NationStates Jolt Archive

Weird, there seemed to be a few old Iran-Election threads, but none new and actually talking about the outcome.

Well, well, I am honestly surprised. Iranians had the choice of a reformist former president, and a right-wing (possibly fundamentalist) conservative mayor.
And they chose conservative! And not by a tiny margin, but by like 65% vs 35% or something. That's not something done with rigging the votes in a huge country like Iran.
It seems like the new guy namely campaigned on things like unemployment, inflation, divorce and addictions. Although he did use some religious views to support his argument (and he'll probably try to segregate women and men in daily life more), he doesn't seem to be a total lunatic.
Nonetheless, I would've thought Iranians would want more reforms.

So what do you say? Where does Iran go from here?

Conservatives to rule the US...

I'm not worried, the ever growing gulf between the youth of Iran and the ever aging Clerics will eventually blow up and the so-called "Islamic Republic" will fall... But what comes afterward is uncertain.

Conservatives rule Iran
Imagine that, a people who are somwhat famous for their religious zeal, elect a conservative leader!
Wow! Amazing!

Has it possibly occured to ANYBODY on this forum that SOME people actually LIKE conservative leadership? Is it JUST possible that SOMEBODY might possibly have a differnt opinion without being 'evil'?
Argh.
End rant.

Imagine that, a people who are somwhat famous for their religious zeal, elect a conservative leader!
Wow! Amazing!

Has it possibly occured to ANYBODY on this forum that SOME people actually LIKE conservative leadership? Is it JUST possible that SOMEBODY might possibly have a differnt opinion without being 'evil'?
Argh.
End rant.
Let me guess, you are, euh, very conservative...

I'm happy the people of Iran had and made a choice.

This new President campaigned on his humility, his humble upbringings, on his charity, on the economy and especially on poverty, which really endeared him to the poorer people of Iran, a large voting bloc. He also promises a strong Iranian stance against US pressure, especially on Iran's enrichment program. He will probably be a tough negotiator.

The opponant, he seemed to be a bad candidate in terms of strategy. Not quite reformist, not a conservative, he seemed to represent the status quo. He was also very wealthy in a nation that is quite frankly not.

I think the sheer number of votes for the new President negate the possibility of voter fraud having affected the election significantly. The Iranian people seem to have made a democratic choice for a Conservative candidate. I applaud the fact that turnout for this election was so high, and think this man may do real good for Iran, provided the US doesn't start dropping bombs.

I also think it's interesting that though conservative, he is not a cleric. I read somewhere that Iran's presidents are usually clerics. Another good sign I say.

Let me guess, you are, euh, very conservative...
It depends on your definition.
Over here in the US, Im a centrist. In Europe Im a facist. In Iran, Im a heathen and a commie.

Is it JUST possible that SOMEBODY might possibly have a differnt opinion without being 'evil'?
Come on, now you're being unfair. I don't believe in good or evil, and I think Iran is a shining example of a nation that has managed to throw off the oppressions of former colonialists.
Nonetheless, all the Iranians I have spoken to, as well as initial results of the first poll seemed to indicate that people in Iran do want reforms to go further. But it seems that people have other priorities right now.
As for the title "Conservatives rule Iran": They do. Conservatives now hold all positions of power in the country. Could you have thought of a better title that summarises what this thread is about?

I'm happy the people of Iran had and made a choice.

This new President campaigned on his humility, his humble upbringings, on his charity, on the economy and especially on poverty, which really endeared him to the poorer people of Iran, a large voting bloc. He also promises a strong Iranian stance against US pressure, especially on Iran's enrichment program. He will probably be a tough negotiator.

The opponant, he seemed to be a bad candidate in terms of strategy. Not quite reformist, not a conservative, he seemed to represent the status quo. He was also very wealthy in a nation that is quite frankly not.

I think the sheer number of votes for the new President negate the possibility of voter fraud having affected the election significantly. The Iranian people seem to have made a democratic choice for a Conservative candidate. I applaud the fact that turnout for this election was so high, and think this man may do real good for Iran, provided the US doesn't start dropping bombs.

