Iranian Election Part 3

Unfortunately I see as many streotypical arguments on the previous thread as you can find in a typical western newspaper report. Mousavi being a rightwing? Neoliberal economic policies? Do people even check the backgrounds and archives before posting or they just assume any opponent of Ahmadinejad must be a neoliberal? (ironiocally, Ahmadinejad's economic policies in privatization and lowering import tariffs makes him a lot more neoliberal than any other Iranian president).

Mousavi was the prime minister of Iran between 1981-1989, and foreign minister before it. He was a leftwing Islamist who believed (and still believes) in a degree of state control of the economy. During his tenure, when Iran-Iraq war was underway, he brought major industries under state control, imposed strict price control and subsidies for necessary goods, and refused to borrow a dime from outside sources. As a result, during the war teh poor managed to survive the hardship and at the end of the war, Iran emerged with no foreign debt.

His leftist policies put him at serious odds with powerful clerics in Iran's hierarchy and then-president Khamenei (the current supreme leader). However he had the backing of the Ayatollah Khomeini who shared his leftist policies and disdain for rich merchants and traditional ayatollahs. At the beginning of his second term in 1985, president Khamenei refused to nominate Mousavi as prime minister to Parliament. Three major rightwing clerics Ayatollah Yazdi (next judiciary chief), Ayatollah Jannati (current chief of the electoral supervisory body) and Ayatollah Nategh-Nouri (next head of parliament who was later defeated by Khatami in 1997 election) went to see Khomeini and convince him to remove MOusavi. Khomeini refused, and openly declared his support for Mousavi in a letter to the Parliament. President Khamenei had to swallow his pride and accept Khomeini's decision. The two men were at odds since then.

Obviously when Khomeini died and Khamenei became the leader, with new president Rafsanjani following liberal economic policies, there was no room for Mousavi. He disappeard from public life for 20 years before coming back this year for presidential election. His leftist background actualy was a question mark and attacking point for his opponents, who frequently questioned him on whether he wanted to impose state control on the eoncomy again.

The piece posted by Al-Qabong about Mouavi being responsible for purging universities from professors and leftwing students is untrue. The cultural revolution committee was set up and the universitis were closed in 1980, before Mousavi was prime minister. Some of the liberal figures mentioned in his post, such as Abdulkarim Soroush, were actually members of that committee. When Mousavi became a prime minister, he automatically became a member of the new cultural revolution council, but he was outranked by several other members (including the president) and at the time of war, his efforts were mainly focused on the economy and war, not culture or universities. He was an Islamist no doubt at that time, but not a rightwinger.

 

[url=http://solidaritywithiran.com/]Solidarity with Iran[/url]

Canada-based solidarity work going on here. Those in Toronto can attend a protest Sunday afternoon 2-4 at Queen's Park. Also has petitions to Harper, Ignatieff, Jack Layton, Francine Lalonde, etc.

No idea. All I know is that they have been asked to, and reportedly have refused. There are reports that other foreign embassies have agreed to provide shelter. 

[url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090620/iran_protes... government denies these reports, however.[/url]

[url=http://www.petitiononline.com/Canpars/petition.html]Here's a petition on the topic.[/url]

Oh, and Man Coulter and the other right wing creeps are flipping about this admission. i'll let those interested check on google for it. I refuse to hyperlink to that spew.

josh wrote:

As for the pissing match that went on in the previous thread, it's simply ludicrous to compare the Queen, as the monarchy currently exits, to the Ayatollahs.  If you want to compare them to Henry VIII or Mary I, you'd be on more solid ground.  It is similarly ludicrous to compare the treatment of women in the west, however imperfect it may be, to the treatment of women in Iran.  Or to put a theocratic state on the same ground as a secular democracy, or even religious states like Israel and Pakistan.  (at least with respect to their treatment of the majority population).  There are gradations of injustice and oppression.

And while the west, particularly the U.S. has a direct responsibility for the current theocratic state in Iran, that shouldn't bar those countries from speaking out in support of those seeking to moderate and change the theocratic nature of the state. 

