Good news from Iran

[Mycroft]

Ban on Iran reformists reversed

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's hardline Guardian Council watchdog has reversed its ban on two reformists excluded from presidential elections on June 17, easing a row that had sparked some calls for a boycott of the vote.

The reinstatement of former Education Minister Mostafa Moin and Vice President for Sports Mohsen Mehr-Alizadeh on Tuesday raised the number of candidates to eight and made the election outcome harder to predict.

It's a small step towards liberalization.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/24/iran.elections.ap/

 

[Tony]

It's a small step towards liberalization.

Which, as we all know, is good for the Middle East, but bad for America.

 

[BPSCG]

It's a small step towards liberalization.

"Small" being the operative word here. Sunday:

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's hard-line constitutional watchdog has rejected all reformists who registered to run in next month's presidential elections, approving only six out of the 1,010 hopefuls, state-run television reported Sunday.

Link.

Big fat hairy deal. They've bumped it up to eight. Let's see, eight divided by 1,010 = 0.79 percent.

Yes, if you're a "reformist" in Iran, you have less than a one percent chance of the government's even allowing you to run for office.

Heady stuff indeed. And what are your chances of getting elected? Assuming you don't get thrown into prison in the meantime?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm with BPSG on this one. Most of the "reformists" aren't really reformists at all, at least not in the way most westerners would understand the word. It amounts to people who want to wear ties instead of turbans while they hang teenage girls. There isn't a single genuine reformist who can stand for election anywhere in Iran. It cannot become democratic, and the world must stop pretending that it IS democratic, as long as the guardian council has the authority to short-circuit every single election by hand-picking the candidates.

 

[Mycroft]

You guys are depressing.

 

[Garrette]

Admitting up front that I'm not as informed on this as I'd like to be, but I have to take issue with what appears to be American mishandling of nearly everything to do with Iran since the Shah was ousted. (I'm not saying they didn't mishandle anything before then; it's just not the subject of my post).

Sort of like Central and South America. We've had endless opportunities to be friends or at least foster cooperation and have continually blown it.

Iran has been for a couple of decades, trying to grow in its westernization. The college age groups don't care that much for the governing council. Khatami has tried to buck the system a bit.

From what I see, the US has done little to support such efforts but has done much to antagonize them and subsequently foster an anti-American nationalist sentiment.

It's not always due to evil American intent, but more often, I think, due to historical American bumbling and blustering.

 

[Skeptic]

The point, Ziggurat and BSPCG, is that in such regimes once the total control BEGINS to crack, it sometimes collapse amazingly quickly. The very fact that the regime had to allow ANY reformers it doesn't like in is significant.

 

[Ziggurat]

The point, Ziggurat and BSPCG, is that in such regimes once the total control BEGINS to crack, it sometimes collapse amazingly quickly. The very fact that the regime had to allow ANY reformers it doesn't like in is significant.

Yes, the collapse of totalitarian rule usually appears sudden and rapid. The mullahs are indeed despised, and have a tenuous grasp on power. But I would caution against seeing this as any kind of sign of imminent collapse. Khatami was a reformer too, he actually won the elections, but he acomplished nothing. I see no reason to think these reformists will fare any differently, even if they win. The job for which they are running does not hold the real power in Iran, as Khatami's term demonstrated.

 

[CBL4]

As Ziggurat points out having a reformist president and parliament is meaningless in Iran because the mullahs have all the power. The people have become apathetic towards voting because they know it is hopeless.

What is needed is some spark for an uprising. My guess is the that is why these two reformist were allowed to run. It is better for the mullahs to have a reformist president than to have riots about preventing them from running.

CBL

 

[Mycroft]

My guess is the that is why these two reformist were allowed to run. It is better for the mullahs to have a reformist president than to have riots about preventing them from running.

As such, it's still a step in the right direction. The pressure won't let up and next time they will need an even more liberal candidate to prevent riots.