I also think it's interesting that though conservative, he is not a cleric. I read somewhere that Iran's presidents are usually clerics. Another good sign I say.

A little think like democracy didn't stop Saddam or Milosovije from ruling their countries as brutal dictatorships for as long as they did and both countries had "elections" and everything. In the end the Clerics of Iran hold the final legal say and power over both President and Parilament in Iran so it's not a true democracy as America knows it.

Just my two cents.

It depends on your definition.
Over here in the US, Im a centrist. In Europe Im a facist. In Iran, Im a heathen and a commie.

Great reply :) , but you are not a fascist in Europe!

...In the end the Clerics of Iran hold the final legal say and power over both President and Parilament in Iran so it's not a true democracy as America knows it.
Yes, but is America any kind of benchmark? There is no one type of democracy, and if there is, it's the Greek original.

Come on, now you're being unfair. I don't believe in good or evil, and I think Iran is a shining example of a nation that has managed to throw off the oppressions of former colonialists.
Nonetheless, all the Iranians I have spoken to, as well as initial results of the first poll seemed to indicate that people in Iran do want reforms to go further. But it seems that people have other priorities right now.
As for the title "Conservatives rule Iran": They do. Conservatives now hold all positions of power in the country. Could you have thought of a better title that summarises what this thread is about?
I know, if you see 'end rant' in one of my posts, its generaly alright to assume that whatever Im saying is spur of the moment and generaly wont be fair or well thought out ;)
The second part there sounds like people to me. You ask them what they think and they say 'Yay, reforms! Woohoo!' and wave a flag of the nation of your choice. Then they run off to the polls and vote for the status quo. Change is frightening, especialy in a country like Iran where the scary bad guys might come back next year and kill everybody that voted for reform.
Indeed they do, I realized this. That was the point of my sarcasm. *curses lack of adaptable emoticons or some other handy gadetry to indicate this sort of thing*

Yes, but is America any kind of benchmark? There is no one type of democracy, and if there is, it's the Greek original.

The Greek original only worked because it was based in such a limited area (the city of Athens) and this form of democracy was crushed out when the Spartans defeated the Athenian forces in a serries of wars that lead to Spartan dominance of the Greek peninsula for a short time.

The next phase of democracy, the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire when Julius Ceasar pretty much gutted the power of the Roman Senate and the Senate then spent the remained of it's existance squandering what little power it had left.

Democracy comes in many forms and (so far) America's form is the only one that works for a good long while.

Iran [...] so it's not a true democracy as America knows it.

Canada is not a democracy "as America knows it". Neither are most western countries.

...Democracy comes in many forms and (so far) America's form is the only one that works for a good long while.
Thanks for the history lesson, but I was aware of it. The Greek original could, by the way, work again worldwide because we have much better communication technology now.
What do you define as a "good long while"? Britain has worked, France has worked (they voted, more or less, since their revolution) and so have many other Western nations.
And why don't you call "America's form" its' appropriate name: "Indian Nations' form". The way the US is organised is a simple copy of the Seven Nations from the great lakes, whom Franklin often visited and made interesting notes of.
And still your disimissiveness of Iran's Democracy is pointless.

And still your disimissiveness of Iran's Democracy is pointless.

I'm dismissive of it because even if the Parlament of Iran votes on a bill unanimosly and the President signs it, one minor cleric working from a dust town on the Iran/Iraq border can simply say NO to the bill and that will be that because of verse such and such in the Koran.

That is NOT democracy that is Theocracy pretending to be Democracy.

The Greek original only worked because it was based in such a limited area (the city of Athens) and this form of democracy was crushed out when the Spartans defeated the Athenian forces in a serries of wars that lead to Spartan dominance of the Greek peninsula for a short time.

The next phase of democracy, the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire when Julius Ceasar pretty much gutted the power of the Roman Senate and the Senate then spent the remained of it's existance squandering what little power it had left.

