Democratic Republic of Iran

I think someone started the slogan " Islamic Republic", during the 1979 revolution. People voted in a referendum for the Islamic Republic. I think a better form of government for Iran, is a Democratic Republic. Since the Islamic Republic can not progress the Iranian revolution any further. In areas of social justice, political freedoms, and national defence. All those who see this post, should start similar polls in other forums. Start a wave. A new slogan. You can vote here, in this poll.

Do you support a referendum, for a Democratic Republic in Iran ?

What kind of Democratic Republic model is it? Is it the western model? Than no.

I don't think Iran would have survived this long if they were a  "Democratic Republic".


We should also have poll on if western countries should also go to the "Democratic Republic" model instead of plutocracy.

The US loves democratic countries... infiltrate the media and then you can control public opinion and constantly push socialists out and push right wing hard line industrialists into positions of power and they will have the majority of the population working for minimum wage... and still big government.

I mean I could understand the every man for themselves policy with tiny government that basically lets you do your thing, or a nanny state where everyone is looked after... everyone gets a house and a reasonable choice of a few different job types and can earn enough during a normal working week to afford a home and perhaps a holiday home and a 4 week holiday every year somewhere nice.

nomadski wrote:


I think someone started the slogan  "  Islamic Republic", during the 1979 revolution. People voted in a referendum for the Islamic Republic. I think a better form of government for Iran, is a Democratic Republic. Since the Islamic Republic can not progress the Iranian revolution any further. In areas of social justice, political freedoms, and national defence. All those who see this post, should start similar polls in other forums. Start a wave. A new slogan. You can vote here, in this poll.

Do you support a referendum, for a Democratic Republic in Iran ?

The Green color revolution from back in 2009 had protestors routinely chanting for a apocalyptic war with Russia and China. A movement to 'get somewhere' could take several steps back and disguise it as a movement in the right direction. The grass isn't always greener, despite what a Green Revolution says.

@ parfar


A proportional representational system. Where each class or economic group is represented  in Parliament. In this case then, if Iran has 17 million workers, then 1/4 of all Parliament seats belong to them, at least. This is most important aspect.

Political ideology is free. Any party can form and the MP, can politically belong to any party. For example you can have a worker MP, who is socialist, elected. Freedom of political ideas.

The position of supreme leader, can be either only advisory. To be voted on by entire parliament. Or they can form own political Islamic party, and he can be party leader. But no power to veto parliament as an individual. Only rule through  the vote.

@GarryB

"....... The US loves democratic countries......."

Disagree. The US and UK organised coup to remove democratic governments in the world. Put dictator in charge. A single person to rule. No good changing a crown for a Turban.


@ Magnumcromagnon

"....... The Green color revolution from back in 2009 had protestors routinely chanting for a apocalyptic war with Russia and China. A movement to 'get somewhere' could take several steps back and disguise it as a movement in the right direction. The grass isn't always greener, despite what a Green Revolution says....... "


Agree. This is the way the right wing operates. They bring the angry unto the streets. Violent demos. Organise a coup. Overthrow the existing government. Reduce democracy. The way to stop this, is by referendum, to clearly open legal avenue for greater democracy. Not less.

Only if people of Iran make a new revolution

When I was a young lad of 14 ,  a man told me that in five years time, there would be a revolution in Iran.  When I was 19, there was a revolution in Iran.

The same man told me,  when I was 43 ,  after  hearing my complaints ,  that  if  by  complaining ,  I meant for a revolution ,that  I should know how hard  revolutions are to bring about.

He  became  disillusioned  with  the  type of politics  that came about, after the bloody Iranian 1979 revolution. Complaining himself about the type of  it's politics.

This means that the people who predicted.......... ( organised ) the revolution, could not control the exact outcome. The law of unintended consequences.

The bloodier a revolution, the greater is it's injustice. And the Iranian revolution,  despite what some people claim, did not take place with the  "  greatest  humanitarian considerations".

I think that the best path, is a non- violent  progressive revolution. Or evolution. And I think this to be the best road, to build a secure future. A positive and predictable outcome.

I know that in Iran, people do speak about a referendum. It is not illegal. I also know that even within the present legal structure, constitutional reforms have been discussed. I also know that proportional representation, was informally considered for a previous session of  parliament.

So I see, the possibility of a peaceful transition. To a more democratic future. But unfortunately also, a recent news of murder of university teacher. In drive by shooting. Most probably political. But I have hope, and Iranian youth should have hope. Follow the path of peace and progress.