Not only does it bear direct responsibility, it also has very little basis from which to claim superior moral authority than Iran. The election process is rigged regularly. The capitalist elite select candidates for elections, which are more alike than they are distinct. And the police regularly beat and in many cases summarily execute people, particularly people of colour. It runs a network of secret prisons around the world, where people are routinely tortured, held without trial or charges against them. There are fairly regular race riots and ramapant systemic racism and it runs the largest Gulag prison system in the world. But the US is not alone, as recently as the last G8 summit in England, a person (completely unrelated to the protests incidentally) was killed when the police were putting the boot down, while in Canada the Prime Minister feels he can selectively apply the law, and even, conveniently, shut down parliment for a month so that he can wait for the political weather to get better, and does so on the authority of no person other than "the Queen, as the monarchy currently exits."

Yet for some reason you seem to be able to claim that there is a prima facie case that Iran is particularly authoritarian and corrupt in comparison to the "secular democracies", and measure this apparently on the basis of what women are allowed to wear on their head. On other issues, real issues, issues of importance, the gradations are harder to define. For example, women in the US and women in Iran, both share the right to vote in rigged elections.

Unlikewomen in the US Iranian women seem to feel that they can expect real ownership of the process and take to the street when the ruling elite commits election fraud. Why American women don't is hard to say. Cynicism from being ground down for so long? Complacency? Who knows.

But you are right  comparing the "absolute authority of the Islamic Jurists" to a country like the UK today is something of a stretch, but no more of a stretch than comparing Iran today to the reign of Mary or Henry the VIII. Try Victorian England.

Lets digress to the original point raised by Eric: the fundamental principles of governance. In his case he raised the issue that the principle of governance in the name of god was a backward principle. I tend to agree. But on the principle alone, I hardly see governance in the name of the Queen is any more progressive than governing in the name of god.  The differences you are alluding to are matters of the practical application of those principles in the real world.

Incidentally, both Iran and the US both share the quality of being governed in the name of "god" in their constitution, and if you are seriously arguing that the US is substantively less authoritarian and poliitcally backward than Iran from a human right perspective, then you are also saying that it is possible for governments to govern in the name of god, and for there to be "gradations of injustice and oppression," which is to say the principle of governing in the name of god is not, in itself, and indication that the state will be overly repressive or authoritarian.

That said, I think I have made it clear that my view and your view on how "authoritarian" is the United States, differs somewhat, but I am using your framework to demonstrate my point.

 

howardbeale]</p> <p>[quote=Fidel wrote:

 Howard, what would you say if you knew that western country foreign policies of the last century to now have encouraged rule by religious clerics and militant Islamists in countries like Iran as a deterrent to democracy?

[/quote=Fidel]
Well on this we are agreed.
This is why I'm rooting for the Iranian people. If democracy breaks out over all that oil, that'll scare the shit out of a lot of Dutch and English and Yank oilmen.
Obama just admitted to this:
Obama admits US involvement in 1953 Iran coup

Jun 4, 2009...[/quote]

 

Sounds like time for midnight confessions. Okay then, what ordinary Americans and Iranians say if they knew that their countries supplied Chinese and N. Korean-made weapons to Bosnian Muslims in the mid 1990's? And that up to 400 of Iran's Revolutionary Guard were sent to Ploce near Mostar, Croatia. And that the two countries were working with Afghan Mujahideen and Bosnian Croat forces and even al Qa'eda to destabilize Yugoslavia, which was a sovereign country and one of the first inductee nations to the UN after WW II?

 

sanizadeh wrote:

Mousavi was the prime minister of Iran between 1981-1989, and foreign minister before it. He was a leftwing Islamist who believed (and still believes) in a degree of state control of the economy. During his tenure, when Iran-Iraq war was underway, he brought major industries under state control, imposed strict price control and subsidies for necessary goods, and refused to borrow a dime from outside sources. As a result, during the war teh poor managed to survive the hardship and at the end of the war, Iran emerged with no foreign debt.

 

1. Interestingly enough, I heard someone say something like this on Fox news - though not with approval! I have the notion that a lot of what is going on in Iran is to some significant degree incommensurable with western ways of thinking about politics and society, so I appreciate sanizadeh's analysis. 

2. I work weekends so missed all the excitement on the predecessor thread - It's probably just as well I wasn't here.

Wow contrarian. That's huge. it also, IMO, reflects the divisions within the elite that are going on.