Democracy comes in many forms and (so far) America's form is the only one that works for a good long while.

Athens fell for four reasons, none of them because of it's True Democracy -
1. Persia supplying Sparta ships, negating the Athenian naval advantage
2. A plague that wiped out 1/4 - 1/3 of Athen's population
3. The Athenian attack on Syracuse, an extremely costly venture that failed miserably
4. The Spartan lifestyle, where even women and children were fierce warriors. Of course that same lifestyle led to a declining Spartan birthrate and Sparta's eventual inability to rule Greece after she beat Athens, but it certainly helped in the war.

Rome's Republic - it fell because of an ambitious man who wanted more power than the system would let him have. A tale often common in democracies, then and other times in history. This trend will probably never die.

America's form of democracy is not the only one in the world, and it is dubious whether it has been the most sucessful. If you mean militarily and conquest-wise, then Britain and her Constitutional Monarchy with Parliamentarism(quite democratic actually) ruled over 1/4 of the globe. If you mean in standard of living, it would be the Social Democracies of Scandinavia(Norway and Sweden have ranks 1 and 2 on human development scales from the UN Human Development report), if you mean economically, then the US certainly is good there, except that history, not government I would argue played more of a role in that economic supremacy.

[/historylesson]

That is NOT democracy that is Theocracy pretending to be Democracy.
How often does that actually happen though?
In other countries, people may have other customs. And in some countries, people might want to be sure that they live according to their religion. I don't agree with all of that, but I respect it nonetheless.
And it seems the majority of Iranians don't mind the Clerics having some power of the process, otherwise they'd have voted for more reforms.
And why did you have to say "dust town"?

Kroisistan- Ok your right on the Athens/Sparta part but Athens as far as I am aware never had a democratic system after the war, in fact I think Athens was destroyed but I'm not sure.

On Rome I already mentioned (in different words) it's colapse that goes hand in hand with your description.

Even though Sweden and Norway have a higher standard of living, they has outragious taxes in return. Britian's Empire fell apart because of it's sheer size and Two World Wars that drained Britian's economy.

Hope this helps.

Even though Sweden and Norway have a higher standard of living, they has outragious taxes in return.
Check your facts please.

The Iranian elections, how many followed them closely? This is not an issue that one can talk about in general terms, a great many factors were involved.

There was significant talk from the Conservatives about domestic agenda, distribution of oil wealth was one of their chief agendas. This won widespread support. Moreover, the more Conservative canidate ran what amounts to a populist, not a conservative campaign.

However, when Bush spoke of the "sham" elections that were rigged in the favor of hard-line clerics, that actually boosted the hard-line canidates campaigns tremendously. People rallied around the threat of US interventionism to support their government. Worried about foreign aggression, the Iranians went for the "tough" canidates, who had records of standing up to the US.

Not at all dissimilar to the US elections. The comparison can only be taken so far, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Iranians have strong nationalistic feelings. These feelings sometimes encourage them to vote in ways that run counter to their freedoms and reforms, coupled with the very real threat of outside aggression, we see this result.

The Conservatives ran a tight campaign that appealed to voters on an economic level, then they added the nationalistic pride to the mix. The Moderates ran a social freedoms campaign and had to play catch-up on the other two issues. They just couldn't compete.

Now there might also have been rigged voting, but the mood among the people is strongly in favor of hardening their stances in the face of US intervention. What really is troubling is the possible showdown over Iranian Nuclear programs, there is talk that the US was hoping for a hardliner to win, as to dispell any European talk of a compramise or settlment, as the US sees the Iranian problem as being a military, not a diplomatic one.

Time will tell.

Check your facts please.

Unless you have a link to a website that shows that Sweedish and Norwegian tax rates are lower than American ones please show it to me.

Unless you have a link to a website that shows that Sweedish and Norwegian tax rates are lower than American ones please show it to me.
So everything higher than the US tax rate is "outrageous"? Forgive me, in that case, both countries probably do have outrageous taxes.

