Without wishing to disparage Dr Kooshesh, I would make the case that authoritarian regimes exist, not because of random capture by malign internal elites, but because external pressures are opposed by those with deep conviction. That conviction can be religious, nationalistic or ideological in nature (often all three), and is rarely found in the mindless drifters that make up the major proportion of the population of so-called liberal democracies. Other factors that play into the problem is that liberalism is a basket of values (just like authoritarianism) that permits- even encourages if it thinks there's political or monetary advantage in it- certain social diversities, but these are intimately mixed with 'free-market' values that don't recognise other oppressions, particularly economic ones, that sit outside the permitted (and actually quite elastic over time) canon.
One cannot equate the unpopularity of the Islamic Republic within the Iranian Diaspora, with that within the country itself- that's the nature of a diaspora. Whatever the feelings within the country itself, and I freely admit that I wouldn't choose that government for myself, these will now be more solidly behind the government than they were before this debacle, just as the Russian population is more solidly behind the current administration than it was before the Ukraine conflict.
Another parallel with the situation in Russia is that, just as a more liberal attitude within Russia- compared with the Cold War era- allowed agents of Ukraine and its allies to operate within Russia to co-ordinate the (pointless from a UKR tactical perspective but nevertheless inflammatory) attack on Russia's aging strategic nuclear bomber fleet, so the recently more liberal attitude of Iran's government compared to the earlier days of the Islamic Republic has allowed Mossad and other agencies to operate within Iran to co-ordinate the first wave of attacks. The parallels are striking.
Authoritarian regimes are a response to the pressures that have been applied by the collective West to developing countries over many decades for a number of reasons both ideological and economic. At the current time they are largely related to the slow-moving collapse of the Neoliberal financial order, though of course Israel has additional reasons relating to Iran's support of the Palestinian cause over many years.
Thanks for your comments Kevin — I really appreciate your perspective on why authoritarian regimes exist and why they can be so resistant to reform. I completely agree that we shouldn’t rely on the diaspora to fully reflect the views of people inside Iran. That said, I’d argue the Islamic Republic is relatively unpopular both within the country and among Iranians abroad. One of the key reasons for this is its deeply discriminatory policies against women, which alienate half the population — not to mention many other repressive measures.
You’re absolutely right that war can temporarily boost support for the regime and give it some momentum. I just hope they use this moment as a chance for some reform — though, I’m not too optimistic. Unfortunately, it’s more likely things will return to how they were before, or perhaps even get worse.
It comes down to the 'basket of values' phenomenon that I mentioned: The notion that nations can pick-and-choose what properties to place in the basket at will is a liberal fantasy and the root of the idea of the 'evil leader' or clique that can be removed to bring about positive change. Experience shows that removing these leaders / cliques by external force creates deadly chaos every time. The West tells a story it can forge order out of the fragments; in practice it settles for ongoing chaos, warlordism etc. as 'near enough', given the cost of reconstruction and the lack of guarantee that the population will be loyal to the 'liberator'. This is the reality 'switch' to the fantasy 'bait' of social liberal values.
Iran has several times from the 1900's sought democracy for itself and that has been overthrown by Western interference and replaced by a client monarchy. The lesson this teaches is that, in Iran's circumstance, democracy and national autonomy have not been compatible, so ultimately Iran 'chose' an autonomous theocracy.
Things are changing extremely fast at the moment: Recent conflicts are the death-throes of the hegemony of financial powers that are in retreat- even in their own countries / continents. This is a palpable truth.
If we can avoid thermonuclear oblivion (big 'if'- some would prefer planet-death to loss of power, others see it as biblical 'end-times'). Collapse of the hegemony will allow the resumption of history.
It is simplistic to say that "deeply discriminatory policies against women ... alienate half the population". It is patently obvious that the Islamic regime enjoys a degree of support among women as well as men. Perhaps not so much among the affluent classes, but certainly among the rural and urban poor.
You are totally right Geoff, not every woman is opposed to the regime purely because of its discriminatory gender policies. My point was more to highlight how those policies, such as the mandatory hijab, serve as a clear example of broader systemic issues. And even there, it’s increasingly evident that dissatisfaction with compulsory hijab laws is widespread, including among some who may otherwise support the Islamic Republic. The state’s insistence on enforcement—despite growing resistance—suggests the costs of maintaining this policy may now outweigh any benefits, even from the regime’s own perspective.
