fff

" Doctor Matin"
May I first and foremost invite you to read your own comments here and only then make a determination regarding the deviator.
while I do agree with you on selection rather than election, partial definition of democracy in Iran, I find one profoundly naive and disillusioned to relate US to any democracy, anywhere in the world including here in US too,. More specifically, by making statements, quoting "
Iraqi Shiites may be in the path to democracy thanks to US pressure, but calling system a democracy is an insult to readers intelligence," end of quote.
I tested the readers intelligence by asking how worse and different, meaning Iranian elections, that process is to the one in US where a candidate, no matter how qualified he or she might be, does not even have a chance riding on the back of a municipality dump truck let alone holding a public office or even a private one too if they are not pro-Israeli,. The current dyslexic at Sixteen hundred Pennsylvanis Ave is a valid testimony to this. Fred, Bos

My last few posts have not made it to this page!!! Anyway, I am trying again. We are deviating from the point the debater made. I think debating about different aspects and dimensions of democracy is a fruitful discussion and postglobal should open a discussion for it. The point of this panelist is recognizing Shiite Nation and we should not deviate from it.

" Doctor Amin Matin and the rest of critics of this article and the Writer, whom I hold in high regards "
How worse is the democracy in Iran or other Shiite nations described herein than the one in US where the first required qualification of any candidates to any public or even in most private sectors, such as corporates , are total commitments and loyalities to the State of Israel and ultra Chritianity , regardless of the issues on hand, ?
Fred, Bos

I concur with Zain above. Moreover, democracy, or behaving as democrats in a stakeholder nation is a matter of choice and behaviour by the local people. They must want to have a voice in their own affairs, even if it starts at the lower, local levels of debating and discussing issues.

As such, neither the Iranian brand nor the American version of "democracy" can be injected in any country in the Middle East (or any other place such as Russia, China,.....).

It is indeed a process and not a project. However, what is most significant that western support for tough, undemocratic rulers (sheikhs, emirs, rulers, presidents-for-life and alike) must be reduced to let local people decide for their own...for better or worse. They all live in a global village and will eventually learn to live with the rest of the world, all as they need to sell their oil to live!

Three cheers for Dr. Ettefagh for opening this debate out in the open!

The solution is already on the ground. Iraqi Kurdistan is indisputably the most democratic region in the middle east. Let's propagate this model to the rest of Iraq. What is obvious from facts on the ground is that Iraq as is could not be a sustainable state. It had issues since its inception. Iraq was kept together under brutal dictatorship which worked for Shiites and Sunnis, but Kurds never submitted to it. Dr Ettefagh suggests to accept Shiites supremacy and just hope that they behave democratically. Well, neither Suunis nor Kurds will submit to this suggestion and I do not believe Shiites will behave democratically.

Under these circumstances, Iraq should be divided into three entities of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. Kurds are already virtually independent and enjoy relative peace and security. Let's establish the same system for Sunnis and Shiites. Shiites are already on this path and are sending delegates to Kurdistan to understand their governing system. They are in favor of such partition. Sunnis issue with such partition is the loss of oil revenue. To address this legitimate concern, an oil revenue sharing system should be worked out to satisfy all parties. UN and US should take active role in this process and manage it.
Insurgent are not active in south and north as they do not have a support base in those areas. They fight the current government as they consider it a Shitte government. If their region establishes a Sunni government, their support base will vanish very quickly and as a result they could not sustain their activities. US should later withdraw to Kurdistan and Shitte regions to stabilize Kurdistan and prevent the new Shitte system into falling in Iranian hands until they become mature states.

So in the scheme of things, while the Shi'a may not be better at democracy than the Sunni, the Iranian regime has definitely had a better track record than any of the other Muslim countries in the region and while their system is flawed, it is nonetheless a system. What is sorely needed is engagement; engagement from the U.S. The best example of this is China, which has an even more authoritarian system than Iran, but is slowly taking steps that will eventually bring about changes that offer its citizens more voice in their nation. A regime that is isolated has nothing to lose, and arguably will become even more fundamentalist. It is time for the U.S to accept the flawed Iranian system for what it is and engage, engage, engage. Change will come from exposure to Western businesses, to Western ideals, from the people to people contact that is so necessary to remove the misconceptions on either side.

