[888]

Will someone with Iranian knowledge please help me out.

1. Explain the difference in policy between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.
2. Is Iran a democracy in any case as they have the Ayatollah Khomeini as supreme leader?

[135Eye]

Well, Iran is a democracy, but not in the American sense of the word democracy. Most places in the world do not have American style democracies, as every country has a unique history and culture.

In Iran's case, their history and culture has bent them towards a theocratic democracy where the president and MPs are elected officials who then appoint the majority of civil servants (as in the United States). However, in Iran there is the Supreme Leader who is elected once in his lifetime (and can be removed) by an elected group of 'Experts'. This is more akin to the appointment of a Supreme Court judge in the United States.

Where the two coutries really diverge is that the power of the various military, police and justice ministries falls under the Supreme Leader thereby giving the country a more autocratic style. This was setup to give the country more long term stability in its government style, something which was felt to be lacking in pure parliamentary systems, and even in the United States.

These differences are called undemocratic in the United States, because anything that doesn't mirror this countries government is undemocratic of course But seriously, the country is a democracy.

And that is the crux of the crisis right now, that very democracy is now in question because the election was (possibly) rigged and so the very basis of the democracy is in question and there will have to be a major change, if not a revolution, in order to change the system to ensure that noone can taint an election single handedly such as the Supreme Leader has done (allegedly).

I personally believe that the election was rigged and a major change is needed, maybee not an all out revolution, but perhaps change the Supreme Leader into a rotating position that may change every few years. Another possibility is to change him into a more Monarchial position as in the UK where he is a spiritual guide to the government, without the power to directly intervene. Other want to change the government into a secular democracy, which still would not be styled as an American democracy, but would theoretically allow for less favoritism among the religious community for government jobs. I question that as I believe corruption would be rampant. But thats for another thread.

[888]

thanks that is a great informative reply.

what are the basic differences in policy between the 2 candidates (Ahmadinejad and Mousavi) is Mousavi more into reform and pro-west?

[135Eye]

On foreign relations, the differences between the two men are not entirely clear. The reason is that the country is in a very bunker mentality when it comes to the issue of foreign relations. This is somewhat analogous to the United States after September 11, certain opinions on foreign relations were simply not aired in public because of the overwhelming emotions and atmosphere at the time.

Iran is under heavy international pressure and so the foriegn relations issues are narrowly defined in the public sphere. If Mousavi would become a good friend to the United States or an enemy would not be clear until he would take office. Judging him by his friends (former president Khatami) he would likely become a relative friend of the United States. This is of course all relative. Please remember, there are has been a long history of enmity between the United States and Iran, Iran being the far more vulnerable and weak country in the relationship so that the negative effects are felt by them and not by us, and so they hold more of a grudge.

However, the issue of foreign relations was not a major topic between the two candidates, especially since foreign relations are not a duty of primacy for the President in Iran.

The majority of differences between the men were on economic issues, particulary the use of wealth redistribution. Ahmadinejad favored direct redistribution rather then investment. Mousavi favored long term investment coupled with conservative economic spending while promoting the arts and education. Mousavi was seemingly on the forefront of changing the civil rights of women. These issues dominated 90% of the debate and differences between the men. Foreign relations were a small aside. The nuclear issue was a non-issue as the candidates were united in their opinion and most Iranians are united on that issue.

[TwinTurboXI]

Wow great information. Thanks!

[shahsk30]

This government was never a democracy. It is more of religious dictatorship that Khomeini started back in 1979. People have no civil rights there. I don't think people want the current regime be in power. People want change and more freedoms just like what we have in the US.

this election was rigged. there is no doubt about that. The protests isn't about the election anymore. Its about basic rights.

[lib]

Originally Posted by shahsk30

The protests [aren't] about the election anymore. Its about basic rights.

This.

[888]

thanks 135Eye

[shahsk30]

my bad on the grammar haha

135eye are you iranian or have you ever been to iran?

[lib]

[Tondtar]

.

[shahsk30]

go to huffingtonpost.com. there is a live blog about the situation.

[Tondtar]

Originally Posted by shahsk30

go to huffingtonpost.com. there is a live blog about the situation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_215189.html

[shahsk30]

Originally Posted by Tondtar

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_215189.html

thanks for uploading the link.

[dth656]

what is interesting to note is that in 1953 or so, iran had a democratically elected prime minister (mohammed mossadegh) who was fairly liberal. problem was that he refused to sign over oil concessions to the US and england, and guess who (CIA) engineered a coup that brought the repressive shah to power. the us helped the shah remain in power until the revolution that brought khomeini to power

[shahsk30]

Originally Posted by dth656

what is interesting to note is that in 1953 or so, iran had a democratically elected prime minister (mohammed mossadegh) who was fairly liberal. problem was that he refused to sign over oil concessions to the US and england, and guess who (CIA) engineered a coup that brought the repressive shah to power. the us helped the shah remain in power until the revolution that brought khomeini to power

i don't think he was democratically elected.

[josephr25]

Can somebody explain why both candidates are "douchebags?" My friend who was born there and lived there for probably 10 years says that; what is wrong w/ Mousavi?