The end of history (yet again)

[sombrefan]

To watch the democratic revolutions of '89 on the news was a wonderful thing. Apart from China, which was a shitty state of affairs. Anyhow I'll place a bet that Mubarak will be gone by the end of the week. Ahmadinejad getting kicked out of Iran would be the icing on the cake.

Comments

[gillo]

It seems unlikely he'll see the month out, certainly, and probably not the week. The "I always meant to leave in September, so I'll hang on till then, OK?" line is feeble and doomed. I just hope it doesn't turn into a Romanian end for him.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

Ahmadinejad getting kicked out of Iran would be the icing on the cake.

Well, the guy's the opposite of a dictator (a puppet) so it wouldn't change a lot... (although i could do without the rhetorics, that's for sure)

[simonf.livejournal.com]

Why do you think he is a puppet?

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

Well, the way the political system in the Iran works. The guy in that position has to meet the approval of the watcher's commitee (no, really ^^) as well as the general populace (in elections). So, the real power is held by the watchers and other non-elected (at least not democratically elected) personnel.

As weird as it sounds - Ahmadinejad is one of the most democratically legitimated leaders in the whole region (with the exeption of Israel, of course! Shining light of democracy and freedom.). But he doesn't hold true power, so in the end it doesn't count, i suppose.

[simonf.livejournal.com]

I forgot about the Watcher's committee but in my eyes his legitimacy is gone because of the very dubious election results and the manner in which he clung onto power during 2009's riots.

On a side note, it'll be interesting to see what happens in Saudi Arabia.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

Well, his legitimacy is questionable in the first place because the wathcer's commitee pre-selects the candidates. On the other hand, we westerners shouldn't lump in any political system deviant from ours into the "dictatorship" category - sometimes it is just a wee bit more complicated than that. ;) Especially considering that the arabian states are pretty much all true dictatorships/feudal systems: In light of that, the iranian system is at least somewhat more diverse (they do have elections, after all! Ask the sheik of Saudia Arabia about that and he'll ask: "What?!").

And yes, SA is an interesting hotbed. I assume it is a lot more stable than it's neighbours, though. While freedom doesn't exist as well as women's rights, the saudi arabians are well off economically. A full belly seldom revolts (but the poor foreign slave workers! no rights, no nothing.).

[simonf.livejournal.com]

"On the other hand, we westerners shouldn't lump in any political system deviant from ours into the "dictatorship" category - sometimes it is just a wee bit more complicated than that"

Well I'd like to think we westerners can say that Iran's system is a dictatorship if the presidential elections are rigged and its citizens are murdered or arrested when they protest about it.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, their secret police are good but then I would have said the same about Tunisia and Egypt's. So all bets are off really. Interesting times ahead.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

I think there is a huge difference between eg. a dictator like Pinochet or Hussein, and the system in Iran. While Iran is certainly not "free" in the socio-economic sphere, the people do have a certain, limited scope of influence. Don't get me wrong - i don't want to defend that system! I just think it helps no one (especially not the opposition in Iran, whom we should help) if we take the big sweeps to define "the other" system, when in reality there are dozens of systems which all work differently and thus have different possibilities to progress (some need violence, some need demonstrations, some need people to actually vote for a black man ;-)).

I come from a country which has a rather sad past (and present) when it comes to democracy but i wouldn't call Germany a dictatorship (exception: the years 1916 - 1918 and 1936 - 1948).

Iran has the watcher's commitee to determine who is allowed to be elected, Germany has the "Wahlleiter", a single person appointed by the secretary of internal affairs (also head of the secret service), who is able to prohibit parties and single individuals to participate in the electorate. In short, the government determines who may be elected. Of course, one can argue against that in front of the highest court - which in turn is, You guessed it, elected by a commitee which is appointed by the government (with minimal influence of the parliametary opposition). The "Kanzler" (akin to a president in power) is elected not by the people, but by the parties in parliament. And with the parliament it is the same: We don't decide who goes to the parliament, we only choose between parties (which in turn appoint their personnel into the parliament).

That's a bit wonky democratic. The influence of the people is there, but minimalized. We can only vote for parties, which in turn are dependent on the goodwill of the government.

There are actually parallels with the iranian system.

(But then, i am of the firm conviction, that Germany needs another democratization.)

[ubi4soft.livejournal.com]

To watch the democratic revolutions of '89 on the news was a wonderful thing.

I'm glad that my compatriots deaths entertained you! I'm from Romania

[simonf.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why you think I would be entertained. It was a wonderful thing because it ended oppressive Communist regimes across Eastern Europe.

[rleyser.livejournal.com]

And Simon's wife, me, is 1/4 Romanian. He didn't say he was entertained.

[ubi4soft.livejournal.com]

There is nothing wonderful about death. I lived those days. There was nothing wonderful about them.

The word "wonderful" has no connection whatsoever with Dec '89 events in Romania. Ever.