While I do not agree with the broad generalization of the Shi'a being more capable of democracy than the Sunni, the author does invite comment into the differences between the policies of the Iranian Govt. (the Shi'a if you will) and the regimes of countries like the U.A.E, Saudi Arabia and Egypt (sunni).
In the context of Iran becoming a regional power, both in conventional terms and potentially nuclear, one of the concerns being bandied about is how destabilizing such an Iran would be for its neighboring Arab states. It would indulge in an unfettered "export" of its "fundamentalist Islamic doctrine" and blah blah blah...
The fallacies in this argument, for those in the West who continue to fall for the hogwash routinely propagated in the media from timely "leaks" within the intelligence community, are quite glaring.
For one, other than Iraq and Lebanon, there is no other country in the Middle East with a significant Shi'a majority that Iran can export its ideology to (arguably the battle to stop this "export" to Lebanon and Iraq is already lost so they do not count). So what are these Arab states and the West so worried about? Perhaps it is the fact that the people in these countries might take a cue from Iran and overthrow the authoritarian regimes that have made their families billionaires from the wealth of their nations and tolerate dissent and freedom even less than the Iranians do. Well, a "selective" and "partial" democracy is still better than no democracy at all.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the U.A.E have long provided funding for the virulent Wahabi strain of Islam that is taught in plenty of Madrassas around the world. I am a Pakistani and I remember how this ideology, funded by the regimes that the West is so concerned will be destabilized by Iran, ripped apart Pakistani society with sectarian violence that continues to this day and provided the ideological basis for the Taliban. My mother was a Sunni and my father a Shi'a. I still remember, when I was a child, listening to some members of my mother's family talk about the Shi'a not being Muslims, indulging in orgies under the guise of religious congregations and secretly eating pork, and the list goes on. Not that different from the hateful lies the same fundamentalists now spread about Jews and Americans.

The writer "L" above, from Fairfax forgets that democracy is about SELF-DETERMINATION of people, and that means (as the author writes) for a majority of Shiite or Sunni to make their own determination of the way they govern themselves.

Where do "Americans" fit in a Middle Eastern country, I don`t know!

What he is trying to say is that "They are all b**tards because they are not our b**stards!". Hell of a way to look at democracy......Give it up dude!

All starts and beginnings are rough, untested and subject to evolution. The important thing is to get started some how and decide to go down a particular road. The rest requires patience.

Those readers that keep on making objections must show cause why their plan is better. This also means comparing apples with apples, not with bananas.

Mr. Amir Matin

Can you please outline your own plan instead of throwing doubt on other plans?
What else is there in the Middle East? And do you really think the Middle East is Sweden (even of 19th century)?

I agree that democracy is a process, but calling the current status of governing system in Iran a democracy is just utter non-sense. It is a dictatoirship clolored with democratic banners. What democracy if you should be selected to run for an election, you cannot speak your mind, you cannot disagree with the supreme leader, and votes are double counted all the time.

There are more than 2 million Sunnis living in Tehran and they are not allowed to build a mosque for themselves!!! Even small cities in North America have mosques.

Please don't mock with the term democracy as many nobles perished their lives to give this gift to humanity.

The author, a Farsi-speaker named Ali, is obviously a Shi'ite. It seems clear his real interest is not in abstract political principle, but in maximizing the narrow interests and concrete power of his own tribe. It's interesting that those in a local majority are always loudest about "majority rule". I wonder if he'd feel the same way about Saudi Arabia, for instance, where Shi'ites are a distinct minority. Similarly, Protestants in Northern Ireland are very insistent on "democracy", but if and when Catholics outnumber them, it's likely we'll hear a different tune.

We Americans need to be wary of self-interested ethnic/religious partisans who mask their petty and often brutal squabbles with the language of our noble political ideals.

Iran with its pre-approved and still differentiated lists are much more of a democrasy than Egypt, Saudi or Tunnis. Democrasy is not a constructed house that one can enter, it is a state of affairs that only can be achieved over time with patience. Iran is not the perfect democrasy, but it is not the absolute dictatorship many think of. USA must talk to Iran, Iran is the key to this lock, there is no other solution

When someone labels himself intellectual and talks about dream of a Shiite Nation, it becomes clear what would be the future of Sunni minorities and Kurds under their majority vote. People can live under a democratic system if they have a general agreement of principles. Separation of religion and state is the first principle to agree upon in a multi-religion country in order to be able to establish a workable democracy. It is very obvious that Shiites have a different dream that brings Iraq back to the dark period of europe and Kurds cannot live under such banners leaving them no choice but saying farewell to the voluntary union.

To answer the question about oil and US policies, US is after controlling the oil supply and not the oil itself. Controlling oil supply gives US a strategic advantage in the new global order. Dictators in middle-east understand this and play it well with US. They turn their people against US to make themselves more valuable to US interests. It is time for people in middle-east to understand this and leverage it in their advantage. They need to sell the oil anyway, why not making a strong ally along the way.

