Unknown by Many: Iran's already got Democracy!

OK, its democracy may be slightly off American standards yet nevertheless, Iran is a nation with functioning semi-democracy where elections are held and people are allowed to choose their own mayors, parlimentarians and presidents as long as those guys do not have an open intention to change the regime. If democracy is a system where people govern themselves, Iran is a place where they can do this at least to some extent. Iranian system is at least 50% democratic if not 100% and something is better than nothing.

We must not forget that every regime has the right to safeguard its own existence as experienced in some of the "Democratic Western" nations such as France.

"Iranian regime = Taliban" attitude is nothing more an attempt by Bush's propaganda machine to justify their actions in the Middle East.

Iran is also an industrialized nation that has its indeginous automotive, aerospace, satellite and nuclear technologies. It is also a nation with good diplomatic and commercial relations with other countries such as France, Russia, China and their neighbours. The minorities in Iran such as Kurds, Armenians and even Jews are not discriminated against and are active in the business life with groups representing their own interests. Does these facts sound familiar with how a Western nation is expected to be?

Yeah Iran had democracy and they elected a president in favor of reforms. The only problem was the mullahs overturned the will of the people and blocked any liberalization and reform.

Sorry but if you cant run if you disagree with the current government its not democracy, if you cant vote for someone who disagrees with the current government its not democracy.

I acknowledge that Iranian regime is "semi-democratic", but my point is whether the regime is as "Taliban" as suggested by some people. I simply think that some facts are overlooked.

Well, here goes another question "can Iran's semi-democracy negatively affect people's willingness to call for reforms?". In other words, people might be less inclined to ask for 100% democracy after having gotten 50% of it?

It is just like saying that "people who eat half a bread are less likely to rebel as compared to people who get no bread at all".

On the other hand, it is also possible to say that "people who know the taste of the bread will ask for more".

Well, which theory will hold up in Iran? Will America succeed in her efforts to reform Iran "from within"?.

If Iran is left by itself it can achieve full democracy. Lets not forget that it achieved it twice in the last 100 years.

We are not going after Iran because of the form of government they have, so this topic is mute.

I highly doubt we will even touch Iran.

Originally posted by crisko
We are not going after Iran because of the form of government they have, so this topic is mute.

I highly doubt we will even touch Iran.

Agreed.
I cannot see the US touching Iran, the chances are, Iran will sort itself out.

Originally posted by crisko
We are not going after Iran because of the form of government they have, so this topic is mute.

I highly doubt we will even touch Iran.

Crisko, Democracy IS a form of government and Bush promises to bring Democracy to the ME, so I disagree with you. Do you want to say that Americans are not interested in other peoples' forms of governments? Tell that to Iraqis.

BTW, an American assault on Iran is
inevitable given the cruciality of this country in terms of future petroleum and water conflicts. Americans will attempt to overthrow the regime either from inside or using military force. The only reason why there seems to be a temporary silence is because of that things in Iraq are out of control for the time being and America needs EU and Russia to sort things out.

I also dislike the Iranian regime, however my intent is to approach the issue more objectively and listen to the both sides of the argument before jumping into any conclusions.

For Iran to sort things out by itself, there needs to be economical and military sanctions imposed by the world countries as it has been in Saddam's Iraq. However, Saddam got all those sanctions for two main reasons:

1) He acted foolishly and invaded Kuwait and disappointed the international community.

2) Europeans at the time were not too suspicious of Americans' intentions of global domination and they easily sided along the US policy of the time.

However, the mullahs are certainly not Saddam and Iranians are good at diplomacy.

In short, there is a possibility that Iranian regime survive from internal conflicts and international pressure thus leaving nothing except the military option for the Americans.

Is the military option truly effective? See that in Iraq, the new fertile ground for terrorism thanks to Bush's foreign policy.




[edit on 4-3-2005 by outlier]

Originally posted by outlier
For Iran to sort things out by itself, there needs to be economical and military sanctions imposed by the world countries as it has been in Saddam's Iraq.

I would have to disagree with you. Iranians have shown in history that they overthrow their government when they have no other preoccupation. The Islamic Revolution happened because people didnt have anyother preoccupations and because they were rich it caused them to become more educated, changed their values and this resulted in them demanding more choice. The same can happen again. Currently things are hard in Iran. The people who should start a revolution are too busy feeding their families. Now if there is sanctions, this will become worse. Give it time, stay out, and things will work out.

We won't touch Iran? Why have we sent troops in to mark places to bomb in the summer????????????