Kroisistan- Ok your right on the Athens/Sparta part but Athens as far as I am aware never had a democratic system after the war, in fact I think Athens was destroyed but I'm not sure.

On Rome I already mentioned (in different words) it's colapse that goes hand in hand with your description.

Even though Sweden and Norway have a higher standard of living, they has outragious taxes in return. Britian's Empire fell apart because of it's sheer size and Two World Wars that drained Britian's economy.

Hope this helps.

Athens was going to be destroyed - Corinth really wanted it - but Sparta spared Athens because the Athenians had defeated the Persians and saved Greece once before. A king was installed in Athens. Later Athens and Thebes defeated Sparta, but no Athenian Democracy was never restored.

Sweden and Norway have higher taxes yes, but outrageous is a subjective term. The taxes pay for universal healthcare, wonderful education programs, comprehensive social welfare and a host of smaller services that frankly are simply better than the US equivalent. And that is with Norway having a higher GDP per capita than the US, and both having GDP growth higher than or equal to the US's for the same period. They also have higher life expectancies. As far as I am aware, the people are happy with their govenments.

Britain's empire fell apart because of both those economic concerns and regional nationalism in parts of the empire. The disintigration was actually done rather peacefully, with Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand becoming independant countries on very good terms with Britain, with India granted independance without a war, and with the Middle East and Africa simply being withdrawn from. It's form of government did not lead to this breakup, rather the self-realization of the colonies and the economic strains placed on Britain did.

But this has been massively off topic, so I think with respect to the original poster who has a specific topic for this thread, we should probably not turn this into a debate.

Indeed.
And so we return to Iran. We have established that the Conservative camp ran a better, slightly populist, campaign and that they won because of that.
We also have more or less established that aggressive comments by the US can be one reason why it turned out the way it did.
So whereto now? Shouldn't the US back off, to give reforms some time without always presenting itself as the enemy?

So whereto now? Shouldn't the US back off, to give reforms some time without always presenting itself as the enemy?

If only Leonstein. If only. It seems that we may see a greatly increased amount of hostile rhetoric being exchanged, one step below missiles flying.

Indeed.
And so we return to Iran. We have established that the Conservative camp ran a better, slightly populist, campaign and that they won because of that.
We also have more or less established that aggressive comments by the US can be one reason why it turned out the way it did.
So whereto now? Shouldn't the US back off, to give reforms some time without always presenting itself as the enemy?

Well I'm not sure the US caused the result per se, but did contrubute to it.

The US should back off. There is no good reason to invade Iran. Worst case scenario - the Nuclear program is restarted, and is indeed for a weapon, and we have another nuclear power. Iran would never launch on the US or Israel, or let that nuke into terrorist hands, because they are well aware that whatever they destroyed, the reprisal by the rest of the world would be 100X that. If anything they would want the bomb as protection from a US invasion, which would contribute to international peace, because the US will not risk attacking a nuclear power.
The situation is far likelier to get better. The people of Iran made a democratic choice - even if it is in a Theocratic nation - and seemed happy to take that step. It represents that the idea of the democratic choice has gotten to Iran, and as Victor Hugo said "We can stop an army, but not an idea." I think this is the beginning of greater democracy. (Note that doensn't mean less theocracy. If the people choose a theocrat, isn't that still a democratic choice?)
I fear the US might get jumpy and attack, but we should back off, as things are looking up.

I'm sorry if some of you are not aware but Iran is responsible for some of the most horrific human rights abuses in the world. To call the new president a "conservative" is like calling the ruthless Sudanese arab militias committing mass murder in Sudan "forthright". Rape victims, women wearing the wrong attire and homosexuals are stoned to death and candidates can never stand for election without approval of the clergy. It is nothing but modern day fascism and the system is completely indefensible.

I'm sorry if some of you are not aware but Iran is responsible for some of the most horrific human rights abuses in the world. To call the new president a "conservative" is like calling the ruthless Sudanese arab militias committing mass murder in Sudan "forthright". Rape victims, women wearing the wrong attire and homosexuals are stoned to death and candidates can never stand for election without approval of the clergy. It is nothing but modern day fascism and the system is completely indefensible.