At the same time, you’re right to point out that the regime still retains some support, including among rural populations or those who feel ideologically aligned. But overall, its unpopularity is substantial across gender and class lines. Many are alienated not just by repression of political and social freedoms, but also by the regime’s inability to deliver on basic economic needs. Sanctions, corruption, and mismanagement have led to very high inflation and soaring unemployment. What we’re seeing is a state that is increasingly unable to meet its own citizens’ expectations—ideologically, socially, and economically.
Regime change from outside carries too much baggage, as does the Pahlavi dynasty which was installed after the overthrow of Mossadegh. In fact the CIA admitted they erred in doing so. Had Mossadegh not been smeared as a Soviet lackey, he may have been Iran's Kemal Ataturk. The Shah's 1979 fall led to a power jostle between his deposers, and amidst the confusion Ayatollah Khomeini seized power. It's also worth noting that Khomeini regarded Mossadegh as too secular.
And there's a strong likelihood of a Dubya-style invasion turning into Vietnam or Afghanistan, and further accelerating America's declining world reputation. A successful Persian Spring along the lines of the Portuguese Carnation Revolution or Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution would be the ideal but hardest outcome, given the strength of the Ayatollah regime & the IRGC propping it up.
Great analysis — and thank you for bringing up the 1953 coup against Mossadegh by the US and UK. That’s such a crucial starting point for this whole discussion. It’s also true that no Western country has ever supported Iranians in moving toward the process of democracy — quite the opposite, they’ve often pushed them back as you mentioned like the 1953 coup.
Quite a good article but Parisa ought to be a little bolder with the ethical and international law concerns. I broadly agree with everything she wrote but I'd go further:
1) While Iran is run by an authoritarian regime we may find distasteful, it arose from a previous despotic regime via popular revolution from within Iran in 1979. It was not as a result of regime destabilisation from external forces. In fact it was a response to a previous regime change operation conducted by the UK and US secret services undermining and subverting the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh government back in 1953. The reason for this was the government's "audacity" to nationalise the oil company which was owned by BP (though i think it was its predecessor). In other words colonial empire greed and fear of communism etc.
The lesson of course is that revolution is never a good thing whether instigated internally or externally - this is a lesson the west has yet to learn it seems
2) The above should be sufficient to consider the current regime is legitimate in so far as it was brought about as a result of an internal revolution against a prior despotic regime. i.e. it was neither a revolution to topple a legitimate government nor was it brought about by the interference of external forces.
3) Given this legitimacy the country has sovereignty. Other countries have no right to interfere or attempt to destabilise the government. Only UN sanctioned actions can be considered legitimate if its processes are followed and not themselves subverted. This extends to the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
4) There's been a lot of debate about whether Iran is enriching Uranium to make nuclear weapons and on top of that assertions that once they get them they'd immediate nuke Israel because there have been calls from within to "destroy Israel". These are not serious arguments but, rather, implicitly racist and Islamophobic arguments mouthed off as articles of faith, not reasoning. Firstly Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has been the operating principle between nuclear armed states since the beginning so there's no reason to assume Iran would be any different. They don't have a collective suicidal death wish and nor do their leaders. Secondly calls to "destroy Israel" are not to be taken to mean "death to Jews", but rather a somewhat unfortunate and offensive use of words in making the quite legitimate claim that the state of Israel, as an ethno-nationalist/colonial state/project with different rights for people with different ethnicities (and the persecution of the Palestinians in particular) needs to replaced. Thirdly, if Iran was an irrational state that is hell bent on "going out with a bang"they have plenty of missiles with which they could pretty much destroy Israel with if they wanted to but in fact what we have seen is enormous restraint in spite of some pretty severe provocations. This indicates they are a state that wishes to endure.
