There is a complicated web of problems with the power structure in Iran. I won’t here repeat or explain the structure but rather point to where its shortcomings lie.
The first problem is that the first Supreme Leader was indeed as the name suggests. Hence he set up a power structure that put himself numero uno. This meant that the legacy of the power structure is with the next supreme leader having a lot of power.
The second problem is that the central hub of the system – the Assembly of Experts – is comprised only of clerics. This means that there is a lack of input from various other intellectual fields to bring about balance in society.
The first two problems are almost intractable legacies of the religious revolution. These two problems can be addressed in time if the third problem is tackled.
The third problem is the vetting power giving to the Guardian Council. These ‘guardians’ have the power to exclude people from running in elections for parliament, president, and expert assembly.
It could be argued that the Iranian people democratically elect the supreme religious leader (via electing the assembly of experts, who inturn elect the supreme leader), a parliament, and a government. However the reason for democracy, just the same as the reason for limiting terms in office, is to reduce the corrupting force of holding positions of power. The problem is that by giving the guardian council the power to vet all candidates at the input side of the power structure, this council by default gets the power to hold themselves (and others) in office. They have the power to entrench themselves in power. In principal this is the fundamental power of (and reason for) democracy. The door is opened for the possibility of temptation.
The first time the Iranian political system operates (with the death of the first Ayatollah), all seems well. However on successive occasions, a feedback loop comes into play that restricts the functioning of the input side of the system. The people in power get more power and the Iranian people get less say. The end result is the possibility of a brutal dictatorial regime that on the surface looks democratic. This is what has happened in Iran.
Much effort in recent years has focused on reducing the vetting power of the Guardian Council. This council does not allow almost all opposing party members to run in elections, and certainly not a single woman is allowed to run for any office.
Today Iranian people are risking their lives - indeed giving their lives - in support of freedom and a better way of life. Brutality, corruption and inequality in the current system are revealing themselves through the benefits of modern communications technology. Indeed the current Supreme Leader yesterday sanctioned the bloodshed that today has eventuated. Yet the ugly face of religious hypocrisy is not hidden.
The first problem is that the first Supreme Leader was indeed as the name suggests. Hence he set up a power structure that put himself numero uno. This meant that the legacy of the power structure is with the next supreme leader having a lot of power.
The second problem is that the central hub of the system – the Assembly of Experts – is comprised only of clerics. This means that there is a lack of input from various other intellectual fields to bring about balance in society.
The first two problems are almost intractable legacies of the religious revolution. These two problems can be addressed in time if the third problem is tackled.
The third problem is the vetting power giving to the Guardian Council. These ‘guardians’ have the power to exclude people from running in elections for parliament, president, and expert assembly.
It could be argued that the Iranian people democratically elect the supreme religious leader (via electing the assembly of experts, who inturn elect the supreme leader), a parliament, and a government. However the reason for democracy, just the same as the reason for limiting terms in office, is to reduce the corrupting force of holding positions of power. The problem is that by giving the guardian council the power to vet all candidates at the input side of the power structure, this council by default gets the power to hold themselves (and others) in office. They have the power to entrench themselves in power. In principal this is the fundamental power of (and reason for) democracy. The door is opened for the possibility of temptation.
The first time the Iranian political system operates (with the death of the first Ayatollah), all seems well. However on successive occasions, a feedback loop comes into play that restricts the functioning of the input side of the system. The people in power get more power and the Iranian people get less say. The end result is the possibility of a brutal dictatorial regime that on the surface looks democratic. This is what has happened in Iran.
Much effort in recent years has focused on reducing the vetting power of the Guardian Council. This council does not allow almost all opposing party members to run in elections, and certainly not a single woman is allowed to run for any office.
Today Iranian people are risking their lives - indeed giving their lives - in support of freedom and a better way of life. Brutality, corruption and inequality in the current system are revealing themselves through the benefits of modern communications technology. Indeed the current Supreme Leader yesterday sanctioned the bloodshed that today has eventuated. Yet the ugly face of religious hypocrisy is not hidden.
English to Chinese BETA
English to French
English to German
English to Italian
English to Japanese BETA
English to Korean BETA
English to Russian BETA 
English to Spanish
No comments:
Post a Comment