How do the Irani people feel about their theocratic regime? Is there as much support for Velaayat-e Faaqih as during Aayatollaah Khomeyni’s day?
Has the regime improved conditions in Iran or did anything for the people?
How corrupt/transparent is the regime?
WRS
Em, I meant some questions about Iran. If this could be corrected, I would be so ever grateful.
Oops.
WRS
All Persians I know live in the United States so obviously their views are a bit biased. But, they have told me many stories about their friends and families back home. All of the Persians I have talked to in depth disagree with the theocratic regime. They want control of their country back and they believe it will happen in their lifetimes. Some of my friends remember the revolution quite clearly and their thoughts on it are always negative.
I also know a woman who was some sort of royalty or something in the old regime. She managed to escape to the US, but almost all of the rest of her family was killed in the revolution. It’s not uncommon to find Persians here of her age (50-60) who had family members killed.
Not done anything good as far as I can tell and all of the ones I know want it gone.
Very corrupt. Again, they all had stories about the horrible things that went/go on there. One of my friends told me many, many stories including an uncle of his who was a business man and tried to increase the wealth of Iran by started businesses there. He became very wealthy but was thrown in jail and all his posessions were confiscated by the government.
They did say that the local police could be bribed and they had some crazy, wild parties there. Apparently, if you go with people who know the area you can have a lot of fun because they have some really toxic (and really illegal) alcohol and there are plenty of drugs available.
My U.S.-trained Islamic history professor was/is Iranian, from a secular , middle-class family of professionals in Teheran which he visited once a year. They were all for the revolution, if not the theocrats ( which in their mind are just as bad if not worse, though in a slightly different way ). My professor referred to Iranian-American ex-pats who looked back with fondness on the Shah’s regime, most of them members of the ex-elites ( royal family and associated lineages ), as “mental masturbators” ;).
The Iranian revolution was a genuinely broad-based upheaval and most Iranian in Iran ( from what I’ve heard ) are still more or less in favor of it. What they’re not particularly fond of are the theocrats that hijacked it.
The regime is increasingly unpopular by just about every account. The Islamists tended to draw their support in particular from the urban poor and the bazaaris ( the pious lower-middle class ) and they still appear to have a genuine constituency. But it is a shrinking one, especially as Iran’s population has exploded ( over 60% are under 25 ) and the hardliners have become more and more blatantly repressive ( believe it or not Khomeini could actually be quite flexible in his populism ). Also Khamene’i is a heck of a lot less charismatic and scholarly than Khomeini.
However there are a couple of caveats to the above. One is that Iranian nationalism is still quite strong and it appears much of the population still tends to react to outside threats by rallying around the regime, despite its unpopularity. The other is that while the concept of velayat-e faqih if anything has lost favor in the overall public eye, it has become much more entrenched in Iranian clerical circles, due to decades of promotion and repression of the opposition. Especially in the great “seminary” site of Qom.
Eh. Despite its ultimate theocratic nature, it has been a more democratic country than under the Shah. You might also say that the minority that rules today at least has a larger and more broad-based constituency than the royalists did ( which was pretty much the smallish class of oligarchs ).
But that said it is in most respects just as fucked up now than it was under the Shah - perhaps just some of the emphases on who and why to repress have shifted a tad.
Transparent - at it’s highest workings hardly at all. In parliament, rather more so.
Corrupt - pretty corrupt, by most accounts. Again, perhaps slightly less pervasively so than under the Shah, but then again the rather more de-centralized nature of political power in post-Shah Iran makes for a lot of room for deal-making.
70 million Iranians are not a monolithic bunch. Just like ay other country, different people feel differently about the theocratic regime, as do the 5 million Iranians who left the country after the 1979 revolution.
