The Trouble With Democracy
Posted on June 14th, 2009
by Daniel McCarthy |
|
While Juan Cole and others have offered reason to think the Iranian election was stolen, several items in the British press — this one by Robert Fisk, for example, and this by Abbas Barzegar — make a strong case that Ahmadinejad won fair and square. “Ahmadinejad really does love democracy. But he also loves dictatorial order,” Fisk writes. “He is not a dictator. He is a Democrator.”
The West is not in a very good position to know whether the election was rigged. If it wasn’t, the results give expression to a conflict that has always existed at the philosophical level but that Westerners prefer not to look in the eye: the clash between democracy and liberalism. If a dictator, or Democrator, wins fairly, should he still be pressed out of office? If a mass electorate endorses repression and militarism, should elections be ignored? A further twist, however, is that Ahmadinejad’s opposition are not the enlightened liberals the West would like them to be. Note the chant of the anti-Ahmadinejad crowd that Fisk runs across: “Zionist Ahmadinejad – cheating at exams.”
All the more reason the U.S. and other Western powers should not try to influence the situation, much as we may hope the relatively moderate side prevails.
Filed under: World
I think the Iranian-American protesters who are calling for a return to Constitutional Monarchy have it right.
A monarch has a more compelling set of incentives to make him behave than an elected leader does. Why should Iran be democratic anyway? It isn’t like they have a long democratic tradition, and the practice of holding elections certainly isn’t doing anything to open up their society.
Reason Magazine’s Michael Moynihan (who tends neocon) correctly pointed out that the ‘moderate’ in the Iranian election (Mousavi) also called for Rushdie to be killed, and also used “Great Satan” rhetoric. His biggest moderate credential, apparently, is his willingness to challenge Ahmadinejad .
I don’t think the US should attempt to intervene in any way in the Iranian situation, but neither should we recognize the election results.
The fact that Iranian officials claim that Ahmedinajad won uniformly across the country, with similar percentage points in all regions (even those where he is known to be unpopular, and even in the other candidates’ home districts) is extremely suspicious. And it is undeniable that Khamenei did not wait the customary three days for the election results to be verified before confirming the outcome, instead making his announcement less than 24 hours after the closing of the polls. There are lots of reasons to suspect foul play and they all add up to a pretty convincing picture.
As for Mousavi, yes, of course, any “reform” or “moderate” candidate who even manages to get on the ballot in Iran is going to look pretty immoderate from a Western point of view. But Mousavi is still quite a different character from Ahmedinajad: a much smoother politician, and much more interested in improving relations with the West. This does not make him an angel, but it does make him preferable.
Ahmadinejads running on the foreign policy platform of lets get the bomb and nuke Israel. Clearly the Iranian people like that concept. It’s really not that complicated.
Ah , the eternal search for the Iranian moderate, like Diogenes. Why is it so difficult to believe that the Iranian people like the idea of nuking Israel. Seems to be a vote getter.
Bill,
Of course you are aware that the hardline clerics have the power to strike candidates from the ballot at will without cause and that they use this to keep the public from having any truly moderate options.
You might even have heard that massive irregularities are being alleged in this election, to the extent that A-Jad’s win seems to have thrown the country into an uproar.
Both of these “details” seem to be pushed aside in your analysis (if we can call it that) in favor of a theory about how Iranians are a single mass of genocidal thugs. Why would you do that?
I found the comments section of Juan Cole’s propaganda very interesting. There, Cole’s strongest arguments seem to be dismantled by facts that are “significant if true”. The pile-on by all US media — centre, right and left — against Ahmadinejad merely continues the line of slander-by-misquotation.
Matt - So many questions, but I’ll pick 3: Is Iran’s current system not very similar to the “constitutional monarchy” you prescribe? Can you explain why the prescription of aristocratic Iranian expats is more valid than the desires of people who actuially live in Iran? You aren’t seriously curious about Bill’s motives, are you?
Craig - By your logic, ought other countries refuse to recognize US election results when they perceive “evidence” of irregularities?
Bill - Back to the cave with you, fantasyman! Please return when you can recognize and make reference to reality.
VP,
1) The Ayatollah system embodies all of the worst qualities of monarchy and none of the best. It is essentially a rule by a priestly council who elects a titular head to rule for life. As such, he faces social pressure from the group to be extreme, but he’s insulated from the opposite pressure that the general populace would otherwise exert. Worse, he has no incentive to be a true long-range thinker because he won’t be able to pass his power down to his own bloodline.
2) I hope I haven’t made any assertions about which people have the most valid desires. What I was trying to do was pick out the group which i thought was right. In any case, for various reasons, some of which I mentioned to Bill, Iranian elections don’t speak for the people in any real, unfiltered way. The Iranian expats may be aristocratic, but they are expressing their opinions freely without fear of reprisal, which seems to be at least partially impossible in Iran, if recent news reports and internet buzz are to be believed. Click on my name for some (alleged) details.
3) Sarcasm on the internet is a dice game at best. Rest assured that I’d never suspect Bill of putting any foreign policy consideration ahead of the national interest. I’ll leave the question of which nation’s interest entirely alone.
I collect Persian rugs and an acquaintance who deals with the brokers told me that they believe that the election was reasonably honest. They think that the protesters are largely malcontents and that this will blow over soon, that the MSM and the neo-cons are just aggravating the situation. The brokers are pragmatic types who just want to keep selling rugs.
The Iranians should get the right to vote on the question of getting the Constitutional Monarchy back. This year’s candidates were selected by the Mullahs. No real oppositional candidate, no woman, no Monarchist was allowed to compaign.
Under Shah Mohammed Reza Iran was a progressing and prosperous country. No democracy, but certainly on the way to it, initiated by the Shah’s White Revolution.
Time to bring Shah Reza II back to the country!
Egypt periodically has elections which are far more lopsided than Iran, yet there is no FOX or CNN coverage beyond the cursory “the fearless leader was reelected and now for our continuing Paris Hilton coverage…” or other media including places like here that even raises a question.
Meanwhile, many states here pass ballot initiatives and the courts overturn the elections, yet that is paraded as an act of democracy, justice, fairness, whatever.
The plank that ought to be in both party’s platforms is to remove the plank from our own eyes before worrying about the specks 10 time zones away.
Matt Swartz - “The Ayatollah system embodies all of the worst qualities of monarchy and none of the best. It is essentially a rule by a priestly council who elects a titular head to rule for life. As such, he faces social pressure from the group to be extreme, but he’s insulated from the opposite pressure that the general populace would otherwise exert. Worse, he has no incentive to be a true long-range thinker because he won’t be able to pass his power down to his own bloodline.” Substitute American president for “Ayatollah system” you may have a point. Substitute “priestly council” for “Plutocrats”, you may have an essay
Bill Pearlman - Proof of Idiocracy, racism, and too much flouride in the water.