The problem in Iran is that much of the public doesn't believe the authorities' count of the votes. They believe their opposition candidates won. They believe their grassroots political movement has ousted fundamentalist, jingoistic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, replacing him with a president who offers more personal freedom and economic opportunity. The photos of the post-election opposition protests are incredible and frighteningly reminiscent of the 1979 Iranian rallies that ousted the Shah and installed the ruling theocracy.
There is a disconnect, however, between the opposition's righteous protests and reality. Ahmadinejad, despite all his confrontational anti-Western rhetoric and Holocaust denials, is not the true ruler of Iran. He is, essentially, a puppet of the true rulers, the Shi'ite clerics who actually run things in this theocratic society, where every law and every policy must be approved by a council of theologians and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Imagine a world where everything President Obama did and every law Congress passed had to be reviewed by Pat Robertson.
The Guardian Council has agreed to recount a limited number of ballots, but that does not satisfy presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. The opposition is certain that legitimate ballots have already been destroyed.
Even if Ahmadinejad is ousted, which seems unlikely, real change in Iran won't come until the absolute power of the ayatollah and Guardian Council is broken. The possibility of that happening any time soon is nil. The best Western interests can hope for is a moderation of the ruling clerics' hard line toward international opinion and Western culture. The people on the street, many of whom are younger than the 30-year-old Islamic Revolution, care more about economic opportunity and freedom than they do about nuclear weapons. But the ruling clerics are going to continue to count the votes, and that's where the power lies, as any old county sheriff will tell you.
Actually it's slightly reminiscent of the American elections of 2000 -- which of course was decided by the Republican majority on the Supreme Court. Not by the people who voted. Which (in a way) did result in a world where everything anyone did had to be reviewed first by (a) Pat Robertson.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that the "Republican majority on the Supreme Court ... decided" the 2000 election is a slander, popular though it may be. Jeffrey Toobin, no fan of the Republican justices, makes clear in his book "The Nine" that the justices struggled with this issue and hoped to avoid being forced into a ruling. The Florida secretary of state, who is designated by the state constitution to declare a winner in the election, declared Bush the victor. That decision was affirmed by the Florida legislature, which the U.S. Constitution tasks with regulating each state's electors. Vice President Gore appealed to state courts and won a partial victory in the state Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Dec. 12, 2000, (five weeks after the election) involved six opinions. Four justices (Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor and Kennedy) agreed that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling was improper and in some ways violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection guarantees. Rhenquist concurred separately. The Florida court had ordered a partial recount with no guidance as to which ballots would be considered valid. Two of the dissenting justices, Stevens and Breyer, agreed with the majority that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling presented constitutional problems. Their disagreement with the majority involved the remedy for these problems. So on the issue of whether the Florida Supreme Court was right to order a continuing recount, the justices ruled 7-2 against Gore. To assert that the 2000 U.S. presidential election was no more honest or valid than last Friday's Iranian election defames the entire U.S. constitutional system. You may read all of the opinions at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
ReplyDelete...liberals do not want to know the truth. Do not count on Lady to read anything....other than the huffington post.
ReplyDeleteYou must be getting desperate for comments because... That comment prior to this one, does not address your post-- at all.
ReplyDeleteLet me address you-- not the person hell bent on addressing "Lady" or whomever with non sequitors.
The Supreme Court did indeed decided the 2000 election. Bush was not elected. He was technically selected.
Period.
....anon2 does not want to know the truth either. You see all liberals are the same. Only think it is the truth when decisions are made in their favor. Sad, non sequitors. This country will fall apart in 10 years if o and his disciples keep this garbage up.
ReplyDelete