As for your questions. Fidel, I know how much you hate thread drift, so I dont know if i want to derail this discussion with a 50 post string about Bosnia. Nonetheless, i would like to bring myself up to speed on these allegations. please provide me a couple of links and i'll read them. It would depend where on the timeline these events occured. If Milosevik and Mladik were already liquidating entire areas of their Muslims when this occured, then I care about as much about the Treaty of Westphalia in this regard as i would in regard to the Brits' assasination of Heydrich. In short, not a scrap.

howardbeale wrote:

Wow contrarian. That's huge. it also, IMO, reflects the divisions within the elite that are going on.

Does it? People seem shocked everytime some television station or official announces something that appear to contradict the Khameni/Amedinejad line. Iran of course is an totalitarian theocratic police state, so we say, and so the appearance of any counter-narrative must be an example of some kind of serious breach within the hierarchy itself.

Isn't it possible that we are being to clever by half in our analysis  and that actually Iran is not as much of an totalitarian theorcratic police state as we believe, and in fact the elections investigator is empowered to do his job, and feels he is obliged to do so, and so does it and annouces the results, and the press also feels free to report his findings, and everything is not actually some clever plot by corrupt official vying for power within a system where the docile press reports only the official version of events?

I just want to add my thanks to Sanizadeh, I see I may have misunderstood you and underestimated Mousavi as well.  I just don't expect anyone in his difficult situation to be absolurely perfect, as long as he's aiming in a more progressive direction.

 

SNZD: "Mousavi was the prime minister of Iran between 1981-1989, and foreign minister before it. He was a leftwing Islamist who believed (and still believes) in a degree of state control of the economy. During his tenure, when Iran-Iraq war was underway, he brought major industries under state control, imposed strict price control and subsidies for necessary goods, and refused to borrow a dime from outside sources. As a result, during the war teh poor managed to survive the hardship and at the end of the war, Iran emerged with no foreign debt."

Why the Islamic Republic has Survived

http://merip.org/mer/mer250/abrahamian.html

"What accounts for the 30-year survival of the Islamic Republic?...

The real answer lies not in religion, but in economic and social populism.."

My Iranian sources, a former Tehran party animal and one of the original victims of the new clerical order installed in 1979, says that Sanizadeh's charachterization of Mousavi is substantially off the mark, and that he is one of the most conservative traditionalist of the regieme, then if not now, and that when he was Prime Minister he was one of the most authoritarian, and indeed "the most hated Prime Minister" of post revolutionary Iran. He said, "I know I was there". He also says this is a revolt of the rich, and really about who "gets to eat more". He says the "peoples revolution", will come, just not now.

Sometime soon I will talk to my former Tudehist friends and see what they say.

Me? I know nothing. I am certainly not going to engage in what was called in one article "wishful thinking".

They have forbidden foreign journalists from filming. they arrest their own citizens if they film the protests. they shut down texting. they shut down twitter, Facebook, etc. They don't report the protests in the media. That's a blackout.

When humiliating facts seep out despite attempts to exert such blanket control, I would say that's a rupture in the propaganda ediface of the regime. 

Actually, I think it was 50,000,000 Elvis fans.

Are we talking about the same king?

howardbeale wrote:

They have forbidden foreign journalists from filming. they arrest their own citizens if they film the protests. they shut down texting. they shut down twitter, Facebook, etc. They don't report the protests in the media. That's a blackout.

When humiliating facts seep out despite attempts to exert such blanket control, I would say that's a rupture in the propaganda ediface of the regime. 

That applies to the foreign press. Here is your "total news blackout":

Quote:

Opposition rallies have been held on a daily basis in Tehran and some other cities since the announcement of results of the disputed presidential elections held on June 12 in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with a huge mandate. Supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi and the other two candidates dismissed the results and claimed the election was a sham.

From the Tehran Daily -- official IRNA paper

Iranian news and official sources reported deaths among protestors and so on:

Attacks on Dorm, MPs Homes Dubious

Quote:

Larijani said last week he holds the Interior Ministry responsible for the rare attacks on civilians and students at the dorm.
“There has been news about unfortunate incidents taking place in parts of the city such as the Tehran University dormitory ÉThe Majlis has also received reports of clashes with the people,“ Larijani told fellow-lawmakers.
Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli has ordered an investigation into the attacks on the dormitory at the prestigious university, and called “on Governor General Morteza Tamaddon to identify those involved“ in Sunday night’s incident.
Separately, at least seven people were killed and dozens injured during a mass rally in Tehran on Monday that was organized by Mousavi supporters.

