February 14, 2007
Iran Is a Democracy, Abrahamian Says
I found this from an old news story, where Ervand Abrahamian, a progressive Iranian-American scholar, says that Islamic Republic is in fact a democracy:
Posted by hoder at February 14, 2007 2:12 PM| TrackBackErvand Abrahamian, a U.S. citizen born in Iran, is professor of Middle East history at the City University of New York and was a participant in the Asia Society's panel discussion.
Abrahamian highlighted the democratic traditions of the Iranian constitution adopted after the 1979 revolution. Despite its obvious religious supremacy, he says, the constitution includes a mixture of references to individual rights and divine rights. But its democratic character is obvious, he says, as evidenced through the right of the general electorate to elect the parliament, the president and the local councils.
In the last 10 years, there has been an ongoing tug of war, Abrahamian says, pitting liberals who stress the democratic features of the constitution, against conservatives and fundamentalists who emphasize the theocratic features in the same constitution.
"This tug of war has produced a fundamental change in Iran -- I would say change as fundamental as the 1979 revolution. The change, basically, is in the whole discourse and the political culture. If you take key terms in the political language in the previous decades, the key terms in the language were terms such as 'revolution,' 'imperialism,' 'martyrdom,' 'crusade,' 'the dispossessed,' 'intoxication with the West.' The key terms now, especially in the last 10 years, are words such as 'democracy,' 'pluralism,' 'freedom,' 'equality,' 'liberty,' 'modernity,' 'civil society,' 'human rights,' 'dialog,' 'political participation' and the brand new term meaning 'citizenship,' " Abrahamian said.
Among the main changes promoted by liberals, Abrahamian says, are the condition that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei should supervise rather than directly control the state; that the Guardians Council (the Supreme Court) should give written justification for vetoing legislation and should not interfere in elections; and that the courts should abide by the laws and the constitution itself.
What is new, Abrahamian says, is that these arguments now are being developed by people with religious affiliations, many of them tenured in teaching at theological schools:
"What they have to say -- even though it doesn't sound new -- has much more impact because we can say, it is legitimized within the religious culture of the society. Therefore, I would say, it's more like a cultural revolution, rather than being imposed or brought in for new ideas from outside," Abrahamian said.
- By: Herbert Kaine on February 15, 2007
- By: arthemis on February 15, 2007
- By: ali on February 14, 2007