"Isn't the conflict in Iran essentially between supporters of a theocracy and those who aspire to having a democracy?" That is the question that was put to me earlier today by a reporter from National Public Radio. But it seems to simplistic a way to understand the turmoil in Iran for any number of reasons, not least of which is the constant oversimplification in our understanding of the two. At the end of the day, is one always better than the other? Why?
It's easy to point out the myriad ways in which theocracies fail and even easier to offer platitudes about the inherent goodness of democracy, especially as current events unfold in Iran. But like it or not, all such observations miss the obvious truth. There have been many theocratic governments that accomplished much good for the governed and advanced the quality of life for all under their control, regardless of faith. And more than a few despots and mass murderers have risen to power on the strength of a popular election.
The question is not which system is best; it's which values we hold most dear. Of course that's a difficult question for which to assume responsibility, and the track record of those who failed to appreciate that fact has not been so good. That is why one of the values worthy of building in to any political system is the humility to acknowledge that very fact. But one could imagine theocracies whose understanding of God did just that, and just as easily, we can recall populist movements arrogantly practicing what Tocqueville called tyranny of the majority.
Political systems, whether theocratic or democratic, are simply vehicles for the realization of the values we cherish. The real issue is what values do we think are most worthy of animating our political systems?
For some the answer to that question is found in a holy book. For others it is found in the collective experience of humankind. But it is always a choice that each of us makes and the political systems for which we advocate reflect those choices.
Would any of us be comfortable with a democratically elected government which set about murdering a particular minority within their nation? Of course not. Why? Because the value of human life and the obligation to protect those with less power and influence by virtue of their minority status, are values that many of us hold dear.
Would we truly object to a government taking its cues from a particular religion which taught that all people should be governed equally and that the rights of all people had to be protected fully without respect to their religion? I hope not. But not because theocracy is good, but because we are committed to the fullest possible inclusion of the governed and offering equal rule under the law for all citizens.
To be sure, democracy is based upon the value of people participating in the decision-making processes of government, and that is one more value worthy of celebration. But not because democracy is inherently good, or even necessarily better than theocracy. It's because over time, systems which have included the voice of the governed as fully as possible, and create regular opportunities to revisit past decisions through the ballot box, have preserved human dignity more effectively than any other system.
The truth is that for me, and millions of other people, that is also a faith-based principle. Does that make me a theocrat? I don't think so, but it really doesn't matter. Why? Because people, not systems, are ultimately what are important. Remaining cognizant of that, is what separates healthy faith, be it religious or political, from idolatry.
Those systems which respect and value people best are themselves best. Of course, proponents of both systems argue that is what they each do. In truth, there are ways in which theocracies do that better and there are many more in which democracies do so. But if either sits back and assumes that theirs is automatically the way to go, then we are all in trouble - a true clash of civilizations. If however, each approach to government made a point of learning from the other, the weaknesses of each could be more effectively addressed and the strengths of each more effectively built upon.
It's about serving people, not propping up a particular system for its own sake. That's the most important thing to remember when it comes to any system of government.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
Having been in transit during the start of the Iranian election protests, I've taken a little time to come up to speed on the issue. Scanning English-language (UK) papers in airports, I will say that my initial reaction to the euphoria I saw breaking out all over the West -- especially the US? -- to the obtusely labeled "green" revolution was, Why should we be so happy about Mousavi? When I learned that Mousavi was Mullah Rafsanjani's boy, that A-jad was Mullah Khameini's boy, my wonder deepened, as in: What's the diff? When I read John Bolton's piece at Politico noting that nobody runs for president in Iran without the express approval of the mullahs, my gut reaction was bolstered by some real facts. Here is Bolton's cheat sheet rundown:
First, only candidates screened and approved by the mullahs in the Guardian Council could run — in this case, exactly four presidential candidates out of nearly 500 who applied. Second, Iran’s highest official is not the president but, rather, the supreme leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Third, Iran’s election officials are not independent but rigorously controlled by the supreme leader. Fourth, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and other security forces stand ready, willing and able to preserve public safety if the “wrong” candidate appeared to win or protestd in defeat.
