Towards Full Democracy
February 3, 1999 - 0:0
Part 1 ---As we approach the 20th anniversary of the Success of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, we have to sit and ponder at the major events of the past twenty years. The revolution, the inevitable anarchy that followed , the various opportunists from the inside as well as the outside of the country, the war, the construction phase, and now the full-on process towards full democracy, which was initiated, with the 20 million turnout in the last presidential elections.
Going through the almost 20-year history of the revolution, there seems to be a pattern, which is in some cases similar, and most cases quite different from other similar events in the history of the world. Take the French revolution, although making a great change in the ruling system of one of Europe's most turbulent political systems, it veered off into the same feudal directions the previous ruling parties of France had gone through.
And today, although France is considered as having a socialist system, it is perhaps one of the world's biggest capitalist market. Or the Russian revolution, which brought promise of equality and so called socialism, veered off into directions which neither the original rulers, nor the people could have ever thought of. Not only the socialist system ever eventuated, but the rulers went on their own ways, using the people and the country's resources in propagating a war-lord system which in the end, did brought about its eventual demise.
The only thing the Soviet System could pride itself, was inefficient heavy industries, and a large military sector combating dwindling military markets. And there is also the (so called) Western democratic system, in which everything is supposed to be ruled by the people. The Western free economic system has always prided itself on free flow of capital and market democracy in which everyone can have his/her say without fear of persecution.
And this is exactly where the system fails. Although there exists a notion of freedom of speech, which the West prides itself on , I have to say that even newspapers such as The New York Times and USA Today, (massively circulated around the world) and CNN, which are supposed to be pillar of Western democracy are nothing but agents of institutional power.
In this kind of democracy the people rule, in principle. But decision-making power over central areas of life resides in private hands, with large scale effects throughout the social order. One way to resolve the tension would be to extend the democratic system to investment, the organization of work and so on. That would constitute a major social revolution, which would consummate the political revolutions of an earlier era, and realize some of the libertarian principles on which they are based.
Or the tension could be resolved by forcefully eliminating public interference with state and private power. In the advanced industrialized societies the problem is typically approached by a variety of measures to leaving them formally intact. A large part of this task is assumed by ideological institutions that channel thought and attitudes within acceptable bounds, deflecting any potential challenge to established privilege and authority before it can take form and gather strength.
No doubt, as mentioned above, our revolution has gone through a very turbulent 20 years, and has slowly ( but surely) paved itself through a democratic process . And as we approach council elections, the process of democratization has finally reached to normal everyday people. That is the people have finally got a chance to have their say on matters which directly affect their everyday life.
Of course, the current and previous post-revolutionary governments have had a great effect on this democratization process. They have also paved the way for people participation, since it was this very people who brought about the current system. As the late Ayatollah Khomeini (RA) and President Khatami have reiterated in the past those who oppose people participation are counter-revolutionaries themselves. Having examined Western press and its contents, for a number of years, and then having looked at the current state of the ever- expanding Iranian press and its actual contents, I could not help but considering this as another form of the democratization process.
First of all, the current Iranian press arena is in a process of transition from the traditional news reporting, to people participation. That is people of all preferences can have their own say, leading the way to the formation of legal political parties. Now as I mentioned above, the West actually prides itself on the freedom of speech, and there is not doubt about the availability of all kinds of useful and destructive information.
However, if we look at the real content of the information they present to their public, we instantly find out that the information is as filtered as possible. Now I doubt the American public knows much about the real sufferings of the Iraqi children, or knows much about the unrest in almost all of Africa. American business analysts however, know exactly how much oil is flowing in Iraqi pipes, and how much oil reserves are there in Nigeria. Therefore to keep the price of oil at acceptable levels the Iraqis and the Nigerians must suffer.
Now in comparison, the Iranian press of all preferences, is one of the very few which does report on the ramification of Israeli attacks on the Lebanese, while reporting of alleged corruption in the local ministries. And, as we know, information can make the real difference between democracy and dictatorship. It is actually enlightening to see different political factions have their say, using various media outlets instead of what corporations have to say, and what products or policies they have for the offering.
