About Democracy In Iran

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fever, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all their right unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done and I am Caesar.”

Domestically, we should yet quit another archaic 'divide and conquer' policy and split this nation of immigrants along its seams and into its components. Or, Bang more drums of war by blaming the immigrants for all of our ills and resorting to erect another China Wall at our borders in an increasingly interdependent world. America can ill afford to curtail the freedom of its citizens by Patriot Act and surveillance without warrant. Such measures are un-American and lead to self-destruction of America, to say the least. Almost all legal immigrants, and ironically some illegal ones have escaped tyranny and chosen America-Land of the Free for that reason-freedom and opportunity. Who is to say that they should be discriminated against because they did not come on May Flower! The overall and per capita contribution the immigrants relative to their number have been higher than average. They have been a source of new ideas, new energy and vitality and a breath of fresh air without whom America would not be America that is today.

As educated and informed public is an integral part of government of the people, we need to treat public education as a national defense instead of coining fancy names in the name of rather than for education. Example is the 'No Child Left Behind' that for most part has failed due to lack of funding. We have the wherewithal not to educate and inform our people but the whole world with a budget that would be like a drop in an ocean as compared with what we spend on weapons of mass destruction.
We have far less reason to fear an educated people. As Thomas Jefferson said, 'enlighten people and tyranny of body and mind will disappear like evil spirit in the dawn of a day.'

Speaking of funding we have to balance the budget and take our huge national debt very seriously. A per capita share of national debt of about $30,000 is indeed scary. This waste of resources and letting the future generations pay for it or the use of social security funds constitutes the best means of total bankruptcy and self-destruction.

We as Iranian-Americans are among the most educated and successful people and have a duty to get involved in searching for a new direction for America for the simple reason that we have vested interest in it. We have the responsibility to make this a better home for ourselves and our children and grandchildren for whom America has become a primary home.

While there are several groups among us who work tirelessly to promote good relation between America and Iran. Unfortunately or naturally there are also a few of us who are opportunists. They are in America only to make money and do not give a hoot about one country if they make their money in the other. They even go as far as promoting the what I call Iraquization of Iran forgetting that Iran belongs to all Iranians no matter where they live and no matter who rules it. I wonder how many of us know that after going through some 400 kings and rulers in our country we have still maintained our identities. I hope we are not unwise to throw the baby with the bath water, so to speak. We owe it to America, to the world and to ourselves to do all we can to reduce the possibility of making a living hell out of our world by continuing the present foreign policies.

Albert Einstein said, 'I know not what weapons will be used in World War III, but I know that World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.' It was his power of projecting the future when he uttered those words. Another great American, Ralph Waldo Emerson predicted a grim future for mankind when he said, 'The end of human race is tht it will die of civilization.' The bottom line is that no gadgetry and sophisticated weaponry will make our world safe if they are made without considering ethics, wisdom, history and human nature.

[Rasputin]

Iran's fundamentalists push for segregation on campus

Religious fundamentalists in Iran are demanding separate university classes for men and women in a drive to impose puritanical Islamic values on the country's campuses.
The call - backed by senior figures close to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - comes as new statistics show female students outnumbering their male counterparts in a sharp reversal of traditionally masculine-dominated trends.

It is being spearheaded by Hojatoleslam Mohammad Mohamadian, a cleric heading the state body representing Mr Khamenei in the nation's universities. Mr Mohamadian warned in a speech that universities were descending into "fashion shows" and urged chancellors to punish students who breached Islamic rules on dress code and gender-mingling. He demanded segregated classes and the evaluation of faculty members on religious and moral grounds to transform the culture.

"At present the public environment of universities is free and the moral situation is offensive," Mr Mohamadian told a gathering of university administrators. "University chancellors are responsible not just for education and research, but for the religion, beliefs and ideas of students. If one or two out of the minority who deface universities are confronted and severely disciplined, the rest will be warned and change their ways."
The demand is in line with a clampdown that has seen CCTV surveillance cameras installed on some campuses. Politically active students have been denied access to courses and large numbers of lecturers forced to retire. Two months ago, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanded a purge of liberal and secular lecturers.

