Iran's Parliament JCPOA Review

[Madali]

I'll post a few links to the review, but mainly this is for those Iranians that think Iran is a "dictatorship" and has only One Voice.

You will see how heated discussions can get.

First, check out a summary here,
SNN.ir - .: Student News Agency :. - خبرگزاري دانشجو - فیلم/ حاشیه‌های بررسی برجام در هفته گذشته

Here is 7 minutes of Araghchi arguing with the parliament group members,
لحظات جنجالی بررسی برجام با حضور عراقچی + ویدئو

The video is at the bottom of the page.

Here is the full links to Jalili's presence in the group, there are two links at the bottom of the page,
فیلم و صوت کامل جلسه بررسی برجام با حضور جلیلی | پایگاه اطلاع رسانی رجا

I haven't listened to Jalili's yet.

How many other countries in the region has so many different voices in the government, and somehow, almost miraculously, we still have a frigging stable country!

 

[Siavash]

I'll post a few links to the review, but mainly this is for those Iranians that think Iran is a "dictatorship" and has only One Voice.

You will see how heated discussions can get.

First, check out a summary here,
SNN.ir - .: Student News Agency :. - خبرگزاري دانشجو - فیلم/ حاشیه‌های بررسی برجام در هفته گذشته

Here is 7 minutes of Araghchi arguing with the parliament group members,
لحظات جنجالی بررسی برجام با حضور عراقچی + ویدئو

The video is at the bottom of the page.

Here is the full links to Jalili's presence in the group, there are two links at the bottom of the page,
فیلم و صوت کامل جلسه بررسی برجام با حضور جلیلی | پایگاه اطلاع رسانی رجا

I haven't listened to Jalili's yet.

How many other countries in the region has so many different voices in the government, and somehow, almost miraculously, we still have a frigging stable country!

You know these are all inside the regime talks! A faction of the regime is bashing the other. You know that and I know as well. If it was not dictatorship there would be opposition that had long opposed the Nuclear stance and you would have real discussion happening. Thanks to Guardian Council there is not even real reformers happy with the regime in the parliament to heat the debates.

How many other countries in the region has so many different voices in the government, and somehow, almost miraculously, we still have a frigging stable country!

Not any! May be North Korea (in the world) has one as well I don't know! Usually if there is one government, the elements of the government agree with each other! And the opposition does the opposing debate! This only happens in Iran where you have government in government! One under rule of Rouhani and one under rule of Khameneie ... there is more but we stick to these two ...

Forget about the region, the region has monarchies and they don't say we are democracies! It is the voice of the same head, just like a schizophrenic person not functioning properly! A faction of regime has outmaneuvered the other under leaders approval!

Unless the Guardian council vetting is removed and opposition are accepted on the ballots it is not called democracy. We know, world knows. Well it is better than region but not democratic.

 

[Madali]

You know these are all inside the regime talks! A faction of the regime is bashing the other. You know that and I know as well. If it was not dictatorship there would be opposition that had long opposed the Nuclear stance and you would have real discussion happening. Thanks to Guardian Council there is not even real reformers happy with the regime in the parliament to heat the debates.

Most political debates in countries are regarding the political policies, laws, and foreign policies, not the foundations of the system. Are there healthy discussions in the west in congress or parliament regarding if democracy should be replaced by communism? Or do politicians in Germany discuss the return of Nazism with pros and cons? In UK, does the House of Lord have serious politician discussions on if they should apply Sharia in UK and turn it into a caliphate? Does France Parliament discuss laws about the return of the French monarchy?

Siavash, you are looking at Iran's political structure through western lens. You find certain political norms in Canada and USA and wonder why it doesn't exist in Iran, therefore Iran's political system is faulty. All political systems have filters, they all have barriers to entry and they all have certain norms they adhere to. Some of these are direct, while some are indirect.

If there was a concept of Guardian Council in the west, and Iran didn't have it, then you'd think it was normal. Try to close your eyes and imagine a parallel universe where you would shift certain political structures around and imagine that world.

