Did Iran have a legitimate election, your opinion.

[ohmyliver]

this is (yet) another interesting link

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mebane_moderately_strong_suppo.php
Walter Mebane, the University of Michigan political science and statistics professor who specializes in statistical tools "for detecting anomalies and diagnosing fraud in election results," has updated his assessment of the official vote return statistics for the Iran elections. Mebane now says he sees "moderately strong support for a diagnosis that the 2009 election was afflicted by significant fraud."

you can get the raw data that he's used from his site, linked to by that article.

It's an irony that the poll in this thread is starting to match the original iranian election results

 

[poster342002]

Iran doesn't have a totalitarian regime. Stop trying to pretend it has or I shall think you've taken a leaf out of the Bush/Neocon commentators:

So when do the people get to vote for the Supreme Leader (the real power in Iran - Ahmadinijad is merely his sock-puppet), then?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

surely it is an authoritarian regime rather than a totalitarian one.
And theocracies aren't, "by definition, totalitarian".
After all, the Dalai lama's Tibet was a theocracy, but that wasn't totalitarian in any way whatsoever. ditto, the Abbasid Caliphate.

How do you define totalitarian? My definition – there is one system and one way of doing things, and you have NO say over it – you are not even allowed to question it. That's what a theocracy is – the laws are handed down from God. Iran has Islamic laws. Its laws are not decided (in theory at least) by all for all, or at least by elected representatives for all. Its laws are decided by the official arbiters of the faith.

And Tibet pre-Chinese occupation was a totalitarian state too to the extent that there was no choice but to follow the divine leader. Tibet may or may not have been a nice place to live, but it wasn't in any sense free. Bhutan is a similar place today.


ETA: The above is a rather abstract definition. A simple practical way to make the distinction would be to look at, for instance, worker organisation.

An authoritarian regime will persecute trade unionists in various ways, limiting the right to strike, etc. Dissenters may find themselves facing a legal fight to resist interference from an authoritarian state.

A totalitarian regime rounds up trade unionists and imprisons or executes them, and makes it quite clear that if anyone tries to organise in the future, this will be their fate. In a totalitarian regime, dissenters do not remain free. And there is no legal recourse for them either – it is the legal authorities that have taken their freedom, not just the government of the day.

Iran is the latter. So is Burma. Cuba is too.
The UK has gone a certain distance down the former path. Venezuela is doing the same.

It seems relatively clear cut to me.

 

[butchersapron]

There have been 3 binding referendums in Iran since the revolution and 18 sets of elections - that doesn't happen in totalitarian states. I don't think classical totalitarian theory fits here. Monopoly over communications, military and organizations by one single party with one single leader etc - the regime is formed of various multiple centres of power, that tend to act as unintentional checks and balances on each other - all within the same overall system of course.

To answer poster342002's question above, the supreme leader is elected by the the Asembly of experts, which is elected by popular vote every 8 years - US president also elected by electoral college.

 

[poster342002]

To answer poster342002's question above, the supreme leader is elected by the the Asembly of experts, which is elected by popular vote every 8 years - US president also elected by electoral college.

Are elections to the Assembly of Experts open to any and all candidates - or do they too have to be pre-approved by the regime's mates?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There have been 3 binding referendums in Iran since the revolution and 18 sets of elections - that doesn't happen in totalitarian states. I don't think classical totalitarian theory fits here. Monopoly over communications, military and organizations by one single party with one single leader etc - the regime is formed of various multiple centres of power, that tend to act as unintentional checks and balances on each other - all within the same overall system of course.

I probably don't know enough about the system to comment in detail. What were the referendums about? Is it thought that they were fair votes?

Despite its name, totalitarian for me can have different levels. At one extreme would be North Korea. At another would be somewhere like Cuba, which is most certainly totalitarian, but has a somewhat softer way of dealing with dissent, and where there is room for debate within certain boundaries.

The line at which I would call Iran totalitarian would be similar to the one I'd draw for Cuba. In both cases, there may be room for debate about where their respective revolutions should go, but it is absolutely not allowed to question the wisdom of the revolution itself.

 

[poster342002]

There have been 3 binding referendums in Iran since the revolution and 18 sets of elections - that doesn't happen in totalitarian states.

That's not quite the case. Loads of totalitarian regimes hold referendums and elections that rubber-stamp what the regime wants anyway and provide a vaneer of democracy.

 

[butchersapron]

That's not quite the case. Loads of totalitarian regimes hold referendums and elections that rubber-stamp what the regime wants anyway and provide a vaneer of democracy.

Yes, lots of other regimes do/did - that doesn't affect Iran. And it is exactly the case.

 

[poster342002]

Yes, lots of other regimes do/did - that doesn't affect Iran. And it is exactly the case.

So what are you trying to say? That Iran's regime doesn't hold referendums and elections that rubber-stamp what the regime wants?

 

[butchersapron]

I probably don't know enough about the system to comment in detail. What were the referendums about? Is it thought that they were fair votes?

Despite its name, totalitarian for me can have different levels. At one extreme would be North Korea. At another would be somewhere like Cuba, which is most certainly totalitarian, but has a somewhat softer way of dealing with dissent, and where there is room for debate within certain boundaries.

The line at which I would call Iran totalitarian would be similar to the one I'd draw for Cuba. In both cases, there may be room for debate about where their respective revolutions should go, but it is absolutely not allowed to question the wisdom of the revolution itself.

