Friday, February 20, 2004
A Soviet-style election
The Soviet Union used to have elections. However, all the candidates were members of the communist party, and the list of candidates were chosen by leading party officials. Furthermore, once elected, those officials had little power, as the real power was held by leaders in the party who weren't elected.
That's a bit like what's happening in Iran. The conservatives have decided who they will allow to run, and not surprisingly, most of the people who don't agree with them have mysteriously failed to pass muster. Furthermore, the real power is in the hands of an unelected Supreme Ayatolla (Khamenei). So, in the end, the elections are completely meaningless.
Iran is, for all intents and purposes, a religious dictatorship, and I always find it funny when dictatorships try to pretend that the election is truly free and open. Who do they think they are fooling? They certainly aren't fooling Iranians, as all signs point to the fact that few Iranians will bother voting in the election.
Iran will be free when its people decide they want to be free. Georgia (the former soviet republic, not the American state), Czechoslovakia, Hungary, South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, etc. all became truly free and democratic places when enough people got together and told their government (who they outnumber) enough is enough. Dictatorships often endeavor to keep their people as divided as possible in able to avoid any such sentiments. Saddam Hussein's terror network made everyone mistrust everyone else, making it hard for spontaneous mass movements of the sort that pushed Shevardnadze from power (Georgia) to happen. Iran isn't run by psychopaths the way Iraq was, but they might start to move closer to that model as people grow increasingly frustrated with an ineffective minority that just so happens to run the country.
Something like 70% of Iran is under the age of 30. Unemployment among this group is pushing 30%. Iran is also a relatively poor nation, though not in the poverty league of some African nations. However many ways you slice it, the Iranian experiment in theocracy is a failure.
People don't want to be poor. They might manage to convince themselves that they are living the way God wants them to live for a little while, but they eventually will start to ask whether God is REALLY asking them to be poor. That's always the problem with leaders who say that they are speaking with authority from God. Eventually, people start to ask if the people saying that are just badly misguided (if not outright liars), particularly when results on the ground are so poor.
The Soviet Union used to have elections. However, all the candidates were members of the communist party, and the list of candidates were chosen by leading party officials. Furthermore, once elected, those officials had little power, as the real power was held by leaders in the party who weren't elected.
That's a bit like what's happening in Iran. The conservatives have decided who they will allow to run, and not surprisingly, most of the people who don't agree with them have mysteriously failed to pass muster. Furthermore, the real power is in the hands of an unelected Supreme Ayatolla (Khamenei). So, in the end, the elections are completely meaningless.
Iran is, for all intents and purposes, a religious dictatorship, and I always find it funny when dictatorships try to pretend that the election is truly free and open. Who do they think they are fooling? They certainly aren't fooling Iranians, as all signs point to the fact that few Iranians will bother voting in the election.
Iran will be free when its people decide they want to be free. Georgia (the former soviet republic, not the American state), Czechoslovakia, Hungary, South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, etc. all became truly free and democratic places when enough people got together and told their government (who they outnumber) enough is enough. Dictatorships often endeavor to keep their people as divided as possible in able to avoid any such sentiments. Saddam Hussein's terror network made everyone mistrust everyone else, making it hard for spontaneous mass movements of the sort that pushed Shevardnadze from power (Georgia) to happen. Iran isn't run by psychopaths the way Iraq was, but they might start to move closer to that model as people grow increasingly frustrated with an ineffective minority that just so happens to run the country.
Something like 70% of Iran is under the age of 30. Unemployment among this group is pushing 30%. Iran is also a relatively poor nation, though not in the poverty league of some African nations. However many ways you slice it, the Iranian experiment in theocracy is a failure.
People don't want to be poor. They might manage to convince themselves that they are living the way God wants them to live for a little while, but they eventually will start to ask whether God is REALLY asking them to be poor. That's always the problem with leaders who say that they are speaking with authority from God. Eventually, people start to ask if the people saying that are just badly misguided (if not outright liars), particularly when results on the ground are so poor.