For example, let's imagine this. This is Parallel Universe #35728. The whole west has a popular election system. They have everyone vote for their president and the one who has the majority wins. Simple.
Unfortunately, Iran's system is different. It has an electoral system. The President is elected based on how the states within Iran vote. This meant that by strange luck, there was election were Mr Golnar Bushanian won the elections based on higher electoral votes of 271 votes, while the other guy, Mr Ali Gorey lost by having only 266 electoral votes. However, in terms of popular vote, Mr Gorey received 48.4% votes which was higher than Mr Bushanian's 47.9%!

Imagine the uproar Iran would face due to it's "faulty, undemocratic" system! The west would claim it was illegitimate. Every Iranian commentator with a satellite voice would bash the "regime". The western media would be at the disposal of the loser side to hold up signs of "Where is My Vote?". Western Presidents would trip over themselves to claim that we are not a legitimate country.

When the losing side takes it to court, he loses the case, which makes the world even madder at Iran. They claim, how can a Supreme Court, which is Part of the Undemocratic Regime, who's judges are not elected by the people, decide!

But when such a situation happens in our timeline, where it's USA that faces that and not Iran, USA's system is not brought into question by the world.

Not any! May be North Korea (in the world) has one as well I don't know! Usually if there is one government, the elements of the government agree with each other! And the opposition does the opposing debate! This only happens in Iran where you have government in government! One under rule of Rouhani and one under rule of Khameneie ... there is more but we stick to these two ...

If everyone in government agrees, then it's a Theocracy, Mullacracy, Dictatorship. If they don't agree, then it's government within in a government and chaos!

Unless the Guardian council vetting is removed and opposition are accepted on the ballots it is not called democracy. We know, world knows. Well it is better than region but not democratic.

All systems have vetting systems, either directory or indirectly. Iran has democratically decided this is the system they want. In Canada, when voters go to the booths, do they get to vote directly for a person or for a party?

Please, please, put aside all your conceptions about what is Right Democracy and what is Wrong Democracy. Honestly and frankly look at each system, see firstly how they different from each other, and see if all the complaints against Iran are relevant or is just typical oriental bias against the east. Anything we do that is different is automatically wrong. The only right things we can do are things the west is already doing.

 

[Siavash]

Most political debates in countries are regarding the political policies, laws, and foreign policies, not the foundations of the system. Are there healthy discussions in the west in congress or parliament regarding if democracy should be replaced by communism? Or do politicians in Germany discuss the return of Nazism with pros and cons? In UK, does the House of Lord have serious politician discussions on if they should apply Sharia in UK and turn it into a caliphate? Does France Parliament discuss laws about the return of the French monarchy?

Sorry I was busy couldn't get back to you sooner on this, regarding the points mentioned above:
These discussions have been done in the west in the past 200 years and governments have changed hands on all those that you have mentioned and to answer you: YES, if necessary they can debate and would do and have the means and tools and people to do it. Despite not having communism system in Europe you still have communist party in all European countries. if the communist party has the support and the mandate they can raise the question to go back to communism and if they grab power they can rule but that is only a mathematical probability. Nazi and Fascist groups due to their brutal past and inherent methods (Facist is a well defined ) are banned but still you see right wing groups even winning in Austria, Hungry ... so YES they can and they do if they find necessary. Can you discuss non Velayate Faghih in Iran? No you can not.

Siavash, you are looking at Iran's political structure through western lens. You find certain political norms in Canada and USA and wonder why it doesn't exist in Iran, therefore Iran's political system is faulty. All political systems have filters, they all have barriers to entry and they all have certain norms they adhere to. Some of these are direct, while some are indirect.
If there was a concept of Guardian Council in the west, and Iran didn't have it, then you'd think it was normal. Try to close your eyes and imagine a parallel universe where you would shift certain political structures around and imagine that world.
... .

The concept of fair and free election is an abstract that is universal. It is a virtue of an election and a necessity of it and if missing that election is rigged and worthless. This is not about system but the correctness of a procedure involving people vote and choice and is independent of any system. My judgement is also non biased and a abstract value.