There was a referendum on whether Iran was to be an Islamic Republic or not, one on whether to adopt the constitution presented by a popularly elecetd constiuent assembly and one on endorsing an amdended version in the late 80s. There have been 8 presidential elections, 5 parliamentary, four for the Assembly of Experts electoral college - and loads of local council and Mayoral ones - with a wide range of opinions presented, from those arguing for complete equal rights for women, political freedom to hard line taliban shit. That simply doesn't happen in classcial totalitarian states (not that i'm much enamoured of the concept at all).

I agree that questioning of the broader path is not allowed (it is often tolererated though), but that's not totalitarianism properly understood. It ain't nice but it ain't totalitarianism.

 

[butchersapron]

So what are you trying to say? That Iran's regime doesn't hold referendums and elections that rubber-stamp what the regime wants?

I'm saying that your comparison with other regimes elections and referendums is miles off.

 

[poster342002]

There was a referendum on whether Iran was to be an Islamic Republic or not,

Was this after they'd slaughtered anyone who might opose such a measure?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There was a referendum on whether Iran was to be an Islamic Republic or not, one on whether to adopt the constitution presented by a popularly elecetd constiuent assembly and one on endorsing an amdended version in the late 80s. There have been 8 presidential elections, 5 parliamentary, four for the Assembly of Experts electoral college - and loads of local council and Mayoral ones - with a wide range of opinions presented, from those arguing for complete equal rights for women, political freedom to hard line taliban shit. That simply doesn't happen in classcial totalitarian states (not that i'm much enamoured of the concept at all).

I agree that questioning of the broader path is not allowed (it is often tolererated though), but that's not totalitarianism properly understood. It ain't nice but it ain't totalitarianism.

Ok. I accept that it is not fully totalitarianism. But I still see aspects of it – do the families of those murdered by the state have any legal recourse within Iran? Is there a system separate from the government that can be used to hold the government to account? I see the lack of such a mechanism to be a key feature of totalitarianism – government and the law as one and the same entity.

 

[butchersapron]

Was this after they'd slaughtered anyone who might opose such a measure?

Before who did? Not sure that you're aware of the balance of forces that existed in 1979 nor the chronology of the revolution. The hard liners were not at all sure of coming out on top at that point, they weren't even the dominant faction.

 

[poster342002]

Before who did? Not sure that you're aware of the balance of forces that existed in 1979 nor the chronology of the revolution. The hard liners were not at all sure of coming out on top at that point, they weren't even the dominant faction.

Well at some stage they assumed total power and massacred the leftists (the Tudeh party, for example).

I really can't understand any desire (if that's what it is) to soft-soap this hideously reactionary, ultra rightwing, anti-worker, vicious and bloody dictatorship of a regime.

 

[butchersapron]

Ok. I accept that it is not fully totalitarianism. But I still see aspects of it – do the families of those murdered by the state have any legal recourse within Iran? Is there a system separate from the government that can be used to hold the government to account? I see the lack of such a mechanism to be a key feature of totalitarianism – government and the law as one and the same entity.

Well, there are various human rights organisations - and the judiciary and other organisations often bring the state or elements of it to account. The mistake is to imagine the govt as one single body rather than a battleground of at least 5 different forces - the Leader, The Assembly of experts, the judiciary and parliment -on top of that the Basij,the council of guardians, the expediency council all have significant autonomy as well. of course, all have one fundamental aim - to protect their position and power.

 

[butchersapron]

Well at some stage they assumed total power and massacred the leftists (the Tudeh party, for example).

I really can't understand any desire (if that's what it is) to soft-soap this hideously reactionary, ultra rightwing, anti-worker, vicious and bloody dictatorship of a regime.

You're miles off if you're accusing me of soft-soaping this regime. Getting an accurate picture is pretty bloody essential to working out what's going on.

edit: It's marvelous, i've now been called a neo-con bush lover, an ethno-nationalist and of being soft on the regime.

 

[poster342002]

You're miles off if you're accusing me of soft-soaping this regime.

My apologies.

 

[butchersapron]

No worries.

 

[Idris2002]

edit: It's marvelous, i've now been called a neo-con bush lover, an ethno-nationalist and of being soft on the regime.

butchersapron: man of a thousand faces.

 

[poster342002]

edit: It's marvelous, i've now been called a neo-con bush lover, an ethno-nationalist and of being soft on the regime.

Oh, I've been called things like that and worse on here from time to time. I simply stopped giving too much of a toss about it long ago!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's marvelous, i've now been called a neo-con bush lover, an ethno-nationalist and of being soft on the regime.

Interesting points btw. I don't know enough about Iran.

 

[butchersapron]

Fisk, who a number of people have been hanging their view that A. won the election fairly on, now seems to be coming out in support of the idea that he actually didn't, judging by todays report at least in which he says:

Had Khamenei chosen a middle ground, some small compromises towards the countless millions – for in the election, it appears, they were indeed uncounted – who oppose Ahmadinejad, then he might have remained a neutral father-figure.

and goes onto say

In the aftermath of the Ahmadinejad "success" at the polls

he also appears to be in agreement with my romanian miners scenario that was so mercilessly mocked a few days ago:

The reality is that many of these street thugs have been brought in from Baluch areas and Zobal province, close to the Afghan border. Even more are Iranian Azeris. Their accents sound as strange to Tehranis as would a Belfast accent to a Cornishman hearing it for the first time.