I hear an increasing number of Iranians who were dead against the theocracy are beginning to develop a sense of respect for the mullah’s achievements during the past 25 years. Some are interpreting the fate of Talibans and Saddam Hussein, the staunch enemies of Iran, as the genius of the mullah’s foreign policy to use the US to eliminate Iran’s neighboring enemies. Although they hate the mullah’s, some Persians actually respect the regime for keeping the West’s hands off the Iranian oil and gas resources – for the first time in 100 years. Some mullah-haters are showing pride about the recent $70 billion oil deal the mullahs made with China, and even the mullah’s nuclear program is seen as a justifiable move against Israel’s atomic warheads and their delivery systems pointing towards Iran.
There are no hard statistics to respond to this question with supporting cite and references. However, if I asked you “Is there as much support for the fundamentalist rightists in the Bible Belt and the “Red States” in the US?” How would you go about answering the question? Where would you get the statistics to support your answer?
Again, how would you answer the question “Has the Bush administration improved conditions in the US or has done anything for the people?” Well, the consensus seems to be that GW has done a lot to improve the conditions for the rich and the upper middle class by granting them huge tax cuts, and cutting down tax rates on gains in “capital and dividends” – something that majority of Americans do not have any. Similarly, the mullahs (especially Rafsanjani and his cohorts ) demand 2-5% of any large contracts signed in Iran to be diverted to their “foundations”.
Meanwhile, most Iranians seem to own their homes and cars, all paid in cash, as usury is not practiced nor encouraged under the Islamic regime. In the US, on the other hand, most homes and cars are owned by the banks. If you can not make your monthly payments (due to loss of job or health), your home and car are immediately confiscated by the bank. Is that “improved conditions”?
I hear Iran these days looks like a construction site. Modern buildings and highways are being built everywhere. The emerging military industry is beginning to export hardware to less developed countries. Iranian made UAVs are being flown by Hezbollah over Israel for surveillance purposes to pinpoint Israeli air defense and nuclear locations.
Oh, I’d say as corrupt and transparent as Enron, Halliberton, etc. with their ties to the members of the US government.
Has Iranian’s enthusiasm for reform and democracy diminished in the last 4-5 years ? Is there a perception among Iranians that democracy is nice… but too dangerous due to the current US regime ?
Reform seems to be close to impossible in Iran, what with the disqualification of all reform-minded politicians for the upcoming elections.
Very interesting question, Rashak Mani. I hope someone can offer insight.
By the way, thanks to the moderator/administrator who changed the thread’s title. 
WRS
This articlepretty well answers your question. Note that the last paragraph says: Iranians must learn democracy in order to live in a democracy. They must learn to tolerate each other and live together. Each person must contribute, personally, to create a democracy.
In short, during the past few years, Iran has learnt that she is not yet ready for democracy. Evolution takes time.
As for another revolution against the mullahs, the Iranians have already learnt that they could end up with a worse situation (civil war) or a regime worse than the current theocracy or its previous SAVAK monarchy under the Shah.
Thanks for the article…
That was the impression I had all along. The issue is just how power will change hands… and if the US will muck up things or not. Even if the US does nothing they will be used for fear mongering against reform within Iran ?
Maybe having nukes would remove that fear and help topple the regime ? Funny idea… the security of nukes might allow for less interference from outside and more courage to would be reformers !?
She has? How do you figure they aren’t “ready” for a democracy?
CDI is the Coalition for Democracy in Iran. Obviously if you ask CDI “Are Iranians ready for democracy?”, their answer would be a resounding YES. They use “research results” in this article to demonstrate why Iran is ready for democracy. According to the article:
“In August 2002, the Tarrance Group, a professional polling outfit, conducted a survey of Iranian public opinion. They randomized the last four digits of every Tehran telephone exchange, and surveyed residents rich and poor. Just 21 percent of the statistically-representative sample of more than 500 people said that the Guardian Council represented the will of the Iranian people, while only 19 percent supported a politically-active clergy”.
However, according to the Economist, only 16% of Iran’s 70 million population have a telephone line. So the above survey already missed 80% of Iran’s population that have no phones, most of whom are relatively poor and do not live in a metropolis like Tehran where the survey was conducted. So much for the credibility of the survey.