Iran's Islamic laws already require men and women to sit in different rows in classes and lecture halls. Campus libraries, reading rooms, refectories and halls of residences are also segregated.

The higher education ministry is resisting further separation as impractical and unnecessary. However, the proposal has strong support from MPs on the influential parliamentary cultural committee.

"When the working environment is all-male or all-female, employees and students are liberated from certain distractions," Mousalreza Servati, a committee member, told the ILNA news agency. "In free environments, the possibility exists that when a lady passes, a gentleman likes her face or her behaviour and has it not happened quite often that this interest later results in the wife leaving the husband to marry another man."

[Khorsheed]

everytime i hear segregation .. i get mad ..

[zubin]

that's what happens when a foreign country (like the US and Israel) tries to change another culture through pressure and force. that government of the target country becomes excessively conservative, justifying it through protecting it from outside powers.

[mike435]

some times change comes from out side if that change is for the better you should embrace it decpite were it comes from

[zubin]

its not for the better. Iranians don't need Israel or the US to tell them how to live. If anything US and Israelis should learn how to think and act based on the uniquely rich, superior and moral cultural cognition that Iranians have evolved through their superior cultural and historical experiences and employ.

Since its crap and unjustified the government of the victim country, unfortunately has the right to produce counter culture.

Right when racism inherent in US and Israel hegemony is out of the region and minds of ME people, then there is absolutely no excuse for the government to be coercive against its citizens.

What part of this do you not agree with? Can you pin point where in this argument that's evident as clear as day there's a problem?

[Rasputin]

The global spread of democracy since the 1970s, especially after the collapse of communism, has been impressive. According to Freedom House, an American organisation that tracks global trends in political freedom, at the end of 2005 there were 122 “electoral democracies” (64% of the world’s states, compared with 40% in the mid-1980s). On a more stringent criterion, 89 of these were rated as “politically free”—46% of all states, compared with only 25% in 1975. However, the spread of democracy appears to be coming to a halt.

Negative examples abound. The weak response in the Middle East to pressures for democratisation, as well as the experience with imported political change in Iraq, is making a mockery of George Bush’s “freedom” agenda. In Asia, the coup in Thailand was a reminder of democracy’s fragility. The promise of the multi-coloured revolutions around the former Soviet Union remains unfulfilled, and a slide into authoritarian ways in Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues. Political crises in central Europe have raised questions about the strength of the region’s democratic transition. In Latin America populist forces with dubious democratic credentials have come to the fore, in Venezuela and elsewhere. Even in the developed West, a lack of interest in politics and security-related curbs on civil liberties are having a corrosive effect on some long-established democracies.

A new democracy index devised by the Economist Intelligence Unit illustrates some of these trends. Compared with Freedom House’s measure, it delves “deeper” into the texture of democracy, looking at 60 indicators across five broad categories: free elections, civil liberties, functioning government, political participation and political culture. Free elections and civil liberties are necessary conditions for democracy, but they are unlikely to be sufficient for a robust democracy if unaccompanied by transparent and at least minimally efficient government, adequate participation in politics and a supportive culture. It is not easy to build a sturdy democracy. Even in long-established ones, if not nurtured and protected democracy can corrode surprisingly quickly.

The index provides a snapshot of the current state of democracy for 165 independent states and two territories. (Click here for a complete list of countries and a full explanation of the methodology.) Although almost half of the world’s countries can be classified as democracies, the number of “full democracies” is low (only 2. Almost twice as many (54) are rated as “flawed democracies”. Even a flawed democracy is better than no democracy at all; of the remaining 85 states, 30 are considered to be “hybrid regimes” and 55 are authoritarian. As could be expected, developed OECD countries (with the notable exception of Italy) dominate among the full democracies, although there are also two Latin American countries, two from central Europe and one African country.

