Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Iran: The Next Democracy?
In a recent discussion with a person well acquainted with events in Iran, he suggested that the next successful democracy in the Middle East after Turkey will be Iran. His feeling is that the Iranian people are just waiting for this opportunity. He believes that the religious leaders have completely lost the support of the population. Since the opposition seems to have rejected the idea of mounting a violent revolution, the problem then becomes trying to understand the process by which the present system is replaced. His suggestion is that sooner or later a commander in the security forces (Revolutionary Guards in his scenario) realizes that he would be welcomed by the people if he simply set the religious leadership aside. The result in the first instance would be an authoritarian regime, but this would soon evolve into democracy.
Maybe so, but let us step back a little and examine the situation.
The government of Iran as it is now constituted consists of a Supreme Leader appointed for life by an Assembly of Experts (a small council of religious leaders), the Assembly of Experts (advises on many issues, particularly judicial), the President (popularly elected every four years), and a Consultative Assembly (elected every four years). The problems with the system from a democratic perspective include the nonelection of the Supreme leader who can override anything, the participation of the Supreme Leader in appointing the President’s cabinet, the ability of the Assembly or Experts or other religious bodies to veto the candidacy of anyone to an elected office, and the continual interference with the media by the religious bodies, the Revolutionary Guards, and other antisecular gangs that operate either with or without government support. As might be expected in a state viewing itself as Islamic, the judiciary is largely under the control of clerics (whose education is often primarily in Islamic law). The head of the judiciary is an Ayatollah. The regular court system is supplemented by a Revolutionary Court System that has been responsible for a good deal of the suppression of what modern societies consider personal rights.
In spite of all this, there is a large segment of the Iranian population, especially that centering around the universities, that is quite outspoken. While newspapers and other publications and artistic products (such as movies) are continually banned or closed, the flow of information and artistic expression continues. The movies that reach the West depict a remarkably westernized life in which women play effective and accepted leadership roles. The opposition scored important gains in electing and reelecting Khatami as President (a clergyman, but moderate). They also elected a competitive parliament willing to challenge the religious leaders in many respects. However, by the time of the most recent parliamentary election the inability or unwillingness of Khatami to stand up to the religious leaders and the failure of the parliament to get its measures past the religious hurdles set up by the system, combined with a stronger than previous effort by the clergy to veto the candidacies of many liberals, turned off the liberal leaders to such an extent that they told their followers to abstain from voting. The result was a predictable sweep by the conservatives — further isolating President Khatami.
We do not know what the Iranian people actually think. In the recent past, polls have shown majorities supporting liberal propositions, such closer relations with the United States. But one wonders why a liberal majority hasn’t been able to challenge the system more than it has. One suspects that in Tehran there would be a majority against the system. But, as in many countries, the modernized capital is not the country. It should be noted, however, that statistics suggest that Iran as a whole is a surprisingly modernized country for the region. Its total fertility rate is down below 2.0 births per woman, which means that the population is moving rapidly toward stabilization. By comparison, the rate in Iraq remains above 4.0. This achievement means that the people of Iran have been able with government encouragement under both previous and present political systems to control their fertility in a modern manner. The literacy rate is at 79%, with female literacy 74%. Comparative figures for Iraq are 40%, with female literacy at 24%. If these figures are anywhere near accurate, this means that Iran has without much of the world noticing been developing a modern society that is poised to demand a modern political system. What remains to determine is the path.
The implications of the discussion for American foreign policy are not clear. But it does suggest that instead of thinking of Iran as the next boulder in the path of universal democratization, we should think of it as a country well on its way toward joining our world through the efforts of its own citizens. It would be crazy to think of invading such a country, a step that would both discredit its growing liberal population and discredit liberal leaders. Instead, we must with the help of Iranians both within and without the country devise a strategy that will assist the democratic evolution of the country. In doing so, we must remember that Iranians, liberal and conservative, must be allowed to define their national interests in their own way. In particular, we should not assume that nuclear abstinence is a necessary part of the democratization process. Dictating the position of Iran on this or any other issue cannot be a part of a true democracy program.
Maybe so, but let us step back a little and examine the situation.
The government of Iran as it is now constituted consists of a Supreme Leader appointed for life by an Assembly of Experts (a small council of religious leaders), the Assembly of Experts (advises on many issues, particularly judicial), the President (popularly elected every four years), and a Consultative Assembly (elected every four years). The problems with the system from a democratic perspective include the nonelection of the Supreme leader who can override anything, the participation of the Supreme Leader in appointing the President’s cabinet, the ability of the Assembly or Experts or other religious bodies to veto the candidacy of anyone to an elected office, and the continual interference with the media by the religious bodies, the Revolutionary Guards, and other antisecular gangs that operate either with or without government support. As might be expected in a state viewing itself as Islamic, the judiciary is largely under the control of clerics (whose education is often primarily in Islamic law). The head of the judiciary is an Ayatollah. The regular court system is supplemented by a Revolutionary Court System that has been responsible for a good deal of the suppression of what modern societies consider personal rights.
In spite of all this, there is a large segment of the Iranian population, especially that centering around the universities, that is quite outspoken. While newspapers and other publications and artistic products (such as movies) are continually banned or closed, the flow of information and artistic expression continues. The movies that reach the West depict a remarkably westernized life in which women play effective and accepted leadership roles. The opposition scored important gains in electing and reelecting Khatami as President (a clergyman, but moderate). They also elected a competitive parliament willing to challenge the religious leaders in many respects. However, by the time of the most recent parliamentary election the inability or unwillingness of Khatami to stand up to the religious leaders and the failure of the parliament to get its measures past the religious hurdles set up by the system, combined with a stronger than previous effort by the clergy to veto the candidacies of many liberals, turned off the liberal leaders to such an extent that they told their followers to abstain from voting. The result was a predictable sweep by the conservatives — further isolating President Khatami.
We do not know what the Iranian people actually think. In the recent past, polls have shown majorities supporting liberal propositions, such closer relations with the United States. But one wonders why a liberal majority hasn’t been able to challenge the system more than it has. One suspects that in Tehran there would be a majority against the system. But, as in many countries, the modernized capital is not the country. It should be noted, however, that statistics suggest that Iran as a whole is a surprisingly modernized country for the region. Its total fertility rate is down below 2.0 births per woman, which means that the population is moving rapidly toward stabilization. By comparison, the rate in Iraq remains above 4.0. This achievement means that the people of Iran have been able with government encouragement under both previous and present political systems to control their fertility in a modern manner. The literacy rate is at 79%, with female literacy 74%. Comparative figures for Iraq are 40%, with female literacy at 24%. If these figures are anywhere near accurate, this means that Iran has without much of the world noticing been developing a modern society that is poised to demand a modern political system. What remains to determine is the path.
The implications of the discussion for American foreign policy are not clear. But it does suggest that instead of thinking of Iran as the next boulder in the path of universal democratization, we should think of it as a country well on its way toward joining our world through the efforts of its own citizens. It would be crazy to think of invading such a country, a step that would both discredit its growing liberal population and discredit liberal leaders. Instead, we must with the help of Iranians both within and without the country devise a strategy that will assist the democratic evolution of the country. In doing so, we must remember that Iranians, liberal and conservative, must be allowed to define their national interests in their own way. In particular, we should not assume that nuclear abstinence is a necessary part of the democratization process. Dictating the position of Iran on this or any other issue cannot be a part of a true democracy program.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