Humans right abuses are less important to the people of Iran than getting food on their tables. The winner of the elections focused on poverty and getting the people out of it.

When you're not in the danger of starving to death because your below the poverty line, then only can you afford to think about human rights. Abuse hits specific people. Starvation hits everybody who can't afford the food.

*sighs* Fucking iranian agitprop.


Read all of the following, the election was essentially one giant sham for the benefit of europe and the loony left.


http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=1109

http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=1245

http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=1251

http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=1258

http://daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3321.shtml

http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=1260

http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=1262


Naive bastards, all of you.

The newly elected President is not a cleric, therefore if he did want to bring in stricter Islamic laws, he would probably have to refer to the Council about it, who, seeing that they are not the unquestioning power they once were as the youth always do question them, will not likely do, because they fear revolution.

Iran has changed since '79, the youth of Iran today is not the Iran of '79, who would follow their Ayatollah's every word.

The clerics know this. They can't push on their laws anymore, the youth would not stand for it.

The victorious candidate's winning platform was not being stricter on Islamic law, but on unemployment. He is well known in Tehran for turning up at a meeting of waste disposal men dressed up in their uniform as a mark of solidarity. If anything, his winning platform was that people saw him as a man of compassion who cared for their everyday concerns on unemployment and social welfare, probably spousing the odd thing about being strict to please the conservative contingent of the voters, akin to Kerry handling a gun and going Duck-shooting in the US Presidential elections. He wears a suit, and dresses in a western style not akin to someone spousing Islamic severe strictness.

His strictness would in any case be liberal compared to the Taleban and Al-Qaeda, for reasons I have explained in another thread. (Shia as opposed to Sunni etc etc)

Let's not forget alot of people did not vote out of Apathy or Antipathy or other, which can be an damning verdict on the Iranian voting process, but something which can easily be said to explain those who did not vote in the US presidential election.

Yup, he won all right. If at some point I stop posting for a period of time, you'll know a stray Iranian nuke hit me. :rolleyes:
This is just what we need, more wacko religious fundementalist neighbours. I'll go prepare the AA guns.

How strange that some people tout their particular system of democracy as the best and yet when another country not particularly warm to the US has an election that works (vote fixing does not count for the overwhelming scale), some people say that it was either fixed or outright illegal.

As such, can I not claim that no elections in the world work because there is a possibility that it could be fixed?

Sanctaphrax. I cannot tell if you were being serious or just being sarcastic. Clarification?

Sanctaphrax: I am not Islamic but I find your comments very insulting and degrading to us of a religious background. Please refrain from making mindless generalizations in the future please.

About Human Rights:
Yes, the situation needs a lot of improvement. But, it's not any worse than the situation in any of the surrounding countries. Pakistan, Iraq, the Central Asian Dictatorships, or Saudi Arabia all have the same stuff happening there. It has nothing to do with the fact that this regime happens to not be a friend of the US.
But as was said, people have greater concerns about their jobs and their kids' futures than whether an adulterer gets hanged. Which, by the way, seems to be accepted by many as a fair punishment for braking the rules of their society.

About Sham elections:
We have covered that already. Yes, many contestants were banned in the first round. That happened on religious grounds, not on political grounds (although there is a correlation). Nonetheless, there were conservatives and reformers present. I thought people would choose the reformer, but they didn't. That is still their decision. No reason for many US-ians to get so excited, for sometimes, democracy can mean that things go against your wishes. And you don't want to get involved in yet another toppling of a democratically elected leader, and prove all the wacko liberals right afterall - that you ain't interested in democracy, but in influence.

