranian politics.
Would Mousavi signal a change? Absolutely. A change in the voice of anti-Americanism. A mildly more cooperative tone. The progressive reform that he represents is INTERNAL reform, not in foreign policy. Even if Mousavi wanted to (and I'm 100% sure that he wouldn't) he could never recognize Israel or normalize relations with the US. He does not have the ability to set foreign policy. He is, however, the voice of that foreign policy, and his election might mean a voice with a less threatening tone, which I'm sure the West would be overjoyed with hearing.
Again, any change that happens with this election is going to be internal. And I'm sure that the Iranians will vote with that in mind. Hopefully their self-interest coincides with ours, but don't count on it.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|