BF2S Forums Do you think Iran is democratic?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) Iran is a Constitutional Republic--a non-democratic Republic.

Using the statement as evidence of itself being true?  Somewhat foolish.

Actually, it's a theocratic republic (islamic republic, to be specific). The US is a constitutional republic.

Jomhuri-ye Eslami-ye Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran)

Iran is a theocratic constitutional democratic republic. It is a theocracy, it is founded on a constitution, it is democratic, and it is a republic.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Even though Iran has a constitution (Qanun-e Asasi; Fundamental Law), it doesn't necessarily make its system of government a constitutional republic. Incidentally, a hopeful president of Iran must be approved by the Council of Guardians before even running.

Uh, the only requirement of a constitutional repbulic is that it be a republic with a constitution.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic) wrote:

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional.

Bubbalo wrote:

1) Using the statement as evidence of itself being true?  Somewhat foolish.

2) The only difference between him and someone else is control over the media, and in the West there is partial control anyway (to protect, for example, sensitive information).

3) So it's the supreme court?

4) Again you state that which you are trying to prove as evidence.

5) Seperation of church and state is not required for a democracy.

6) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that similar to how Supreme Court Justices are appointed over where you live?

7)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

and in every "election" ever held, the vast majority of people who wanted to run for office were denied the right to do so.

You know what I find funny about this comment?  Not long ago when a pedophile party wanted to run, every was up in arms and wanted them banned.  And now you criticise Iran for wanting to exercise that style of control.

8)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

5) The "President" - electected every four years. Must be approved by the Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader. Handles day-to-day executive duties, with formal approval of the Supreme Leader for anything controversial.

So the Ayatollah, rather than the President, is the head of state.  What's the big fucking deal?


9)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

In all of this, there is no free speech (Not much of a democracy there), there is no free press,

Free speech/press is not a requirement for a nation to be defined as Democratic.

10)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Oh yeah, and most of the evidence shows that despite all this, massive vote fraud has been normal in every election,

Evidence?

1) I was clarifying, NOT stating it was true because of itself or anything related to it, to not see that is foolish.

2) And whats wrong with that?

3)Basically, but somewhat different read 6

4) Again, clarifying.........

5) Never said that it was, I meant to imply that some of you libs are always whining about it......

6) Oh no not quite, the Supreme Court of the U.S., the justices are appointed by Presidents, than confirmed, than serve basically life terms barring any major mess up, the Iranians see fit to just put through whoever they want without too much debate.  Its almost the same

7) I never criticised them....and I would have NO problem with anyone running for an office, they should not be denied their right to run unless they are CONVICTED CRIMINALS.  Otherwise I don't give a damn.

8) Uh, yes and no, they are both somewhat Heads of state and make decisions about what happens, but the Supreme Leader basically stays there until he dies, or is ousted (which doesn't happen very often)

9) Where did I say that it was??? I only said it was INHERENT in the MAJORITY of most democratic countries in the world.

10) http://alborzy86iran.blogspot.com/2005/ … ud-in.html

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Actually, it's a theocratic republic (islamic republic, to be specific). The US is a constitutional republic.

Jomhuri-ye Eslami-ye Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran)

Iran is a theocratic constitutional democratic republic. It is a theocracy, it is founded on a constitution, it is democratic, and it is a republic.

.............................................



a theocratic constitutional democratic republic, I ........... just wow.  I am honestly speechless.  There are differences between true democracies and republics.......you can't have both.

There are no direct democracies in place on a large scale currently. Whats your point?

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

There are differences between true democracies and republics.......you can't have both.

Doesn't matter whether they exist or not, they are still different.....you can't have both, that is my point.

Well, technically, a republic suggests democratic intentions. It would not at all be implausible to have a direct democracy in a republic state.

jonsimon wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Even though Iran has a constitution (Qanun-e Asasi; Fundamental Law), it doesn't necessarily make its system of government a constitutional republic. Incidentally, a hopeful president of Iran must be approved by the Council of Guardians before even running.

Uh, the only requirement of a constitutional repbulic is that it be a republic with a constitution.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic) wrote:

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional.

Might be interested to read further...

"In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches so that no individual or group has absolute power." Also according to the same article, the Assembly of Experts has the power to remove the Supreme Leader from office at any time, but has never done so. In fact, candidates for the Assembly of Experts have to be approved by the Council of Guardians, half of whom are appointed by the Supreme Leader (whose power trumps the President).

Here's a juicy bit from their constitution, though irrlevant to the discussion at hand:

Article 24
Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law.

Article 26
The formation of parties, societies, political or professional associations, as well as religious societies, whether Islamic or pertaining to one of the recognized religious minorities, is permitted provided they do not violate the principles of independence, freedom, national unity, the criteria of Islam, or the basis of the Islamic republic. No one may be prevented from participating in the aforementioned groups, or be compelled to participate in them.

Article 27
Public gatherings and marches may be freely held, provided arms are not carried and that they are not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-29 21:30:59)

Kilgoretrout:  Who's to say that pedophilia is wrong, but being a counter-revolutionary (as those barred from running in Iran likely are) isn't?  Not that I defend pedophiles, but you see my point: it's very hard to see the line between barring people for the right reasons and barring them for the wrong reasons (if such a line exists)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) I was clarifying, NOT stating it was true because of itself or anything related to it, to not see that is foolish.

