RSS Feed
Laughter, the Best Islamic Medicine
Given the election-related turmoil in the Islamic Republic of Iran, can democracy ever take hold in a theocracy? How should the Obama administration respond to the disputed election and to Iran's ruling clerics?
Embedded in the question are some slippery slopes. A country may have a democratic theocracy or a theocratic democracy. The former system allows people to vote for candidates within certain religious constraints, while the latter would occur if people selected rulers who chose to govern according to the perceived wishes of a deity or holy book.
Recent surveys in the Islamic world have shown that the majority would like a democratic theocracy. Most admire aspects of democracy, such as freedom of speech, but want a model that incorporates shariah law, based on the Koran. Surprisingly, the United States is not much different. A scary 2006 Gallup Poll showed that 55% of Americans would like to see the Bible as a source of legislation, with 9% wanting it to be the only source of legislation.
We've had numerous attempts to turn our secular democracy into a theocratic democracy, including various "Christian Amendment" proposals. One introduced in Congress in 1941 stated explicitly that all laws of the United States should be subject to the "Word of God and his son, Jesus Christ." Fortunately, such amendments continue to fail. Many politicians may feel such an amendment unnecessary, including presidential candidate John McCain, who said, "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation," without citing as evidence any passage in our godless Constitution.
As for the turmoil in Iran, I confess to a certain thrill of hope watching demonstrators protest against a despotic and corrupt government, much like with the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. On the other hand, Iran will remain a theocracy whether reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi or incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is declared the winner. The right for Iranians to have every vote counted is not the same as the right for Iranians to choose the candidates who run. This is now decided by the Islamic Guardian Council.
An analogy closer to home would be a theocratic United States with the two presidential candidates chosen by Pastor Rick Warren (host, not decider, of a McCain/Obama 2008 candidates forum). My own democratic vote, were our government theocratic, would become less than satisfying. For an atheist like me to imagine living in any theocracy is tantamount to a Christian having to live in an Islamic theocracy.
As for how the Obama administration should respond to events in Iran, I offer the advice doctors give some patients diagnosed with prostate cancer: Watchful Waiting. Trying to remove perceived evil can do more harm than good. Foreign interventions, overt or clandestine, have often given despots an excuse to further restrict the rights of citizens.
Whether theocracy or democracy prevails in Iran or elsewhere, even more fundamental to me is respect for human rights. Such rights would include equality and due process under the law, protection of minority rights, freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. So far, Iran has badly failed this human rights test.
Though democratic countries may have their failings (remember, Hitler became chancellor of Germany through free elections), a democracy is more likely to grant human rights to its citizens than a theocracy. While a democratic society can easily accept differences of opinion, a theocracy cannot. Few citizens would argue that a Constitution is an infallible document, which is why there are mechanisms to change it. On the other hand, accepting as inerrant the writings of a book written thousands of years ago leaves no room for change.
A good rule of thumb for me is whether a country allows its citizens to poke fun at its leaders and its "sacred cows," including sacred religions. Freedom of speech must include freedom to laugh.
By
Herb Silverman
|
June 16, 2009; 5:37 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: A Whiff of Sulfur from the Rulers |
Next: Theocracy is Incompatible With Religious Liberty
Posted by: Louise10 | June 18, 2009 4:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think your columns would be a bit more credible if you didn't use a photo taken with a webcam like all of the 16-year-olds do on MySpace! You're a professor of mathematics and can't afford a regular camera?
Posted by: besamo805 | June 18, 2009 1:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Considering the options provided to the Iranian people by the ruling council, I somehow feel like we have a common problem.
It's important to point out that we get to complain about it. Some of us even make a good living complaining about it.
Posted by: MAAF | June 17, 2009 9:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes, I like my freedom to laugh at the politicians. Unfortunately, I more often find myself crying--about our own political leaders and those of countries like Iran.
Frank Hay
Posted by: fhay26 | June 17, 2009 4:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
It's scary to know that governments can and do monitor and block cyber communication. Iran and China are very bad examples of this, but even in the U.S., we must be constantly vigilant to catch our government spying on innocent citizens. Yesterday's story in the New York Times about excessive spying on Americans' email is just another reminder that "eternal vigilence is the price of liberty"--in every country, regardless of whether the government is theocratic or democratic.