5) Like always, the West focus on the wrong question and avoid analysing their implicit assumptions. i.e. whether Iran is secretly aiming to build nuclear weapons or not and how close they are to getting it done is a side show. They have the right to build a nuclear deterrence if they feel its necessary and the west has no right to attack them because they might be. The UN charter is pretty clear on this and, similar to the laws of incitement, a country can only attack another country in self defence if there is an attack or a real and imminent threat. On this basis it is in fact the US and Israel who are the aggressors and Iran had the right to defend itself. Instead what we heard is pretty much all the western leaders once again asserting Israel's right to defend itself. Now that is simply morally bankrupt in this context and its a disgrace that the MSM and government have not called this out.
6) As the article states Iran has not been building a bomb but enrichment to 60% goes far beyond the 4 or so % needed for nuclear power. This was the state of play when the US unilaterally withdrew from the JPOA and did not lift sanctions and Iran has used this to gain leverage. Perhaps a foolish strategy but there it is.
7) If they want now to produce nuclear weapons the most appropriate way forward would be to withdraw from the NPT rather than attempt to do it covertly and dishonestly within the NPT. While the original objectives of the NPT were laudable the fact that Israel and the US, both nuclear powers (Israel of which covertly produced nuclear weapons and has never submitted itself to the NPT) have made an unprovoked attack on Iran and the failure of the nuclear powers, generally, to take significant steps to substantially disarm themselves (i.e. reducing their stockpiles to the smallest number possible to act as a deterrent) failing to operate only with the express permission of the UN etc the NPT is now "toast"and nuclear weapons are bound to proliferate. The lesson in this is that if you want to be safe against aggression become a nuclear power. North Korea and Israel are proof points of this, while Iraq, Libya and now Iran are the counterfactuals.
Finally, the assumption by the West that "Iran cannot be allows nuclear weapons" and the subsequent question as to whether Iran's nuclear ambitions have been destroyed (rather than self reflecting on these issues as ethical concerns) is actually just a path back to the resumption of war, next time much more dangerous. i.e. it's pretty obvious that this is only a relatively modest setback to Iran (and anyone not half asleep knew this would be before the recent attacks) and the following things will now occur:
1) It is highly likely Iran will now withdraw from NPT and produce a nuclear weapon and who can blame them. Similarly Saudi Arabia will accelerate their nuclear developments.
2) The drums of war from the neocons, the fundamentalist Christians and Zionists in general will start to beat more loudly again to "go back and finish the job".
Because this immoral, mechanistic, totalitarian machine is unable to self reflect the next time it'll be a lot more violent and the chances of escalation in directions that are simply horrific and threaten us all are ever increasing. Time for some self reflection for us all in the west!
Oh I forgot to add, for anyone in the west who really is committed to democracy I'd suggest that democracy is actually a process rather than something you either have or don't have. i.e. it's up to the people of the country to evolve the quality of its society. It is specifically NOT for outsiders to buy influence, destabilise and forcefully overthrow a government. You can't argue that because Iran is not a democracy like ours we have the right to interfere. Get your hands off. Otherwise it's perfectly legitimate for outsiders to "do unto us what we do unto them" - I think Jesus said something similar to this and it's worth reflecting on.
i.e. It is up to the Iranian people to evolve their own society and system of government. It's a long, hard and slow process but doing it the "quick way" has proven to be the path to hell so many times why do we keep thinking it's OK? Think Iraq, Libya (and even Iran back in 1953)
Of course democracy is not a 'Christian (or any other theological) value' despite what the West, USA in particular, seems (once seemed?) to believe. Arguably democracy- particularly representative democracy- has proved to be so delightfully manipulable by elites, some of which preceded and others which have evolved alongside it, that they would install it everywhere! To that extent, I might even favour a benign absolute monarchy, assuming I can't have a mandated, recallable version of democracy based on technically informed policy rather than the current pork-barrel, bait-and-switch etc. teamsport idiocy.
Yes representative democracy has proven to be manipulable especially when combined with the nihilism of the west. Im sure this has proven the undoing of the west. But hey we had around 250 years of hegemony to enrich ourselves on and nothing lasts forever... ;-)
The idiocy of politics as "teamsport" is encapsulated in Sir Michael Cullen's infamous boast "We won, you lost, eat that".
The solution is not to have "winners" or "losers".