The ballot box. Not the bullet box.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2020/12/21/2414975/president-urges-constitutional-revision-in-iran

Agree. And the best way to insure a truly democratic system, is to make the parliament  a mirror  of society.  The number of seats in Parliament are divided according to  profession or class and income. This way  irrespective of colourful and diverse viewpoints,  all sections of society are always proportionately represented.  

Also legitimate socio-economic political viewpoints  should be made legal. Including  socialism  and social reformism and capitalism or Liberalism. Ideological viewpoints with an economic foundation.

I hope the leadership allows for a referendum  and amendments to constitution ASAP. The political parties or individuals disallowed could be :

( 1 )  All those with sectarian and  regional character.

( 2 )  All those that have been involved in violence.

( 3 )  All those supported by foreign money or individuals as members.

The working class , may not be qualified to Degree level. Only to high school diploma level. Yet they should be allowed to be an MP. While they serve in Parliament , their jobs are kept open for them. Same for Farmers or shop owners and businessmen. No professional politician to be allowed to be MP, or hold any legislative  position. Good idea also to remove position of President and replace by position of prime minister.  From political party with majority in Parliament. This a political majority and not class majority. Since if more workers in society , then prime minister always a worker !  Yet politics needs to lead economics . Also the Islamist party can appoint party leader, who is also the supreme religious leader of country. In this way the Islamist party , can present Bill to Parliament . But no other body has power to veto parliament , as is case now with  council of experts  or guardian Council or Expediency Council. These bodies can only present bills to Parliament as non members or non MP 's. At most for once or twice a year. Same with other expert bodies or science bodies or trade union, can present one or two bills to parliament for approval. But parliament is King. The present truncated system needs to be streamlined.

Disagree. The US and UK organised coup to remove democratic governments in the world. Put dictator in charge. A single person to rule. No good changing a crown for a Turban.

The UK and US love democratic governments.. they are easy to interfere with... start by buying up the local media outlets and start character assassination against those they oppose and seek to shine light on those who prove to listen and accept bribes/western influence...

They really don't care about democracy and have murdered quite a few democratically elected people... do you really think Chavez got cancer by accident?

They do like dictators... Pakistan, and Iran when they had control, and of course for a long time China.... there is more stability in a dictatorship... you can save money by just bribing one party instead of the two major parties...

A Crown, a Turban, a ballot box... they don't care... Afghanistan could live in squalor for all they care as long as they can get those valuable minerals and metals out of those mountains they could care less that their puppet state barely controlled Kabul... it is a reason to keep US soldiers there and HATO soldiers too to bring peace and democracy on the surface and profits and military support to companies stripmining Afghanistan of all its valuable materials...

We will know when the cupboard is bare because they will leave so fast you would think the place is on fire... but lots of potential things to mine there and lots of cheap labour to do it so it could be a while...

".... The UK and US love democratic governments....."  AND " They really don't care about democracy" are, as you see contradictory. This is not to say that what you have stated are contradictory. But a case of the contradictory stance by the west towards democracy. Sure they talk the talk, when it comes to areas of the world, where any opposition, to the status quo, will weaken the cental authority's stance against their malign influence. They are very democratic then. But when it comes to areas of the world, where any proponent for the status quo, will strengthen the central authority 's  stance against their malign influence. They are not very democratic then. So they are hypocrites and selective with democratic norms.

"....... They do like dictators... Pakistan, and Iran when they had control, and of course for a long time China.... there is more stability in a dictatorship... you can save money by just bribing one party instead of the two major parties..."

Agree. It is even cheaper and easier to bribe or coerce a single person, than any political party or even a nation. But they have to keep up appearances . Pretend they are Democrats. To appease the masses. I saw on YouTube a recent clip, about an Iranian Monarchist,  proclaiming the establishment of a " democratic Republic" in Iran. But as we know this is just propaganda, like slogans of the MEK , to attract supporters. Ofcourse they will use these supporters to stage violent street demos and stage a coup or foreign intervention. Then put Reza quarter Pahlavi in power. Together with a " democratic"  Rubber stamp parliament.

The way to fight fake democracy, is by building legal safeguards, as I have mentioned, to ensure the active and direct and proportional and effective participation by Iranian people themselves. Without subversion or interruptions or interventions by extremists or anti-democratic elements, both inside and outside the country. These legal safeguards will bring about a cultural shift  and educate the people into practicing constructive democratic norms.