All systems have vetting systems, either directory or indirectly. Iran has democratically decided this is the system they want. In Canada, when voters go to the booths, do they get to vote directly for a person or for a party?
.

Vetting in any system can happen in parties own candidates but not universal. For example Democratic party may vet its candidates to choose one to represent it but the government has no word on who is eligible as long as it passes a certain health and age limit. So vetting is an in party issue not a general one. You vet someone to represent your way of thinking but not others. All are eligible to be on the ballot. Some countries have extra procedure like, gaining 5% of popular vote to be able to be on the ballot which is logical. So you prove your party has its roots and basis and you gain your share of power. Selection of candidates that happen in Iran does not fall into any of those accepted categories.

Basically, if I having A% of popular vote am not able to get A% of the share of responsibility and power then there is something wrong!

 

[bdslph]

Iran is just making sure that there leader dont make Iran a puppet country of WEStern countries
the way Iran is going now is on right track

 

[Madali]

Sorry I was busy couldn't get back to you sooner on this, regarding the points mentioned above:
These discussions have been done in the west in the past 200 years and governments have changed hands on all those that you have mentioned and to answer you: YES, if necessary they can debate and would do and have the means and tools and people to do it. Despite not having communism system in Europe you still have communist party in all European countries. if the communist party has the support and the mandate they can raise the question to go back to communism and if they grab power they can rule but that is only a mathematical probability. Nazi and Fascist groups due to their brutal past and inherent methods (Facist is a well defined ) are banned but still you see right wing groups even winning in Austria, Hungry ... so YES they can and they do if they find necessary. Can you discuss non Velayate Faghih in Iran? No you can not.

But see, that's exactly it! Nazism and Facism are not tolerated because they (a) have a bad history with it (b) is a threat to their system. Or go back to the 50s in USA with the way they tolerated communism. Not only where no communist groups tolerated in the 50s, but anyone with any socialist leaning would have been "ousted" and basically blacklisted.

Now compare those situations to Iran. These are the traits unique to Iran that is not unique to, let's say Switzerland.

1) Iran's democracy is new, only three decades out of 7000 years of monarchy.
2) Iran's democracy is unique, it has no comparable system today or ever
3) Iran's neighbor's are not democratic
4) Iran is in, more or less, a stage of war
5) Iran's enemies have been actively trying to cause a revolution change

All this means that certain tolerance can not be given to elements that might be a cause of system overthrow. This is normal, because any other "democratic" country in the west would react the same way. Like I said, Facism/Nazism in the west proves that, and also communism when USA was concerned about USSR also proves that.

And by the way, Siavash, internal Iranian discussion is much more heated than you might assume. I thought, when I was in Dubai, that political debates were muted in Iran. It is not so. Read the papers, almost everything is discussed. Yes, even Velayate Faghih. There has been serious discussions as to what the next stage is, should it remain the same, or as some clerics & politicians have brought forward, should it be completely turned into a "Council"?

The concept of fair and free election is an abstract that is universal. It is a virtue of an election and a necessity of it and if missing that election is rigged and worthless. This is not about system but the correctness of a procedure involving people vote and choice and is independent of any system. My judgement is also non biased and a abstract value.

It sounds nice, but in reality, far away from the slogans and rhetoric, actual concept of "fair and free" elections is almost impossible. For example, first of all, the idea that Anyone Can be President is fallacy. Can a person of the streets suddenly become President of USA? No, obviously not. He needs the air time and the campaign backing. In 2012, Obama spent 632 MILLION dollars. This means that already this restricts to a certain group of people who not only have the network, but also the political ability to work within the system to utilize it to get to the position he is aiming for.

Sort of like Iran.[/quote]

Vetting in any system can happen in parties own candidates but not universal. For example Democratic party may vet its candidates to choose one to represent it but the government has no word on who is eligible as long as it passes a certain health and age limit. So vetting is an in party issue not a general one. You vet someone to represent your way of thinking but not others. All are eligible to be on the ballot. Some countries have extra procedure like, gaining 5% of popular vote to be able to be on the ballot which is logical. So you prove your party has its roots and basis and you gain your share of power. Selection of candidates that happen in Iran does not fall into any of those accepted categories.