It is the issue. Show me the coverage between Tuesday and Thursday. If there was none thats a blackout.

 

Iran's Supreme Leader sets stage for confrontation

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/iran-j20.shtml

"The crisis is being fuelled by deep divisions within the regime. While Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have strong support in the military and security apparatus, including the huge Basij volunteer militia, sections of the business and clerical establishment are backing Mousavi.."

Thank-you. As i said, ndpp, "divisions within the elite."

takeitslowly wrote:

I also have to say it is incredibly disappointing to come here and see a pissing match instead of having meaningful discussion that is of concerned to any one who wants peace and justice...

If you want to have a "meaningful discussion" then start one. Seems to me that you are just asserting a different kind of ideological premise, and being upset that not everyone sees it your way in terms of "peace and justice..." and whatever you mean by that?

What do you mean by that? Have anything specific?

howardbeale wrote:

Thank-you. As i said, ndpp, "divisions within the elite."

Well, if are with me in describing disputed rendeings of the news between CNN and Fox News, as representing"divisions within the elite," then I am with you. My point is about the ideological framing.

As I said, the apperance of counter narrative could just as well be a indication that Iran is not run by a monolithic police state aparatus, but one much like ours where there is a "debate" and press freedom within a limited ideoolgical framework.

Suit yourself. I have watched plenty of people beaten up by police in this society for resisting arrest when breaching code of conduct laws. Such behaviour seems routine around the world for all police forces.

But if you don't think prostitutes being targetted for 'loitering', and then being manhandled into a police cruiser is about targetting women primarily because of the way they dress, and smashing their head into the door frame of the cruiser doesn't count as a "beating", what value is there in this conversation anyway?

Cueball wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

I also have to say it is incredibly disappointing to come here and see a pissing match instead of having meaningful discussion that is of concerned to any one who wants peace and justice...

If you want to have a "meaningful discussion" then start one. Seems to me that you are just asserting a different kind of ideological premise, and being upset that not everyone sees it your way in terms of "peace and justice..." and whatever you mean by that?

What do you mean by that? Have anything specific?

 

well, I certainly know i won't be having much discussion with you since you have shown that all you really care about is defending or making excuses for the current regime in Iran because the U.S and Israel is evil or they are just as bad, or equally bad.

 

It's quite annoying, because i will tell you about my reality. Canada might be a "monarchy", but it is one of the best, if not the best place, on earth for gay people and trans people.

And the current regime should be utterly destroyed, because they are killing people of my own community, i don't care if the U.S or Israel are also supporting regime change for different reasons. What I do know is, no one should be making excuses or undermining the brutality of the current regime in Iran, whether you mastubates to Karl Marx everyday or you think captialism is slavery.

 

I , for one, will not spend my time reading someone who defends Ahmadinejad and his poor, hard working, and anti American supporters.

I will continue to protest against Israel, the U.S and Harper/Igatieff, but thank god my president is not Ahmadinejad, becasue at least I know i probably won't get shot or beaten up if i go join a rally or peaceful demonstration.

Your expanding the arguement. I've said nothing about prostitutes in Canada. And now that means I minimize violence against women? That's disgusting and uncalled for. You're baiting and trolling and being pointlessly argumentative.

Cueball wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

 

It's quite annoying, because i will tell you about my reality. Canada might be a "monarchy", but it is one of the best, if not the best place, on earth for gay people and trans people.

Exactly! And this is the way these conversations always progress. We start talking about one thing, in this case women's rights, or freedom of the press, or rigging elections, and then end up talking about our moral superiority in terms of looking at what we are good at, but never in terms of what we are very bad at, or what is pretty much the same.

Statement A: "They rig elections in Iran"

Statement B: "They rig elections in the USA"

Statement C: "They govern in the name of god in Iran"

Statement D: "They govern in the name of the Queen in Canada"

Statement C: "They are horribly opressive against Queer people in Iran"

Statement D: "The police summarily execute black people in public in California."

Obviously opression of Queer people in Iran is infintely worse than it is here or in the United States. But its not so great if you are black.

BTW sex change operations are legal in Iran.

 

you do know that sex change operations are legal not because they are looking out for transsexuals, but it is because the only people who are allowed to suck cocks should the lesser sex, those with vagina and are called women.