Elections coming up in Iran. Some talk of constitutional laws, as they may or may not apply to the elections. Importantly the share of votes by political parties to be published. And even more amazingly, talk of proportional representation by economic group or profession in Parliament, especially of workers and Middle class.

The work and worker newspaper, reporting that share of Parliament seats was low for workers, perhaps as low as 3%, in the last Parliament. And that sadly elected MP, did not follow the interests or demands of workers in the election.

I have already said that proportional economic representation of different groups and classes, is the most democratic and surest way of insuring fair share of power in Parliament. Rather than sharing the vote by political party. Since political parties may make and do make empty promises and then they make different laws as those they promise. However, there should be no obstacles to candidates stating that they support a political trend or party. But to qualify as a condidate for a constituency, they must be of particular income and education. Each class being represented locally.

To insure politicians follow promises to voters, then no professional politician allowed in politics. All get time off from work, with government aid, to go to Parliament. And return to work afterwards. Also they are disallowed during their term and five years after leaving office from a change in employment or income.

Parliamentary system must replace presidential system. As one where personality politics are banished and power is not concentrated in the hands of one person. As we see now, the president opposes the parliament. And that is not democratic.

Other parliaments, such as Expediency Council or Council of experts or the office of supreme leader, should not possess the power of veto over parliament. But all scientific or religious bodies of note, and of large size or authority, can present a bill to parliament, say once a year for a vote.

It should not be illegal to support socialism, as this is an economic system. If capitalism or Liberalism find freedom, then so should socialism be made legal. These changes are all needed.

It is not a matter of passing through the Islamic Republic. But the Islamic Republic passing through the present difficulties. An Islamic Republic need not be contradictory to a Democratic Republic. It is a matter of taking the best aspects of this Republic and making them better and more effective and efficient.

Updates on elections, indicating a boycott the vote movement in Iran. It is upto the individual ofcourse to vote or not to vote. And no person should be under pressure to vote or be put under pressure, if they do not vote.

Not voting, is registering a protest vote and acts as a referendum on the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. What protesters must realise is that, it is not enough to simply register a protest of a no vote. This act will not by itself increase democracy in Iran, but must be followed by formation of political parties. These political parties then have the job of drafting a new democratic constitution, that must be subject to a new referendum. New elections then to be held for new ( democratic) parliament.

The Iranian people must be careful not to allow social disturbances to result, during this transitional period. The enemy speaks of a boycott also. But they aim for social disturbances, and fishing out of muddy waters. A coup or " humanitarian" military intervention or velvet colour revolution. Injecting elements, who are not democratic and are agents like MKO, violent gangs of America into Iran. They would love to hijack the protest movement and jump on the bandwagon and appoint their own hoodlums as leaders.....

In my view in this transitional period, the military has a crucial role. They must ensure the safety of public demonstrations and gatherings, allowing for political party formations. Also they must be on the lookout for any coup attempt or military intervention by the Americans and Co.

Long live democratic Iran.

https://youtu.be/rfQobw6wb1E

All those guilty of political violence, can not be part of Iran's future. This includes the Monarchists and their SAVAK who killed. Or the MKO who killed. Or even elements within Iran society and state who killed.

All those silent in the face of political killings can not be part of Iran's future. No presidential candidate has come out and condemned the killings on the street. Nor the leadership. It is no time now to speak about the price of onions. There are more important issues. A person must buy onions from a shop. He must be able to go out into the street first, where he will be safe. Then when he reaches the shop, he can haggle about the price of onions....... Therefore, in my view, there are no worthy candidates or leaders that deserve the vote.

Out of 59 million eligible voters, 28.6 million voted. Even if we are to believe the results, in the face of many deserted polling stations ! If this was a referendum on the Islamic Republic, then it forms less than 50% of the total votes. Therefore a NO vote has been cast against the Islamic Republic. It now becomes necessary to hold a referendum under international supervision. The vote for a Democratic Republic.

This president like others will be unable to solve any problems. Even if he is well intentioned. Which I doubt, given his reported track record by Amnesty International. The entire political class in power, will stand against him. The only solution is a new democratic constitution. The Iranian people need to organise themselves into political parties. Push for a referendum and new democratic constitution.......

Hardliner Raisi wins Iran’s presidential election. 19.06.2021.

Conservative judge Ebrahim Raisi has been declared the victor of Iran’s presidential election. As the clear frontrunner, Raisi received congratulations from rival candidates hours before preliminary results were announced.

Iran’s Interior Ministry signaled Raisi’s victory on Saturday morning, Iranian media reported. Preliminary results released by the ministry show that Raisi secured a landslide victory, Press TV said.