The rough part of democracy and votes is that some times we all have to live with it even though we may not like the outcome....ask George Bush after the last election in November!

Secondly, USA must realise that the Middle East is a lot more mature than pre-WW II era. Don't worry about oil supplies....they want to sell as much as we want to buy.

Those who deny the author's keen observation are simply in denial of the fact that Americans have a skewed vision of the Middle East and do not see the reality. The democratic behaviour of Shiites has been indisputable.
Wasn't this whole war started on the basic premise that it will spread democracy, ballot boxes and the vote of the people?
What happened? and why are we now talking about carving up a country instead of going back to the fundamental point that started a very serious problem... A WAR !!!!

Shiite Nation!!! This dream of Iran to set up a Shiite empire sounds like a bizzare joke to me. Next we should talk about Catholic nation and Orthodox nation. Are we going back to the 17th century?

Carve out an independent Kurdistan from Iraq and incorporate the rest of Iraq (Arabic) into Hashemite Jordan who ruled Iraq when it was born. I'm sure the Shiites in Iraq will love to have
a British-Hashemite "al-Sayed" as their new king. Tony Blair will love it too.

I don't comment on the rest of farce that Mr Ettefagh has written here. He is acting as the spokeman of the Mullas on Postglobal.

Democracy is indeed a process. Those that want to dismiss it must first realise that it all has to start from somewhere......

Exactly where does the American money go on the Iraq war effort, at the rate of $1.25 billion a week?

To Tom Springer

America has thrown money at Iraq, it has not built any thing that can be identified or noted. There is a big difference between throwing money at a problem and solving it!

Which democracy started out as being perfect? Moreover, which democratic system was injected, or forced upon the occupied from the back of a tank?

The comment from Tom Springer above fails to note that Americans first bombed Iraq and the rebuilding efforts of no bomber can be accepted as genuine. America has tried to rebuild (or build) but it has not been successful. It has no hospital, school, road, bridge....even a hotel or supermarket to show for it in Iraq.

In fact, every topic or idea that Americans floated since beginning of the war are proven wrong...from "Germany of the Middle East" to be greeted as libertors ....to being welcomed and launching a roll-out of democracy in the rest of the region! Couldn't recall any Saudi or Kuwaiti elections after the invasion of Iraq.... Americans went to war to protect the current corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Sami,

These were not great people due to their tyranny, some became great due to their understanding that you do not destroy the vanquished. By the way, should I cut your tongue out because I do not like what you are saying. Whose rights do you wish to trample.
As to India's partition ask the how many actually died with the partition (lets say in the millions). There was more hatred after the partition. The only winners were the muslim conquistadors who wen ton a pogram binge.

I have no idea which Muslim sect is best suited to operate in a democracy. But I do know that Dr. Ettefagh's point about the U.S. launching a massive reconstruction effort to "replace military operations with Peace Corps operations" is incredibly naive. What does he think we've been trying to do for the last three years? Billions of dollars worth of building projects have been shelved due to the horrendous security situation. One of the first things the insurgents did was destroy the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Any Western aid or construction worker who announces himself as such risks being kidnapped and beheaded on a website video. If Dr. Ettefagh believes it's possible to work in such a environment, than let him volunteer.

Iran is not a democracy. There is simply no debating that point. The government can not pass laws that the mullahs dont like. Remember before every time the elected government would try to pass liberal laws the unelected Guardian counsel would annul them. The elected government has no real power to reform. The will of a majority of Iranians simply wont be followed because Iranian is a theocratic state not a democratic one.

in the 2004 elections in the USA, there were 3 candidates (Bush, Kerry, Ralph Nader) but in the TV debates only 2 were present. If 2 out of 3 candidates have access to mainstream media how can an election be fair ?

So how is that different from the "official" candidates in Iran ?

By the way, "democracy" is not about voting but "power to the people". It was practiced in Athens 2500 years ago. What some people call democracy today is actually "parliamentary representative democracy" and by construction it's a perversion of democracy. To my knowledge only Switzerland practices real democracy, and I'm not sure their model can be adopted everywhere.

It is always amazing how conviniently [if it suits the USA's policy] american citizens can deny the ONE MAN ONE VOTE rule as the basis of democracy as per the Supreme Court of USA.

the Shiites represent 40+% of Lebanon's population yet are allowed only 20% of the power in Parliament and Cabinet. The USA likes the power distribution present in Lebanon which is based on the last census on or about 1930. It is so much more fun to have a near client state than democratic elections. Just observe the USA latest _effort_ at democracy in Nicaragua: if you do not vote my [USA] way yopu will have economic penalties forced on you by our government. [Do recall that the USA still did not pay the penalty decreed by the World Court due to Nicaragua for its last bloody interference.