Sweden, a near-perfect democracy, comes top, followed by a bevy of similarly virtuous northern European countries. More surprising are the relatively modest scores for two traditional bastions of democracy—Britain and the United States. In America there has been a perceptible erosion of civil liberties related to the fight against terrorism. Long-standing problems in the functioning of government have also become more prominent. In Britain, too, there has been some erosion of civil liberties but also a shocking decline in political participation. Britain’s score in this area is the lowest in the West and is reflected across all dimensions—voter turnout, membership of political parties, willingness to engage in politics and attitudes towards it.

Why the setbacks in democracy’s spread and quality? The pace of democratisation was bound to slow after the easy gains that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall. China and Middle Eastern autocracies were always going to be a more difficult proposition. Many autocrats preside over energy-rich states and have been strengthened by high oil prices. And America, which should be a shining example, has damaged its liberty-enlarging cause: its military intervention in Iraq is deeply unpopular around the world, Mr Bush is widely loathed and Guantánamo and other cases of prisoner-abuse have led to charges of hypocrisy against the United States.

There have been reversals before—a wave of democratisation after 1945 ended with more than 20 countries sliding back into authoritarianism. We are not witnessing that sort of regression, but in 2007 the threat of backsliding outweighs the likelihood of further gains. Accompanying our new index is a watchlist of significant changes in 2007: nine countries are on negative watch and only one (Hong Kong) on positive watch.

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to be too pessimistic. Democracy as a value retains strong universal appeal. Creating democracy by external intervention has not gone smoothly. But trends such as globalisation, increasing education and expanding middle classes favour its organic development. These underlying forces suggest that any retreat from democracy will be temporary.

[Khorsheed]

The only i can add is . .. you people talk important .. and i love it ..

[Sepideh_UK]

oH gOD!!!!!!
segregation!!!!
how Stupid...!!

[Rasputin]

LoL.. Yeah.. maybe stupid..

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

After nearly four years of successive disasters in Iraq, which unleashed a civil war and brought the country to its knees, not to speak of the monumental American losses, there are still those dreamers, including the president, who speak of victory. Knowing what we know about the grave situation in Iraq today, we can no longer engage in such recklessly wishful thinking.



As Mr. Bush reviews his options, in the wake of the Iraq Study Group’s report, he must clearly demonstrate the cause and effect of every aspect of any “victory strategy” he envisions before embarking on another perilous misadventure. Sadly, the reality in Iraq precludes a victory in any classic sense, and the only realistic solution lies in dividing Iraq into three self-ruled parts—a Kurdish part that actually already exists, a Shiite part, which is in the making, and a Sunni part which must be created.



But some influential voices, including those of Senator John McCain and Richard Pearl, a prominent neoconservative, advocate increasing American combat troops for a limited period to bring order to Baghdad and crush the insurgency. There is no greater fallacy than the notion that the insurgency can be crushed. Mr. McCain, with his rich military experience, should know better: he should know that a determined insurgency cannot be overwhelmed, especially when it is deeply imbedded in supportive communities that provide both cover and unlimited resources. Moreover, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq operate extremely adeptly within this environment; they are patient, have enormous caches of munitions, select their targets carefully, and take their time to strike at will. When faced with overwhelming power, they melt away into their respective communities, where they can wait for weeks, months, or even years to surface again and with only greater intensity, as the Talibans in Afghanistan have shown insurgencies can do when operating within their own country. Increasing American forces may initially show some signs of success in fighting the insurgency, but the success will not be enduring. Rather, it will prove to be nothing but a recipe for additional American casualties and the complete disintegration of Iraq.



In addition, increasing American trainers by many thousands more, an idea strongly advocated by the Iraq Study Group and embraced by the victory seekers, will not in itself work either. Accelerating the training of unified Iraqi forces so they can assume expanded security functions to reduce and eventually eliminate American involvement is necessary, but the focus must be shifted to the Sunnis. While it seems on the surface self-evident that better trained Iraqi security forces should be able to do the job, the reality is that the military and the police are infested with Shiite militias, whose questionable loyalty has severely undermined their neutrality. Although historically Iraq was already divided along sectarian lines, the war has intensified that division and the greater loyalty of the security personale remains to the tribe or sect they belong to rather than to the nation. Moreover, as long as the current government and future governments are led by Shiites, they will remain beholden to their militia, which they will rely on to strengthen their power base as well as safeguard Shiite interests before any other.