Iranian Deputy Interior Minister Jamal Orf said 28.6 million Iranians participated in the election. With approximately 90% of ballots counted, Raisi received over 17.8 million votes. The rest of the votes were split between three other candidates. Second-place Mohsen Rezaei received 3.3 million votes. Orf noted that there were still ballots left to be counted, however.

In an address to the country, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the winner of the election was the “Iranian nation” and that participation at the polls marked a victory against “propaganda of the enemy's mercenary media,” Fars News reported.

Raisi’s three rival candidates conceded ahead of the release of the preliminary results. Outgoing President Hassan Rouhani met with Raisi on Saturday to personally congratulate his successor.

The Muslim cleric campaigned on the slogan “Popular Administration, Strong Iran” and promised to tackle government corruption. Raisi’s platform also called for measures to combat poverty, create jobs and rein in inflation.

A close ally of Khamenei, Raisi could further complicate strained relations between Tehran and Washington during his four-year term. The current chief justice of Iran was targeted by US sanctions in 2019, due to his alleged involvement in the execution of political prisoners in the 1980s, as well as crackdowns on civil unrest in the late 2000s.

https://www.rt.com/news/527022-raisi-presidential-victory-iran-official/

Who is Iran's New President and What Can Be Expected of Him Both Domestically and Globally?, by Tim Korso for Sputniknews. 19.06.2021

The presidential election in Iran took place as the country is engaged in resolving several outstanding issues. Tehran is namely involved in diplomatic talks regarding the restoration of the nuclear deal and relations with its regional neighbour Saudi Arabia.

Iran's top judge, 60-year-old Chief Justice Ebrahim Raisi, has secured a majority of the votes in yesterday's presidential election, allowing him to assume the second-highest post in the country starting on 3 August. Ebrahim Raisi is widely considered to be a hardliner when it comes to relations with Western countries. However, despite this, and despite Western accusations of human rights violations by Raisi, the West might still have a shot at reaching some agreements with Tehran, especially on the nuclear accord.

Ebrahim Raisi might help Iran resolve the economic woes it has been experiencing in recent years, including by negotiating the removal of sanctions - here is why:

Judge With Ties to Clergy (and Supreme Leader)

Ebrahim Raisi spent most of his career in Iran's judiciary and currently holds the top office in this branch of power. He is deemed ultraconservative when it comes to Islamic Law and is believed to have close ties with the Iranian clergy. Furthermore, foreign media outlets claim that he enjoys support from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and might even take on his mantle after the latter passes away. In this light, his victory in the presidential election may be seen as a step on this path, since the current supreme leader was also the Iranian president for two terms.

However, Raisi's competence is not limited only to the judicial sphere and having connections in high places. In 2016, he was appointed to lead the Astan Quds Razavi foundation – a charity and holding company that manages a wide array of business in Iran and plays both a significant economic and political role in the country. Being a conservative, Raisi will likely promote the concept of state-led economic development in the nation, while refusing to make it more open to foreign investments, after the latter fled at the first sight of American sanctions in 2018.

The new president is also likely to take on a more conservative approach, when it comes to social and political freedoms, Dr Alam Saleh, a lecturer in Iranian studies at the Australian National University, suggests.

In addition, the president-elect has gone down in history as a chief justice who dedicated his work to fighting corruption in the government, although accounts of his effectiveness vary. He also made an electoral pledge to continue this line of work in his new capacity as president.

Hardliner Against the West and Sanctioned Politician

Western countries will likely be those with the hardest time communicating with Raisi for several reasons. The chief justice is a hardline opponent of the West and Western policies.

Raisi is also subject to sanctions that were introduced by the US in 2019 over his support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei - which may complicate the West's attempts to negotiate with him. At the same time, the chief justice is facing accusations of being part of a four-man "death committee" that allegedly ordered the execution of thousands of prisoners in Iran in 1988, mostly members of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.

The latter is a political and militant organisation that wants to overthrow Ayatollah Khamenei, but several human rights organisations and Western governments, namely in Canada and Italy, claim that Tehran arrested and killed thousands of its members as political opponents. Iran strongly denies ordering such killings in 1988.

It is unclear whether these accusations will affect relations between Iran and the West. However, after the US slapped Tehran with sanctions, the latter is likely to turn its foreign policy focus away from the West and towards the East, Dr Alam Saleh believes.