No country with majority Muslim population can accept democracy. They want to follow sharia, Mohammad and koran. Islam and democracy can't coexist. One or the other has to yield and Islam will win.

To J. Barker

The Turkish Republic is only 83 years old while Iran just celebrated the 100th year of its constitutional regime when first elections were held.

In more modern times, the Iranian system changed in 1979 and its first vote (on change of system to a republic) was in 1980. Turkey suffered a coup in 1980 and the latest round of "modern" election was held in 1982. Both countries have a similar system of single chambre parliament and a hawkish "supervisory board" of the military in Turkey and the clergy in Iran.

This all goes back to 1981 and the Algiers Declaration and a promise of America not to intervene in Iranian affairs. In fact, America has done just that, with Saddam against Iran, sanctions, etc. and now the nukes.

Iran has started a process of democracy and the process is not even one generation old. It takes time and with all of its problems it must be used as a model. Iraqis have never experienced democracy and it does not matter if we will end up with one Iraq or three Iraqs....the process must start and all starts are not perfect. And it will not be a matter to adhere to American whims and their election cycles.

Democracy is evolving. It is soon going to pass into the hands of the very rich. This is the new Aristocracy.

Holding fictitious elections does not mean democracy is being exercised. Don't forget that Saddam Hussein got almost 100% of the votes in the presidential elections right before the US attach in 2003.

What Iran holds should be called "selection" not "election". All candidates are screened and should strictly follow the line of thinking of the ruling authorities to be authorized to run for an election!!! Still, once the votes are casted, they are counted and double counted until the right outcome emerges!!!

My point in my previous post was that a theocratic system by definition can not be democratic.

You should never give something to someone that they cannot manage. The Shiites in Iraq were given Iraq without fighting for it. The Shiites showed an intellectual shrewdness that the west did not comprehend but intellectual shrewdness may not be enough to maintain a government.
The Sunnis feel that the government of Iraq was stolen from them by the west and they are furious. The Shiites allied with the west, the Sunnis have allied with those that do not trust the west.
The deadly fight that we are witnessing in Iraq will be resolved when the faction that desires control of Iraq the most prevails.
Whether Iran which is Shiite and Syria, Egypt etc remain out of the fracas is unknown. The world can only watch and wait and accept the outcome.

Why is Turkey never icluded it is not only the oldest democrazy in the region it is also the real regional power

What would happen if Iraq is partitioned? Do you think the Sunnis and the Shias are going to leave each other alone? Do they need a Berlin Wall? There is no easy answer. Iraq needs to realize that separation would give each group time to cool off. USA can't do the partitioning on its own. The UN needs to step in and help out. I didn't like Saddam but my government made a mistake by removing him. What started out as protection from WMD (which was a lie) became nation building. Just today 150 people were taken from the Baghdad Institute. No one stopped the kidnappers. Someone has to know who is doing these kidnappings and put a stop to it. If they can't I don't know what to say.

Inspite of what other countries think of the USA the citizens do not want this blood bath to go on. If we save ourselves then hundreds of Iraqis will die in the vacuum created by our leaving.

Iran and North Korea don't know what it is like to wake up everyday wondering whether the atom bomb is going to be dropped. "The enemy" doesn't know the futility of this threat. After all if an A bomb goes off anywhere it kills the whole world not just their opponent.

Let us stop all this argument about democracy, voting rights, women's rights,etc., etc. Just show me any regime based on theocracy in the history of mankind that has ever been successful and I'll eat all their "turbans!"
Kam-Korder

If there were real democracy in Iran, Iraq would not be the only country about to be partitioned. The real pity is that even progressive Iranians appear to believe the delusion that having nuclear weapons will make Iran "important." All it will make them is a target. In fifty years when the oil runs out they will realize they have wasted their windfall on reckless political and military adventures and have nothing to replace it with. It would take fifty years to join the modern world and build a prosperous, competitive country. Apparently, the present "democratic" government thinks there is a better way. Like all dictators, they are far more concerned with their own survival and grandiose self-importance than with the future of their country.

To Davoud in UK

Have you ever voted for any Iranian election? You live in a democractic country and voters are stakeholders in their own society!

As an Iranian I have to say this argument is specious and in some ways rather offensive. Shi'a and Sunni communities are not intrinsically more or less democratic than each other - begging such a distinction only creates discord. This seems only a subtle wrinkle on the recent Iranian nationalist racism that has been culturally dominant in Iran for much of the last century.