And fifth, whoever won wasn’t going to change Iran’s 20-year campaign to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons or its role as the central banker for international terrorism. The supreme leader and the IRGC control Iran’s foreign and national security policies, under both “reformist” presidents like Seyed Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) and incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad alike.
Credulous foreign reporters missed all of this....
You can say that again.
When Bolton further noted that Mousavi had been the Ayatollah Khomeini's prime minister that was more than enough for me. Still, there was more. As Bolton put it to Fox's Greta van Susteren:
Well, he [Mousavi] was the Ayatollah Khomeini's prime minister. I mean, let's get started there. So that qualifies him. He is the person who negotiated with A.Q. Khan to set up the beginnings of the Islamic revolution's nuclear weapons program. He's fully committed to Iranian terrorism, a lot of it began under his administration. So whatever changes there might be inside Iran, make no mistake, the foreign policy would remain essentially the same.
So what is the difference between A-jad and Mousavi? Andrew Bostom, who at his blog has been working through the all-important backstory and historical context wholly lost in this media spectacular, sent me this revealing translation, via MEMRI, of a recent debate between the two "candidates" that perfectly conveys the tweedledumness-tweedledeeness that is camouflaged by the media's emotional reaction to the drama of the street.Here's one point of "conflict" regarding the 2007 Iranian seizure of 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters: Does Mousavi disagree with this hostile act? No! Here is part of what he said:
"With regard to the release of the British sailors - these sailors invaded our territorial waters, and our forces arrived on the scene and detained them, which made us proud. This action was worthy of support. According to what I've just said, we declared, at first, that they should be executed for invading our territory. Thus we created a major international crisis. But later, we decided to dress them up in suits, and our own president - who, in terms of status and responsibility, represents the entire people, not himself - went to bid them farewell, sending them off on their way, in a ceremony the likes of which are held only for heads of state.
"This was the dreadful situation in which we found ourselves with England. Was this an act that maintained the honor of our country? I think not.
In other words, had Mousavi had been in charge, the Brits would quite likely have been a) further humiliated b) still in captivity or c) perhaps executed to better maintain "the honor" of Iran. Which doesn't sound too "moderate." Meanwhile, Mousavi also explains in this same debate that when it comes to A-jad's endless acts of Holocaust denial, Mousavi's beef is not that A-jad engages in ahistorical ravings, but that it is bad PR for Iran. So much for our favorite "reformer." And if all that's not enough, the man is a founder of Hezbollah (and his wife is on film stomping on an American flag...).
Isn't it time for the media to take a breath and rethink this one?
While watching what's unfolding in Iran, I'm struck by the way in which 'western' society has struggled with similar issues over the past thousand years. The divine right of the kings of Europe, endless wars between princes over religion (but really about politics), the 'city on the hill' of the Puritans that eventually became just as despotic as the English regime they fled! But somehow North America and Western Europe have eventually secularized. Not after bloodshed, genocide, and atrocities, however.
Watching the ayatollah deliver his Friday sermon really scared me. In him I see not faith but hatred, directed towards malicious caricatures of the West and Israel, and not real people or real situations. The ayatollah demonstrates that the use of religion as a cover for hatred is never dead, and we all must be vigilant.
I pray for the protesters every day. But I hope they know that creating a stable, just, and tolerant society won't happen with two weeks of protesting. It may take decades, even centuries, for a society to go from theocratic hatred to a democracy where the rule of law provides some measure of protection for all its citizens.
If a revolution occurs in Iran, it will not be about making one man president, but about ripping down the entire structure. The images that will be circulating, taken by the people, circulated about, will stir simmering anger into a frenzy. It may end peacefully before reaching that point, but if doesn't, it will be a primal bloodbath as anger which was previously held in check by fear incites the people into a frentic rage. I expect to see the oppressors killed in ways that will make everybody's guts turn. That is what happens when repressed anger overcomes fear in crowds.
An architect of the Islamic revolution in Iran who fell out of favour with Khomeini in 1989 may be the face of the way forward: http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1231.html
Panthera,
A white male who said that his race and gender would make him better suited to judge than someone who did not share that race or gender would rightly be called racist and sexist. No double standards, please!!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.