"Raisi's election is the result of Western pressure on Iran, undermining its security […] especially in the aftermath of the withdrawal of President Trump from the nuclear deal. [The 2018 withdrawal has] damaged Iran's confidence in relying on or trusting the West anymore […] We will see a closer relationship and heavier reliance on Russia and China for many years to come", Saleh says.

The election of the chief justice as the next president could also influence the way Iran behaves in the region, Dr Saleh continues. He notes that since Iran's trust in the West, and especially the US, has been undermined and Washington has started to reduce its involvement in the region, Tehran may feel that it is "in a more comfortable position" and challenge Western interests in the Middle East in the coming years.

Future of Iran Nuclear Deal

One of the most acute questions about Iran's future foreign policy relates to the ongoing negotiations on restoring the Iran nuclear deal. While Tehran reported that some progress had been achieved in recent talks in Geneva, the US and Iran are yet to agree on the terms of returning to the accord. Although the election of an anti-Western hardliner might have jeopardised these plans, Ebrahim Raisi may still agree to renew the deal.

He has called for the lifting of American sanctions in the past, and the nuclear deal currently appears to be the only way of achieving this. In addition, Iran's supreme leader has also backed the idea of restoring the accord, despite the scepticism he previously had towards the agreement back in 2015.

A restored accord, however, will look different from the original 2015 document backed by the UN Security Council, Dr Alam Saleh stresses. He elaborates that Iran no longer trusts the West and thus will not agree to the previous terms while being governed by a hardliner.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202106191083189877-who-is-irans-new-president-and-what-can-be-expected-of-him-both-domestically-and-globally/

I know Russia and China will deal with present political authority  ,  just as effectively as before . Perhaps even more , since the present order , at least superficially  is less pro-American than the previous administration . The current admin has reaffirmed readiness to join JCPOA and carry on as previously  ! But because of pretensions to the " Revolutionism " and fighting corruption , they can not be seen to be eager customers .

However the main current of political power in Iran , are right wing pro - American elements . But the bulk of Iranian people are not .  I know that Russia and China foreign policy are excessively determined by short term economic gain , rather than long term political goals . In this sense the Americans may have more a political economy . And the Easteners have economical politics .

How Russia and China could help , is to develop a long term plan . One that promotes national and industrial and economic  growth  in Asia . This will indirectly have a positive effect on the political street . Empower the local populations and increase popular and democratic process . Not Russia or America were able to change the situation in Afghanistan . Since one can not span the gap from tribalism to Capitalism , let alone Socialism by military force .  Not that the Americans were in Afghanistan for economic reasons or nation building . It was an opportunity for the Brass for a safe foreign adventure after 9/11 , where a response had to be given . It was also enriching the few . And the Soviets may have simply wanted to expand influence , rather than the genuine plan to bring Socialism to the world .

There must first be , and for a prolonged period , economic determinants of social change . Smart investment  . To allow domestic economy to function . And allow for social integration . So the type and location of investments , are critical . In all these ME countries .

However identification and promotion of progressive social forces can help also . If two choices exist ,  then promote the better one ...........I have never seen a political killer ,  turn out to be democratic , have you ? So identification and promotion of individuals , who are non-sectarian and democratic  will also help .

Not Russia or America were able to change the situation in Afghanistan . Since one can not span the gap from tribalism to Capitalism , let alone Socialism by military force .

Let be honest if the west and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were not feeding the flames the war in Afghanistan would have ended pretty quickly... it got to the point where the west was sending in special forces teams with brand new GPS systems to help with 120mm mortar attacks on Soviet airfields, and of course Stinger missiles, but what you didn't hear about were the Redeye missiles and Blowpipe missiles they sent in first but proved totally ineffective.

They also sent Milan ATGMs too, I have an old CNN news report showing Muj firing a Milan at a T-55 tank from high up on a mountain side. The reporter said they were trying to kill the tank and were using "artillery" (Milan ATGM) but they kept missing... and as he was saying this you saw them launch a missile and the missile hitting the ground perhaps 20-30m to one side of the vehicle. Because of the zoom of the camera you can't tell how far it was, but the tank is in view so the miss distance is pretty obvious.

If the west had just left the place alone the Soviets could have made a real change there and the women would be treated with some dignity and actually have a future.

They built roads and schools and housing and really were making positive changes to the place... which is more than you could say the US was doing.

Ironically if the west had taken the billions it spent in the 1980s destroying and killing, and the trillions they spent in the last 20 years, it should be quite a good place to live, but all their money went to death and destruction and corruption... like it always does.