Those 60 million poor or lower middle class people have little or no idea what democracy even means. How can they be ready for it? Like the Bible Belt and the Red States in the US, most of the rural or small town people in Iran are ignorantly and happily leading simple lives while brainwashed by Allah, Mullah and religious hogwash. I’d like someone to prove to me that these masses of happy-go-lucky people in the mosques are ready for “democracy” – whatever that means. IMHO, most of the cries for democracy is coming from a few intellectuals in big Iranian cities and lots of Iranian expatriates abroad who do not risk ending up in Evin prison.
While holding tightly to power, the current theocratic regime in Iran is smart enough to know how to trickle down some of the oil money to keep the masses happily praying to Allah and Imams. Those Top Mullahs know how to create “reformists mullahs” and even have them “elected” as Presidents. As far as they are concerned, Iran already has enough democracy.
Along these lines, American democracy was formed toward the end of the 18th century, when the ideals of the Enlightenment, which necessarily entailed anticlericalism, had spread and begun to take hold. Religion was less influential in America during that period than… any time I can think of since. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled at the Christian right-wingers’ influence on the present political system. So the logical question is:
Are Americans ready for democracy?
Because they already have elections now and the election of Khatami and the reformers a while back clearly shows that the majority of people would like to move forward with western-style liberal democracy. Only interference from the Mullahs by purging the ballots of reformers the last two elections have brought the conservatives back into control.
Moreover, they had democracy back in the late '40s and early '50s when it was overthrown by the CIA. Iranians are very familiar with the general idea of democracy, elections, etc. and have shown a willingness to move forward. It’s only the mullahs holding them back right now by blatantly rigging elections.
Happy-go-lucky? I think your image of rural poverty meshes nicely with the images certain people used to describe slavery in the American south.
Frankly, I don’t think you have the slightest clue about Iran.
The loudest cries probably do. The election of reformers who wanted to begin introducing western-style liberal reforms in the late 90s is a good indication that the general populace feels the same way, even if they aren’t as vocal about it.
Undoubtedly the theocratic regime is smart. However, the “reformist” movement was hardly created by the theocracy. Especially since they began purging them from election rolls and blocking almost every attempted reform. Had they been created by the theocracy, the reformists simply would have only pressed for nothing more than token reforms, giving the illusion of effective choice.
I have a related question: There are several ethnically non-Persian peoples within Iran – Arabs in the southwest (Khuzestan or Arabistan – the most oil-rich province, bordering Iraq), Lurs in the west, Kurds in the northwest, Azeris in the north, Balochis in the east. Are any of these restive under Iranian rule? Do any of them seriously want independence? And are any of them willing to fight for it?
And how would the masses of ethnically-Persian Iranians react to that?
Only the Kurds, maybe, and even they’re less restive than their counterparts in Iraq or Turkey.
My image of rural poverty in Iran meshes nicely with the images of the majority of voters in the US bible belt and red states. Just as the latter’s perceptions are made by listening to Rush Limbaugh, the Corporate media and the televangelists, the former’s perceptions are made by what they hear from their mullahs in their local mosque.
Not quite. Although CIA had a hand in overthrowing Mossadegh, the mullahs played a major role in mobilizing the poor and the lower middle class (bazzaris) behind the movement. In fact, just to show you that I do have some clues about Iran and Iranians, here is what the mullahs did in the early 1950s:
The Brits (pissed by the fact that Mossadegh was nationalizing the Iranian oil), not only asked for the US help to overthrow Mossadegh, but the Brits also advised the mullahs to turn the masses against Mossadegh. In the mosques, the mullahs started telling people that Mossadegh was a Communist (which was not true). The folklore has it that the mullahs’ sermons said: “Commu” means God (which is not correct), and “nist” in Farsi means “does not exist” (which is correct). So, the mullahs told the masses: Communist = God does not exist. And since they accused Mossadegh to be a communist, it meant that Mossadegh did not believe in God. That was enough for the masses of Iranians to mobilize behind the CIA-orchestrated coup against Mossadegh.
We are now witnessing the similar situation among 80% of Iranian population. At the end of the day, God and Islam will prevail. And the mullahs know this. Since Islam and Quran are inconsistent with “western style democracy’, then IMHO, moving forward towards “western democracy” in Iran is a pipedream – at least for the foreseeable future.