4) Again, clarifying.........

Apologies

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

2) And whats wrong with that?

You're the one criticisin state control.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

3)Basically, but somewhat different read 6

6) Oh no not quite, the Supreme Court of the U.S., the justices are appointed by Presidents, than confirmed, than serve basically life terms barring any major mess up, the Iranians see fit to just put through whoever they want without too much debate.  Its almost the same

You'll have to forgive me if I'm being dense, but doesn't that mean the only difference is that judges can be removed?  That is to say, ultimately the power comes from the same source.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

5) Never said that it was, I meant to imply that some of you libs are always whining about it......

In which case it has no relevance.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

7) I never criticised them....and I would have NO problem with anyone running for an office, they should not be denied their right to run unless they are CONVICTED CRIMINALS.  Otherwise I don't give a damn.

You still restrict those who can run.  Surely if the people don't want a convicted criminal they can just not vote for him?

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

8) Uh, yes and no, they are both somewhat Heads of state and make decisions about what happens, but the Supreme Leader basically stays there until he dies, or is ousted (which doesn't happen very often)

There have only ever been 2 Supreme Leaders, one of whom was instated for life.  Your statement, therefore, whilst true, is misleading.  Further, there is, primarily, no difference (the length of term does not effect how democratic a nation is).

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

9) Where did I say that it was??? I only said it was INHERENT in the MAJORITY of most democratic countries in the world.

And, therefore, it has no relevance to whether Iran is a democracy.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

10) http://alborzy86iran.blogspot.com/2005/ … ud-in.html

So if I start up a blog and state that Australian elections have been rigged since 1996, will you wage a war to liberate us?

Bubbalo wrote:

1) You're the one criticisin state control.

2) That is to say, ultimately the power comes from the same source.

3) You still restrict those who can run.  Surely if the people don't want a convicted criminal they can just not vote for him?

4) Further, there is, primarily, no difference (the length of term does not effect how democratic a nation is).

5)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

9) Where did I say that it was??? I only said it was INHERENT in the MAJORITY of most democratic countries in the world.

And, therefore, it has no relevance to whether Iran is a democracy.

6) So if I start up a blog and state that Australian elections have been rigged since 1996, will you wage a war to liberate us?

1) ??? I meant what is wrong with:

Bubbalo wrote:

and in the West there is partial control anyway (to protect, for example, sensitive information).

That is to say that media should be limited on information about certain sensitive things....

2) Basically.

3) Who me?? I don't care... Or do you mean the U.S. government.  So you think it is ok for convicted criminals to run for office??? Yet most felons and violent criminals can't vote, there goes their constitutent base.

4) So you think a country that has had only 2 leaders with basically life terms is on the same democratic level as one that has had more leaders that change every 4 years or so.  I mean honestly, the Supreme Leader cannot be ousted because he is so much a part of the religious government controlling powers.  How is having a permenant leader where only 1 group controls the majority of the government.  How is that democratic!?!?!?

5) So things like free speech, free press, the right to run for office, etc, have NO BEARING or relevance as you put it on whether or not a country/state is democratic???????????????/

6) YES!!! Just because it is a blog doesn't mean it isn't true....and one more question, exactly where did you hear that anyone was waging war to "liberate" Iran???

Edit: Bubbalo thank you for being so mature unlike some people on here flailing around way too many opinions and bloated comments, omfg it is refreshing to have a REAL debate with someone.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-29 21:46:59)

Bubbalo wrote:

1) And who determines what is and isn't sensitive?

2) And yet you use this to dispute whether Iran is a democracy.  Are you claiming, then, that the US is not a democracy?

3) it is simply that Iran has stricter controls: that is, that the candidate must be loyal to the revolution.

4) The President only has a four year term.  The Supreme Leader is voted in, whether or not you approve of the manner in which this is done.  How long he is left there for is irrelevant.

5)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

5) So things like free speech, free press, the right to run for office, etc, have NO BEARING or relevance as you put it on whether or not a country/state is democratic???????????????/

Basically.

6) Just so long as you understand that I don't care about the difference between a clip and a magazine .

1) This happens at the head of whatever agencies have sensitive intel, the President rarely decides what is and isn't sensitive.

2) Uhh no, just comparing really, but there are key differences (religous monopoly) between the way their system works and ours.

3) I agree, do you think that is fair or democratic?

4) That is your contention, not mine

5) Same as 4,

6) Just so long as you understand that you're technically wrong.....but you don't care so don't worry about it 

Iran is democratic only in the most literal of senses and so is North Korea.

Bubbalo wrote:

1) And Iran deems everything to be sensitive.

2) Yes, but that religious monoply is obtained through a vote.

3) No, your contention is that those things make the systems markedly different.

4) And I'm waiting on the marines.

1) I don't think that is right, do you?

2) I agree, but they certainly don't help their case when they deny people rights....

3) Yup, they are different.........and?

4) They're busy.