Again, don't see you are using the western acceptable political norm as your baseline of what is the Right Way. Only because Iran's method is not a clone of it, it seems wrong. But why exactly is that more democratic? For example, look at the example of USA again, as you even mentioned.

There are two Parties. Democrat and Republic. You are "free" to form your own party and are "free" to run as an independent, but if the "freedom" goes nowhere, what's the point? When was the last time any non-democrat or non-republican got anywhere? I'm looking at the wiki page, and the last time a President doesn't show as Democrat or Republican party seems to be...Abraham Lincoln in 1864 (National Union Party).

So, okay, so they have no Guardian Council, and everyone is free and there is no limit...but in actuality, since your path to presidency is only through Democrats or Republicans, and since they have to support you, what happens in reality? You get to be President of United States, if you align yourself with either of these two parties.

But look at Iran's presidency. The Presidents belonged to various parties during the decades, and wasn't just Republic or Democrat.

Basically, if I having A% of popular vote am not able to get A% of the share of responsibility and power then there is something wrong!

But like I said, that's not exactly how it happens in the west either. Gore got 48.4% of popular vote, while Bush got 47.9% of popular vote, but Gore got 0% of the responsibility and power.

 

[Siavash]

But see, that's exactly it! Nazism and Facism are not tolerated because they (a) have a bad history with it (b) is a threat to their system. Or go back to the 50s in USA with the way they tolerated communism. Not only where no communist groups tolerated in the 50s, but anyone with any socialist leaning would have been "ousted" and basically blacklisted.

Now compare those situations to Iran. These are the traits unique to Iran that is not unique to, let's say Switzerland.

1) Iran's democracy is new, only three decades out of 7000 years of monarchy.
2) Iran's democracy is unique, it has no comparable system today or ever
3) Iran's neighbor's are not democratic
4) Iran is in, more or less, a stage of war
5) Iran's enemies have been actively trying to cause a revolution change

All this means that certain tolerance can not be given to elements that might be a cause of system overthrow. This is normal, because any other "democratic" country in the west would react the same way. Like I said, Facism/Nazism in the west proves that, and also communism when USA was concerned about USSR also proves that.

And by the way, Siavash, internal Iranian discussion is much more heated than you might assume. I thought, when I was in Dubai, that political debates were muted in Iran. It is not so. Read the papers, almost everything is discussed. Yes, even Velayate Faghih. There has been serious discussions as to what the next stage is, should it remain the same, or as some clerics & politicians have brought forward, should it be completely turned into a "Council"?



It sounds nice, but in reality, far away from the slogans and rhetoric, actual concept of "fair and free" elections is almost impossible. For example, first of all, the idea that Anyone Can be President is fallacy. Can a person of the streets suddenly become President of USA? No, obviously not. He needs the air time and the campaign backing. In 2012, Obama spent 632 MILLION dollars. This means that already this restricts to a certain group of people who not only have the network, but also the political ability to work within the system to utilize it to get to the position he is aiming for.

Sort of like Iran.

I agree with the 5 points and that we are in special situation and things will get better if outside pressure is taken away.

Regarding the examples you mentioned; you mostly take it from USA system. That system is not a good example of a democratic system and USA and Europeans admit that. It is corrupt and nonfunctional and they know it. Specially electoral vote is so rigged and illogical. You need to give examples from European systems. In such systems it is very common that a new party is born out of popular vote and grabs power.

 

[Madali]

I agree with the 5 points and that we are in special situation and things will get better if outside pressure is taken away.

Regarding the examples you mentioned; you mostly take it from USA system. That system is not a good example of a democratic system and USA and Europeans admit that. It is corrupt and nonfunctional and they know it. Specially electoral vote is so rigged and illogical. You need to give examples from European systems. In such systems it is very common that a new party is born out of popular vote and grabs power.

I agree that voting systems are different. My argument is that if weaker forms of western democracies are not lambasted, why is Iran?

I think the closest form of democracy is probably Switzerland which doesn't just vote on officials but regularly on laws.