Hmmm…Yet ~80% of the Iranian electorate voted in the 2000 election and only ~25% of those backed the hard-line candidates. Iran also has a roughly 80% literacy rate - nowhere near Turkey’s ~99%, but a heck of a lot higher than the 40-odd of neighbors like Pakistan and Iraq. I think making the assumption that all non-urban Iranians are bumpkins is probably off the mark - at any rate 62% of the population is now urban.
Iranian experiments with democracy goes all the way back to the Constitutional Revolution of 1906.
Well, God and Islam may very well remain important and I suppose it depends what you mean by ‘western-style democracy’. But I see no reason why Islam and democracy in general should be inherently incompatible.
True, but as you said in your own post # 4 above, “The Islamists tended to draw their support in particular from the urban poor and the bazaaris ( the pious lower-middle class ) and they still appear to have a genuine constituency”.
So , if the urban poor are bumpkins and support the current regime, one can imagine the state of affairs among the non-urban populace. Where do you think the rural people get their information and perceptions? I’d say from their parents, the local mosque and the mullahs. So, the ignorance perpetuates.
Well, if you take a look at the Iranian Constitution (called Mashrootiat) written in 1906, you will see that it starts with the Arabic phrase from Quran “Besm-Allah-o-Rahmaan-e-Rahim”. Right there, you do not have a separation of mosque and state – and I do not call that a democracy. The West did that a couple of centuries ago before it entered the age of democracy. So, the Iranians have another 100 years to go to get there. (Maybe less, due to acceleration of change and the spread of new ideas through the Internet and other means of modern communication).
IMHO, Iran needs time to evolve, implementing the following on the road to democracy:
Not trying to be defensive, Tamerlane, but I responded to Neurotik who used the term “western-style liberal democracy” and “western-style liberal reforms”. I suppose we need to ask Neurotik what s/he meant by that.
Islam does not separate mosque and state. Democracy requires separation of church and state.
Ah, see, there’s where I disagree. It requires no such thing. All a democracy requires is the consent and active, unfettered participation of the governed in their government. Now personally I’d prefer a secular model and I also wouldn’t live in anything else. But that doesn’t mean that is the only democratic system possible.
Iran is currently a theocracy with the trappings of democracy. To transform it into a fully participatory democracy wouldn’t take much ( though in a sense it would take a lot, as these changes may very well require a revolution to implement ). You simply would have to transfer most of the executive authority from the all-powerful judiciary to the already extant executive and legislative branches. In particular you would need to: 1) curb the power of the Council of Guardians, in particular remove their ability to vet electoral candidates and 2) you would have to reduce the supreme leader to a semi-advisory level, leaving him with authority over the weakened judicial branch as sort of a suped-up chief justice. That a few minor tweaks like removing fixed ethnic/religious proportioning of legislative seats ( i.e. a minimum for smaller groups might be acceptable, but a maximum is not ).
But you could still do this in the context of a state that mandates some version Islamic law for Muslims, has a religously-oriented judicial branch led by a Grand Ayatollah, etc… Again, I wouldn’t prefer such a system myself, but many in the region might. The likliehood we’ll get some version of this ( if the center holds ) in Iraq is high. And I think that is okay - if nothing else it may presage a movement to my own preferred ideal of a more secular society. Or maybe not. But as long as it remains free and fair it would be a democracy.
Two points -
[ul][li]Thanks again, Tamerlane, for the expertise you bring to the SDMB.[/li][li]Has the structure you describe for a “democracy with the trappings of a theocracy” ever been brought about? Is this similar to the way Turkey brought it about?[/ul] [/li]I’m not being argumentative, I would just like to know your thoughts.
FWIW - almost nothing - the Iranians I speak with feel pretty much as you describe. They favored the revolution, but not the mullahs. All of them left Iran after the revolution, and most were members of families that lost a lot to the Shah but more to the mullahs, so I don’t know how mainstream their opinions are. Especially thirty years later.
Regards,
Shodan