3 ms·

That's ridiculous. The Supreme Leader's Council of Guardians personally certify any and all Presidential candidates. They may choose to allow candidates from ot

That's ridiculous. The Supreme Leader's Council of Guardians personally certify any and all Presidential candidates. They may choose to allow candidates from other factions from time to time for political reasons, but they're still choosing. In a Democracy, the leader don't get to decide who is allowed to run for office. And while we're talking about him, the "Supreme Leader" serves a lifetime term. They personally appoint the heads of the military, the government, and the judiciary. They directly choose the ministers of Defense, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs, and Science. Their successor is selected by a body appointed directly by them. The same person has held the position since 1989. That's a fairly pure dictatorship, but agreeing with that statement might cause an Iranian to run afoul of Iran's Les Majeste laws, and Iranians are routinely punished for questioning or insulting the Supreme Leader.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
If anyone is interested in a different perspective (the Iranians you will interact with online know English, have affinity for the West, etc. These are not representative of majority of Iranians, just like many Americans aren't represented by the Twitteratti for example), there is a book by Hermann Hesse called The Glass Bead Game, where humanity has undergone a devastating Third World War and in attempt to keep it from ever happening again they install a council of ascetic Monks who have final veto power on any action of any state. The idea is that people who are experts in morality, who have no worldly attachments or things to gain by leveraging their power would be the best check on a society which routinely falls into war. This is a very similar arrangement to Iran's "democracy" where the democracy runs but is checked by a figure whose "true" attachment is to God (or for non-believers at least to some kind of objective morality). If you look from an average Iranian perspective, Ayatollah Khamenei is not just the leader of the country, he is also a venerable religious figure, an ascetic and someone who ostensibly cares little for worldly pleasures. If anyone were to have "guardianship" or veto power over a democracy, wouldn't he be a good guy to have it, from that perspective? It's a lot of the same arguments you see for Trump. He doesn't need the money. He's not beholden to special interests because he's not a career politician, etc. Etc. Just a different perspective. Many here allege torture and harsh imprisonment but these aren't inherent features of the system mentioned. They are things which could be fixed within the system as well. The same is true for American police brutality, for example.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- CobrastanJorji 6y ago
  The West is quite familiar with the concept of the "Philosopher King." I agree that if you assume a perfectly moral, incorruptible dictator, then they are a perfect government. It's certainly better than democracy. It's also impossible to achieve, though, which makes it a bit moot. No single person is guaranteed to stay free of corruption, especially when granted tremendous, unchecked power. Creating a system that relies on this not happening is not a good idea. It's just too huge a gamble. Also, comparing Ayatollah Khamenei, a formerly elected politician who controls around $100 billion of quasi-private wealth, to a council of ascetic monks, is a bit of a stretch.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

If anyone is interested in a different perspective (the Iranians you will interact with online know English, have affinity for the West, etc. These are not representative of majority of Iranians, just like many Americans aren't represented by the Twitteratti for example), there is a book by Hermann Hesse called The Glass Bead Game, where humanity has undergone a devastating Third World War and in attempt to keep it from ever happening again they install a council of ascetic Monks who have final veto power on any action of any state. The idea is that people who are experts in morality, who have no worldly attachments or things to gain by leveraging their power would be the best check on a society which routinely falls into war. This is a very similar arrangement to Iran's "democracy" where the democracy runs but is checked by a figure whose "true" attachment is to God (or for non-believers at least to some kind of objective morality). If you look from an average Iranian perspective, Ayatollah Khamenei is not just the leader of the country, he is also a venerable religious figure, an ascetic and someone who ostensibly cares little for worldly pleasures. If anyone were to have "guardianship" or veto power over a democracy, wouldn't he be a good guy to have it, from that perspective? It's a lot of the same arguments you see for Trump. He doesn't need the money. He's not beholden to special interests because he's not a career politician, etc. Etc. Just a different perspective. Many here allege torture and harsh imprisonment but these aren't inherent features of the system mentioned. They are things which could be fixed within the system as well. The same is true for American police brutality, for example.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
CobrastanJorji 6y ago
The West is quite familiar with the concept of the "Philosopher King." I agree that if you assume a perfectly moral, incorruptible dictator, then they are a perfect government. It's certainly better than democracy. It's also impossible to achieve, though, which makes it a bit moot. No single person is guaranteed to stay free of corruption, especially when granted tremendous, unchecked power. Creating a system that relies on this not happening is not a good idea. It's just too huge a gamble. Also, comparing Ayatollah Khamenei, a formerly elected politician who controls around $100 billion of quasi-private wealth, to a council of ascetic monks, is a bit of a stretch.