On the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Islamic revolution of Iran signs of full democracy are beginning to show . Once the people can have their own say, and actually force the rule of the majority in any society, the society reaches a balance which cannot even be removed by the strongest force, from the inside, as well as the outside.
Going through the almost 20-year history of the revolution, there seems to be a pattern, which is in some cases similar, and most cases quite different from other similar events in the history of the world. Take the French revolution, although making a great change in the ruling system of one of Europe's most turbulent political systems, it veered off into the same feudal directions the previous ruling parties of France had gone through.
And today, although France is considered as having a socialist system, it is perhaps one of the world's biggest capitalist market. Or the Russian revolution, which brought promise of equality and so called socialism, veered off into directions which neither the original rulers, nor the people could have ever thought of. Not only the socialist system ever eventuated, but the rulers went on their own ways, using the people and the country's resources in propagating a war-lord system which in the end, did brought about its eventual demise.
The only thing the Soviet System could pride itself, was inefficient heavy industries, and a large military sector combating dwindling military markets. And there is also the (so called) Western democratic system, in which everything is supposed to be ruled by the people. The Western free economic system has always prided itself on free flow of capital and market democracy in which everyone can have his/her say without fear of persecution.
And this is exactly where the system fails. Although there exists a notion of freedom of speech, which the West prides itself on , I have to say that even newspapers such as The New York Times and USA Today, (massively circulated around the world) and CNN, which are supposed to be pillar of Western democracy are nothing but agents of institutional power.
In this kind of democracy the people rule, in principle. But decision-making power over central areas of life resides in private hands, with large scale effects throughout the social order. One way to resolve the tension would be to extend the democratic system to investment, the organization of work and so on. That would constitute a major social revolution, which would consummate the political revolutions of an earlier era, and realize some of the libertarian principles on which they are based.
Or the tension could be resolved by forcefully eliminating public interference with state and private power. In the advanced industrialized societies the problem is typically approached by a variety of measures to leaving them formally intact. A large part of this task is assumed by ideological institutions that channel thought and attitudes within acceptable bounds, deflecting any potential challenge to established privilege and authority before it can take form and gather strength.
No doubt, as mentioned above, our revolution has gone through a very turbulent 20 years, and has slowly ( but surely) paved itself through a democratic process . And as we approach council elections, the process of democratization has finally reached to normal everyday people. That is the people have finally got a chance to have their say on matters which directly affect their everyday life.
Of course, the current and previous post-revolutionary governments have had a great effect on this democratization process. They have also paved the way for people participation, since it was this very people who brought about the current system. As the late Ayatollah Khomeini (RA) and President Khatami have reiterated in the past those who oppose people participation are counter-revolutionaries themselves. Having examined Western press and its contents, for a number of years, and then having looked at the current state of the ever- expanding Iranian press and its actual contents, I could not help but considering this as another form of the democratization process.
First of all, the current Iranian press arena is in a process of transition from the traditional news reporting, to people participation. That is people of all preferences can have their own say, leading the way to the formation of legal political parties. Now as I mentioned above, the West actually prides itself on the freedom of speech, and there is not doubt about the availability of all kinds of useful and destructive information.
However, if we look at the real content of the information they present to their public, we instantly find out that the information is as filtered as possible. Now I doubt the American public knows much about the real sufferings of the Iraqi children, or knows much about the unrest in almost all of Africa. American business analysts however, know exactly how much oil is flowing in Iraqi pipes, and how much oil reserves are there in Nigeria. Therefore to keep the price of oil at acceptable levels the Iraqis and the Nigerians must suffer.
Now in comparison, the Iranian press of all preferences, is one of the very few which does report on the ramification of Israeli attacks on the Lebanese, while reporting of alleged corruption in the local ministries. And, as we know, information can make the real difference between democracy and dictatorship. It is actually enlightening to see different political factions have their say, using various media outlets instead of what corporations have to say, and what products or policies they have for the offering.
On the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Islamic revolution of Iran signs of full democracy are beginning to show . Once the people can have their own say, and actually force the rule of the majority in any society, the society reaches a balance which cannot even be removed by the strongest force, from the inside, as well as the outside.