Warts and all, Iran has had more elections than any other Arab/Muslim nation in the region (except Turkey and its 59 cabinets during its life of 83 years). With 9 presidential elections, and 7 parliamentary election (with restrictions, cheating, ballot rigging, .....blah blah blah....) it has 16 more elections on the books than Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Gulf countries, etc.....let alone municipal elections.

Democracy is a process, not a project!

Shiism and democracy is like fire and ice. They do not coexist. That is exactly why even illusion of democracy does not exist in Iran. By the definition of Shiite faith, you cannot have independent opinion and should strictly follow your "walie faghih" who has full authority and ownership upon those who submit to this faith. Shiites turned the democratic and functional Sunni faith and governing system to a royal and non-functional faith and governing system.
Iraqi Shiites may be in the path to democracy thanks to US pressure, but calling the Iranian system a democracy is an insult to readers intelligence.

These words are no different than the words of a typical Mullah delivering a speech in a small Iranian village mosque.

Contrary to writer's point of view, Sunnites in Lebanon act in a democratic way
but Shiites(Hezbollah)wants to impose its ideas through demonstartions.Iranian government has been one of the worst dictatorship in region. Even Iranian State take decision what you should wear in many cases.Just look at the number of mass executions of political prisoners and banned journals.I think writer MISINFORM people. Concerning the Shiite nation in Iraq:How he defines the concept of nation? Does writer accept SUNIITE NATION in Iran if Kurds or other Suniite minorities ask for that?I have really doubt about it. Unfortunately such a writing, you only find in ultra conservative journals in Tehran and of course here.

Sami: Has interesting points such as Ashoka...etc,. Those were the days when we had horses and infantryman...I think as a world we have grown....radically!
Yes democracy is only a few hundred years old, but it is not imperialism. Even Newt Gingrich found that out! Iran needs to establish a system, even the likes of Newt Gigrich can penetrate in the long run! What you have today is not. About this article, I am sure the Iranians would like it to be done a certain way in Iraq, and of course Sunni's would't like it. Perhaps partioning Iraq along ethnic lines could save some lives! You see they did it in India in 1947. For what it is worth they still exist!!

Iran is a great and glorious nation. It is destined for greater role in the world.
Democracy as we know it only is a few hundred years old (and God knows it is not perfect).
So cut this crap. The only thing that matters is military and economic prowess which is based on cultural qualities of a nation.
Ashoka the Great,Alexander the Great,Omar the Great,The Great Ghengis Khan,The Mighty Tamerlane (just to name a few)did not rise from Democratic societies.

It is unfortunate that people actually believe the things this author does.

The Shia are no better at democracy than are the Sunni. There is no evidence of that.

Iran is hardly a case-in-point. Anyone watching the political struggle in Lebanon now can guesstimate that the Shia are playing games, rather than face up to not having their own little reckless, dangerous, and wanton "Hizbollah nation" on the South border.

The withdrawal plan from Iraq ought to be fashioned to give Iraq its own trajectory, rather than repeat the mistakes of the Iranian model, whose judicial tyranny has hobbled that country's development and threatens it still. What's more, it might keep them from falling prey to Iran's almost institutionalized hatred of the jews.

Any investment program with public funds ought to be conditioned on the sanctity of the ballot box. Even with the majority they have, the Shia wil be tempted to abuse it.

The Shiites in Iraq have decided to participate in the government because they know they can form a majority. They quite rightly see democracy as working in their interests.

The Sunnis in Iraq have tended to abstain from the political process because they know they're outnumbered. Again, they quite rightly see democracy as working against them.

None of this has anything to do with religious differences. Both groups are behaving rationally, given the religious demographics of Iraq.

The problem I have with a Shiite Nation, or a Jewish Nation, or any ______ Nation you care to name is that I think they are by nature Tyranical.

Any nation of For Us not Them is going to be repressive of Them.

I think writer has not a clear idea about the concept of democray or nation.He calls Iranian one of examples of regional democracy.In a full controled presidential election only a few pro establishment candidates showed up and even a couple of them complained that Revolutionary guards and Ahmadinejad cheated.Can Iranian people say no to republic Islamic?no. Can they have their own political groups?no Syndicates?no and u call it democracy...I know living in Iran and doing business with Iran needs compromises but what about washington post...

Referring to Iran as a democracy while ignoring the fact that the Iranian people can only choose from the candidates approved by the ruling mullahs is disingenous at best. It's a charade, at worst.

Interesting that the author also overlooks Israel among his list of democracies. Funny, seems they've had one going longer than anyone else in the region, and unlike the Arab or Iranian examples, the people are actually free to choose the candidates of their own liking.