Politics, and its main instrument in organized civilized societies, namely the law, is a mixture of art and science. Neither part of the mixture, however, is one that finds its best prescriptions determined by public plebesite among those without the requisite training in the applicable arts and sciences. It therefore should appear self-evident to all, except nihilists, that those entrusted to make law and public policy should preferably be ones best trained for such an undertaking. That the opinions of people are not equal in value in any learned discipline; that no more can we find the best prescriptions to cure medical ailments by consulting the greatest number of untrained people than we happen to find, than we can find the best prescriptions for social ailments by merely counting noses. Yet, it is also true that for a variety of reasons, including the fact that there is a greater possibility of conflict of interest between the elite and the public, any such prescriptions arrived at in the arena of the social sciences by the elite must also be endorsed at some level by the public as well. That indeed, absent such endorsement, the required legitimacy that makes government secure and stable cannot be formed either. Moreover, while those who craft these prescriptions should preferably be ones with appropriate training, those who better pose the problems in a society, and point to its ailments, are often those whose most important attribute is that they represent the voices of the people. These kind of considerations, in general, suggest why neither a purely democratic form of government, which in any case exists only in theory and not in any large society, nor an authoritarian one, offers the best form of government. That instead the best form of government is one that maintains both representative institutions as well as such other institutions that are better equiped (both substantively and procedurally) to guide the public in their preferences as well as their representatives in the policies they pursue. The question then becomes how do you fill these more elitist institutions? Who fills them? By what criteria? I will try to say a bit more on the latter questions later. For now, I will state my view that, in theory, Iran's form of government is one that can merge the necessary traits to offer a model that can stand up to any from its competitors in the west. The latter despite the reforms that Iranian model requires to be able to truly carry its message effectively, and notwithstanding the fact that it is presently struggling to come up with the intellectual output needed to gather the required adherents among the intellecutal elite in and out of Iran. It is noteworthy, incidentally, that Iran's main ideological rival, namely the United States, is itsef an example of the kind fusion between representative and elitist institutions that I mention. After all, the American system itself is guided and overseen by what some have referred to as a "bevy of Platonic guardians", namely the United States Supreme Court. That latter an institution that composed of men (and now also women) in robes (not all that different than the robes worn by Iranian clerics, and serving an analogus purpose), enjoying life tenure, distinguished by a form of jurisprudential training that, ironically, shares a lot in common with not only the method of training of the philosophers of ancient Greece, but also the clerics in Iran; jurists who (although lacking the power of the sword or the purse) have power to declare the general policies of the United States and how those are applied, in the guise of interpreting the United States constitution through their power of judicial review. The similarities, as well as differences, between the United States Supreme Court and its real counterparts in Iran, not the Iranian judiciary so much but rather the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and its subservient institutions, particularly the Guardians Council, can lead to an exercise which can better illuminate some of the issues I am referring to. The discussion can become complete when you add the differences and similarities between the office of president in these two countries, as well as the differences and similarities between their respective legislative and judicial branches. In each instance, I think that would will be revealed from such comparisons is that Iran's system can lead to a superior model with even fewer reforms than would be required in the American one. This, depite the fact, that even I concede that the American model is at present still the one that holds most of the advantages compared to the model from Iran.
For all the faults of the US system, I don't see how anybody could fail to agree with this last point. But in all seriousness, since you brought up Plato's Republic, do you accept Plato's idea that the elite is justified in using the people's religion in order to keep them in line, for the common good? Or, do you think that the overwhelming religious influence in Iranian politics today is part of its problem? Is this one of the reforms that you think Iran needs to undertake? I am not trying to discuss the validity of Islam itself or of any other religious beliefs here. But, in terms of its sphere of influence, are you comfortable with the fact that in Iran the political ruling elite is also the leadership of the country's prevalent religion? What should be in your view be the relationship between a political system and religious institutions?
I am not worried about public policy finding its justifications under the cloak of religion. That would make such policy easier to justify and legitimize for the people, especially those who are religious. And there are many such people in a lot of societies. What I do care about is that "religion" not become synonymous with outdated dogma; that its prescriptions be ones that can be derived at using reason and the fruits of learning in philosophy, the social as well as natural sciences, and related disciplines. Indeed, I favor those aspects of Iranian shia jurisprudential thought that underline the importance of reason and logic in determining God's will, recognizing them as a main source of law, and perhaps God's most direct and reliable form of communication with man. Put differently, there are many different philosophical devices that can be used by trained jurists to escape whatever in old interpretations of scripture that appear to chart wrong answers. In terms of your last question, if you are asking if I favor separation of church from state, the answer is it depends on which society we are talking about? For Iran, NO. In Iran's case, separation of church and state will only mean that religion will be insulated from the responsibility to develop its doctrines to match today's problems and issues, while still retaining its influence and adherents to enforce reactionary dogma on society indirectly. Those who have traveled to Iran have quicky discovered that Iran is in fact (underneath the superficial things) among the most secular of societies in the Middle East, more so than for instance Turkey. Yet, Iran is officially an Islamic Republic while Turkey is officially a secular Republic. If you are a "secular person", you can regard religion as serving the same purpose as the "noble lie" that Plato suggested for his philosophers to rule the Republic he envisioned. If you are not secular, you don't need to even worry about the issue and should instead concentrate along with those who are secular on the prescriptions that can be fitted under the cloak of religion. As long as your prescriptions remain the same, based on reason and logic and the needs of society, the fact that they have a religious stamp merely means that the "robes" worn by your Platonic guardians have the ability to invest an even greater "aura of legitimacy" than the "robes" worn by the Platonic guardians in America.
Iran is the US's ideological opponent only in its own mind. The US really doesn't care about Iran. Sorry.
Don't mind nicephoras. He and a group of posters around him on bigsoccer decided a while back to insist on this bizzare argument. Not because they believe in this argument, but because they prefer to pretend that they do. As a means to silence discussion on Iran, presumably in order that the kind of policies the US/Israel are pursuing openly against Iran can be carried out without any scrutiny. Or merely to give their egos a boost by vicariously claiming to be too superior to be bothered by "inferior" Iran. Of course, nicephoras has also offered the separate view in the past that if his prefered course of action on Iran was taken up, i.e., if the US were to ignore Iran, that would yield the best results. And truth be told, if the US was inclined to genuinely ignore Iran and give up on the intricate web of actions it has built to isolate and suffocate the country, it would indeed be following a better policy than it is following now. But back in the real world, none of those ifs apply. Anyway, I was hoping in this thread for more of the kind of discussion invited by ASF's reply, focusing mainly on constitutional and political theory, and less the kid of discussions that would take us to detours intended by nicephoras.
Your becoming more comical post by post. Then why has the US interfered in Iranian politics in the past and it continues to do so today? Shah- Mosadagh-Islamic Republic , the US has cared and has played a some role in all three governments. IF the US doesn’t care about Iran then why was Iran one of the biggest foreign policy issues in the presidential elections? Just please stop posting about Iran.
Although merely peripheral to any of the main points I wanted to address in this thread, it is a fact that Iran and the US are ideological rivals, with the focus of their rivalry the Middle East. http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats...Irans_soft_power_pays_off/UPI-22141187101217/ To appreciate the broader contours of Iran's ideological challenge, this report from the conference held in Beirut yesterday might be helfpul: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-lebanon-resistance19-2009jan19,0,351909.story