About Sham elections:
We have covered that already. Yes, many contestants were banned in the first round. That happened on religious grounds, not on political grounds (although there is a correlation). Nonetheless, there were conservatives and reformers present. I thought people would choose the reformer, but they didn't. That is still their decision. No reason for many US-ians to get so excited, for sometimes, democracy can mean that things go against your wishes. And you don't want to get involved in yet another toppling of a democratically elected leader, and prove all the wacko liberals right afterall - that you ain't interested in democracy, but in influence.
When said government is lying about the turnout and perpetrating election fraud on scales that dwarf the worst that happens in the US it's a big deal. 30 million people did not vote. It was nowhere near that number. The mullahs are still in control, stop kidding yourself. The younger generation is chafing at their bonds.

...The mullahs are still in control, stop kidding yourself. The younger generation is chafing at their bonds.
I never said they weren't. But I did say that I respect the outcome of the election. And I will continue to do that until there are serious doubts (ie UN election observers and analysts) about it. You try to get a country to vote with the size and infrastructure of Iran. They kept the polls open for much longer than planned, just to get as many votes in as possible.
So far, the only people that cry foul are those with a political agenda.

In order for democracy to even half-assedly work the people largely have to believe in their government to some extent. Such belief is vastly missing from Iran. Do you really expect the UN to stir up trouble by actually properly investigating and then acting for once?

In order for democracy to even half-assedly work the people largely have to believe in their government to some extent. Such belief is vastly missing from Iran. Do you really expect the UN to stir up trouble by actually properly investigating and then acting for once?
No, your belief in their government is missing, not theirs.
And apart from any politics, they believe in their nation as a whole. Many will take the bad things (ie mullahs telling them things they might not like) just so that their nation as a whole can prosper and grow.
It is true that much that we hear from people in Iran is critical of the government, but that is what you would expect. Only those critical will actually bother contacting Western media. No one will call CNN to have an interview about how much he agrees with the Mullahs. (and even if he does, I doubt he'll get much airtime)
The people have voted, and they have voted conservative. The reasons for that have been explored, now why do you insist on the belief that if people don't vote for your favourite, then something must be wrong?

No, your belief in their government is missing, not theirs.
And apart from any politics, they believe in their nation as a whole. Many will take the bad things (ie mullahs telling them things they might not like) just so that their nation as a whole can prosper and grow.
It is true that much that we hear from people in Iran is critical of the government, but that is what you would expect. Only those critical will actually bother contacting Western media. No one will call CNN to have an interview about how much he agrees with the Mullahs. (and even if he does, I doubt he'll get much airtime)
The people have voted, and they have voted conservative. The reasons for that have been explored, now why do you insist on the belief that if people don't vote for your favourite, then something must be wrong?

The BBC ran a huge number of stories on this before and during the election; the word on the street was always the same. The people voted their conscience, what's hard to understand about that? The Conservative canidate ran a better election than his opponent, a foriegn power hostile to Iran spoke out against them, and national pride combined with good political sense to create a winning combination.

I think far too many people are arguing from a purely idealogoical stance; failing to take into consideration anything beyond the most basic of facts.

-snip-
Exactly.
But are you saying that the population's opinion of the Mullahs didn't play any role at all? I'm thinking it really didn't, like they just accept that they exist and worry about the things they can change.

Exactly.
But are you saying that the population's opinion of the Mullahs didn't play any role at all? I'm thinking it really didn't, like they just accept that they exist and worry about the things they can change.

Every segment I heard from Iran had interviews with people saying essentially the same thing, "Things have gotten a lot better..."

I think the last decade has been fairly good to Iran, but with the "axis of evil" designation, a lot of moderates in Iran felt betrayed; they felt their nation was making stead progress towards a free and fair society.

The Mullahs themselves are being seen as LESS hardline in practice these days, a lot of the harsher measures of control have been removed or reduced. People have taken this taste of freedom and are terrified of losing it. Thus they don't vote for more moderate people to get more freedom, but rather vote for the conservitives to show approval.

Its a little strange to think about, but people are probably desperately afraid of a backlash coming from the Mullahs. If the Mullahs feel they are losing control, they will likely crack down again. But, secure in their power, they are likely to offer more concessions.