Nevertheless, in contrast to many conservative Republican politicians, who have spared no words in tearing apart the Study Group’s report, I find it contains many good points that the White House should embrace, including the recommendation to withdraw American combat brigades in the beginning of 2008. But to achieve anything that offers the United States any possibility of a face-saving way out while leaving behind conditions with the potential for stability, the administration must promote the Sunnis’ self-rule over their three provinces while maintaining loose federal ties. Unfortunately, the Study Group failed to address the absolute need of the Sunnis to govern themselves, as it is a prerequisite for achieving even a modicum of stability in Iraq. As long as the Sunnis fear for their lives, there will be no hope that the sectarian killing and insurgency will end. To ally their fears, the Sunnis can build their own security forces with American or preferably European training to protect them now and in the future in a similar vein as the Kurdish Peshmerga. This can be facilitated now especially, since the Iraqi government is nearing an agreement on the distribution of oil revenue, something that the Sunnis must secure to establish an economically viable entity of their own. To that end the United States must insist that equitable distribution of oil revenue becomes a basic law of the land to be administered by a federal agency.



The Sunnis, who have lost power, must now be persuaded that ruling all of Iraq is no longer possible, and the only realistic alternative they can achieve is self-rule with equitable revenue sharing from the sale of oil. If they are persuaded, it may represent a partial victory for the Sunnis and lead to a somewhat dignified exit for the Americans.



Given these realities, those who advocate total victory over the insurgency by military means must be listed in the column of recklessly dangerous bordering on criminal. They are gambling with the lives of thousands of Americans and the future standing of America without offering a shred of evidence that their strategy for a so called victory is anything but a hallucination.

[Rasputin]

Iran rejects a demagogue

ELECTIONS TO Iran's city councils and the clerical body called the Assembly of Experts suggest that even small doses of democracy can deliver a potent therapeutic wallop.

The results are an unmistakable rejection of Iran's demagogic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his hard-line followers. Ahmadinejad and his backers have tried to spin the outcome of the voting by saying that the exceptionally high overall turnout of more than 60 percent illustrates the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic, and that Ahmadinejad's government supported no particular candidates in the two elections.

Each of these fibs is transparent. The high turnout reflected two factors: the determination of reformists to rectify the mistake they made when they boycotted the balloting that brought Ahmadinejad to power; and the splitting away of pragmatic conservatives from the fanatics and thugs associated with Ahmadinejad.

In Tehran and other cities where Ahmadinejad's supporters lost control of city councils, their association with him was public knowledge. And it was well-known that in the Assembly of Experts voting, Ahmadinejad's religious mentor -- the virulently anti democratic Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi -- was in competition with the worldly and wealthy former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani ended up with twice as many votes as the ayatollah whose influence Ahmadinejad wanted to enhance.

This outcome is significant becausethe Assembly is empowered to choose a successor to the powerful Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is often said to be in poor health. In theory, the Assembly may also supervise and correct the performance of the Supreme Leader. In reality, Khamenei assured himself continued freedom of action by seeing to it that several Assembly candidates linked to Ahmadinejad were disqualified from the ballot in advance of the election.

RELATED STORY: Local elections point to discontent with Iranian leader's policies

Limited and manipulated as Iran's electoral exercises may be, this time they produced a healthy reaction of the body politic to the toxin of Ahmadinejad. Iranian voters know that despite windfall profits from high oil prices, he has not kept his campaign promises to improve the lot of the poor, reduce unemployment, and curb inflation. The corruption of the clerical regime is as flagrant as ever. Billions in private assets are being sent to Dubai. And there have been angry demonstrations against the regime's financial backing of Hezbollah while the plight of poor Iranians remains unremedied.

The election results do not promise a sudden change in Iran's nuclear policy or its regional ambitions. But they do suggest that a self-correcting mechanism is at work in Iran's unique political system, and that Ahmadinejad's brand of extremism will have a short shelf life.