The Iranian system also has some democratic legitimacy. Yes, the religious authority is supreme, but it's not as overtly tyrannical as the average dictatorial regimes: the religious ruler is himself elected by an assembly (similarly to what happens with the Catholic Pope), and the secular executive branch is elected (although the religious element can pre-emptively stop pesky candidates from running altogether).
There is a good chunk of Iranian society that genuinely thinks their system is good, and it keeps the country somewhat stable in a region where such condition is not particularly common. Telling them to throw it all away by pointing at Libya is basically a cruel joke.
This characterization is ridiculous. Following the form does not make you “somewhat democratic,” nor does calling oneself Democratic People’s Republic.
In addition, “the secular executive branch” comment is flat out wrong. The executive branch and candidates for presidency are explicitly obligated to believe and follow Islamic and Sharia laws.
> Following the form does not make you “somewhat democratic,”
In practice, there have been elected presidents that the religious element did not really like. They did not last, and were sabotaged at every turn, but they existed. Iran is a big country and it contains a number of different power-centres, unlike, for example, North Korea.
> In addition, “the secular executive branch” comment is flat out wrong.
Uh, no it isn't:
>> the religious element can pre-emptively stop pesky candidates from running altogether
Whether this is achieved by claiming they are unbelievers or corrupt, is irrelevant. Candidates can (and do) get purged before they get a chance, but the latter part of the process is fairly democratic (which is why occasionally the "wrong" candidates do win). One of the reasons for the increasingly low turnout in recent years is precisely that purges are getting more and more indiscriminate; Iranians are not all stupid, and won't engage when they think the process is meaningless. The "secular" qualifier is there because, in practice, that's what it is - a government that cares about economy, army, police, and administration.
Demonising everything is a recipe for being ignored, you should try understanding other points of view when you're trying to persuade.
You are absolutely incorrect[1]. There are no ifs and buts. They absolutely positively require the candidate to assert they'd abide by Islamic law--there is not even a pretense of secularism. Which Islamic Republic lobby group did you get your propaganda from? I lived there for 20 years.
If you think you know better, please cite a reference to your egregious claims. Even Khamenei himself does not make some of the claims you are making.
Current affairs are still mostly mundane - as much as sharia law is prescriptive about some stuff, it won't cover how to set up a database of taxpayers or how to make a nuclear plant work. That was my point - the elected side of things takes care of that, obviously under the supervision/control of the religious element, and depending on who you elect things will be carried out differently. You can't tell me things were not different when Ahmadinejad was in office compared to when Rouhani was in office.
>The executive branch and candidates for presidency are explicitly obligated to believe and follow Islamic and Sharia laws.
Oh come one. Is the US not a democracy because the executive branch and candidates for presidency are explicity obligated to believe and follow the constitution?
As a Canadian I've personally benefited from the US hegemony and if I had to pick a least-rapacious global hegemon historically you'd be in the running. But I see comments like this and I can't help but feel like the US might have 'Earned' the same kind of 'Democracy' its three-letter boys brought Libya.
> I can't help but feel like the US might have 'Earned' the same kind of 'Democracy' its three-letter boys brought Libya.
Libya was especially an affair of France, Italy (the former colonial power) and the UK.
If you ask me, the Italians are the reason why Ghaddafi was outright executed - there were numerous dirty deals done between Italy and Ghaddafi's Libya, mostly to have Ghaddafi do the dirty work for the EU in keeping migrants away.
Interesting, I hadn't heard that theory - are you saying the Italians had him killed because he knew too much or that they failed to protect their clandestine ally from France and the UK?
Or is it more that factions in Italy that benefit from human trafficking got the upper hand on those that were working with Qaddafi to limit it? Italy is #3 in the world for trafficked humans after all, presumably some powerful people profit from it.
edit: Wanted to leave it at that, but I should really clarify. I'm equating a group choosing the US constitution as their founding document with a group choosing Sharia law for the same purpose. If a person says they believe in democracy but doesn't believe in other people's right to make what looks like obviously bad decisions, they don't really believe in democracy.
> There is a good chunk of Iranian society that genuinely thinks their system is good, and it keeps the country somewhat stable in a region where such condition is not particularly common.
That explains the massive exodus of talent, minds and people straight out of the country minutes after the revolution.
... which was 40 years ago. Quite a few people were born since then, and still live there. Obviously it's not a paradise, but it's not comparable with the likes of North Korea, and these days it's not that incredibly different from other supposedly-good countries in the region.
> Quite a few people were born since then, and still live there
And if you go to any western university campus, you'll meet many of them, born after the revolution, who worked hard to make it to the west and who are trying to sponsor their families to join them.
The opposite (westerners trying to do the same in Iran) is virtually unheard of.
And? Nobody said the Iranian system is some model of virtue, just that it isn't so incredibly bad that the alternative of "start a bloody civil war and ruin the whole country for decades" (the Libyan experience) can realistically be considered attractive by most of the population.
There is a good chunk of Iranian society that genuinely thinks their system is good, and it keeps the country somewhat stable in a region where such condition is not particularly common. Telling them to throw it all away by pointing at Libya is basically a cruel joke.