Iranian election results

[jjcarroll]

Come on JJ, thats a little blase. I never asserted that the simple act of casting a vote denoted a democracy, but I still hold firm to my belief that simply because a country chooses to express democracy in its own way (See Ireland, Germany and America) doesn't make it any less of a democracy, as judged by their own standards

Well, the North Korea state calls itself the Democratic Republic of Korea, so following your logic, whereby you believe in judging the country's democracy by their own standards (i.e. the Ronseal test).

[stringjack]

Yes it is. The supreme court is appointed by elected officials and acts in accord with laws passed by the representatives of the people. You need no other definition than Lincoln's: govt. of the people, for the people, by the people. If Iran styles itself as a democracy when an unelected cabal limit the ticket it is masquerading as such. If the cabal is elected or has the approval of the people for its functions then it is a democracy. Does the cabal have a basis in law passed by representatives of the people for its actions? Yes or No? If yes, JJCarroll is wrong. If no, then he is right.

No, it's not, and if you're going to continue this discussion I would like to see some more precision in your concepts; Lincoln's 'definition' is a meaningless soundbite. I accept that the cases are not identical, but each does feature a cabal of unelected experts possessed of the legal power to overrule democratic majorities in circumstances where those majorities are attempting to act in violation of a sacred, canonical text. The differences between the cases are sufficiently great that I would happily describe the US as more or less democratic and Iran as less than democratic but I would avoid essentially arbitrary and self-serving dichotomies, as I think jjcarroll might appreciate...

I have no difficulty saying that after Israel and Turkey, Iran is the country in the region most responsive to public opinion, but that does not make it a democracy, rather it is a form of consultative government.

...and as I hope you would also be reluctant to employ.

[Andrew-formerly'Danny']

I hope this guy thanked Bush, and his incessant meddling in Iranian sovereignty, for helping him get elected.

Actually, that had little to do with it. The people were pissed at what they saw as an arrogant centrist candidate. Not everything is Americas fault! Of course, it wasn't even a fair election since dozens of candidates were excluded, and any major meetings by the reform movement would have been broken up by armed thugs.

Big blow for the EU. It's diplomatic efforts have suffered a major setback, and the US hawks will be strenghtened. I wonder what his attitude will be towards the Iraqi insurgency? Will he turn a blind eye to insurgents in Iran to divert the US military from his nuclear plans?

[stringjack]

Just some background thoughts that I came across...

Because the experience of recent years showed the youth that participating in the election brought them no influence at all in politics, not to mention setting the Islamic Republic on a reform course. Most of them think: we've voted for the reformers four times in the last eight years. But reform from within isn't possible, because there's nothing to be done against the bulwark of conservatives. That's why so many of them escape.

[BarryW]

Do you think a body such as a Guardian Council, is compatabile with a democracy?

JJ, I notice tht rockofcashel hasn't answered this question.

But seeing as how he accepts the views expressed on page 1 of the Little Green Book (that the IRA Army Council is the legitimate government of the Irish Republic), I doubt if he would have any problem with the Guardian Council ruling Iran

[smiffy]

But seeing as how he accepts the views expressed on page 1 of the Little Green Book (that the IRA Army Council is the legitimate government of the Irish Republic), I doubt if he would have any problem with the Guardian Council ruling Iran

Would you ever just shut up? You're like a broken f.ucking record.

[watch-this-drive]

The topic is Iranian elections. The tired old trick of muddying the waters is used again and again. (You know who youse are.) JJCarroll has asserted that an unelected cabal limits the choice of candidates put before the people. That is not democracy. In this case it is theocracy. Now you can compare and contrast to Albania all the way to Zimbabwe but it is game set and match to JJCarroll.

Got to agree with that, it is the usual tactic of the weak to try drag the discussion off topic.
The candidates for President were selected, overwhelmingly most candidates that wanted to run were not allowed, besides the President has very little power. It is a sham of a democracy. Any SF bitterness towards the PDs wont make Iran less of a sham.