That can be achieved by not having general elections. If we are to dispense with general elections we need to institute a system of continuous election. That would bring many other benefits. Apart from making election campaigns and opinion polls redundant, it would eliminate "voter remorse" and broken promises, give the public real control and influence over their representatives and avoid the abrupt policy changes that come with overnight changes of government. Any changes to public policy would be clearly signaled well in advance as trends in public opinion became evident through shifts in support for the various political actors.
Delegate or representative? As I understand it a delegate is one who acts under the direction of the body (constituency) which appoints him. That direction is only possible when the appointing body is a real entity capable of joint deliberation and decision making.
Delegation requires that the constituency be relatively small (say, with fewer than a thousand members) and characterised by a common interest, mutually recognised relationships, and the capacity to meet together at appointed times and places. For example a local branch of a union or political party sends a delegate to a national assembly with broad instructions on how to represent the branch. Typically the delegate takes with him proxy votes equivalent in number to the number of members of the branch.
The differences between the delegation system and the representation system of the current Westminster system are obvious enough. Geographic constituencies are large, there is little in the way of common interest to bind the constituents together (the Maori seats are something of an exception) and there is no provision for the constituents to meet together as a whole to deliberate on matters of common interest, and thus to guide their representative. At the general election the successful candidates are given an irrevocable mandate to represent the community for a period of up to three year or longer, and the constituency itself has no power over the representative because the constituency has no real existence and no legal standing.
Hapu are the constituent bodies in rangatiratanga. They have all the qualities required of a system of delegated representation. They are real entities which meet together at formally appointed times at marae where matters of interest are discussed. Those dialogues are also carried on within the hapu informally at other times and in other places. Hapu are not artificial constructs, and no outsider has authority to prescribe their boundaries (that is to say who belongs or does not belong to the hapu). Members of the hapu themselves determine who belongs to the hapu, according to their own rules.
The constituent parts of a radically reformed democracy would have the same qualities as hapu. They would be relatively small, self-determined, not necessarily based on geography and they would be non-uniform in size. Delegates or representatives to a national assembly would not have a vote in their own right, but would have proxy votes equivalent in number to the number of persons who they represent. That simple change in the way that votes were tallied in the national assembly would make it apparent that the people themselves had entered into the process of government.
I have heard this analogy of hapu as base level councils several times from several different people- enough consistency of thought and diversity of source to give it credibility. There's a good argument for individuals belonging to multiple councils, say 2 or 3 to represent different facets of their lives. a tiered system of geographical councils could perform the functions of community, district and regional councils as well as being a part of the National assembly. Another of economic interests, another of cultural interests. Just ideas.
There's been a lot of chatter over the years about NZ being 'over-governed'. Probably this was due to the dominance of farmers in old NZ. Likely the farmers knew that government at all levels had their back, so a more diverse and engaged democracy could only negate rather than enhance their interests. Also the old adage that 'it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always wins' which is a way of saying that democratic engagement is just a respectability mask for a system where real power is held within the apparatus (true). The corollary of this is: If people felt that democratic engagement had real meaning, would they be prepared to dedicate time to its functioning, or do they actually prefer being disempowered, then 'sticking it to the man' by petty acts of defiance that actually only degrade the lives and environment of their neighbours.
We don't have to resort to a benign absolute monarchy, the stuff of Plato's dreams, never encountered in the real world. Instead we can have a genuine democracy based on the open ballot, self-determined non-uniform constituencies, and continuous election. That would decisively shift the power from the manipulative elites back to the people. It would also deliver the rangatiratanga promised to our people in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Without wishing to disparage Dr Kooshesh, I would make the case that authoritarian regimes exist, not because of random capture by malign internal elites, but because external pressures are opposed by those with deep conviction. That conviction can be religious, nationalistic or ideological in nature (often all three), and is rarely found in the mindless drifters that make up the major proportion of the population of so-called liberal democracies. Other factors that play into the problem is that liberalism is a basket of values (just like authoritarianism) that permits- even encourages if it thinks there's political or monetary advantage in it- certain social diversities, but these are intimately mixed with 'free-market' values that don't recognise other oppressions, particularly economic ones, that sit outside the permitted (and actually quite elastic over time) canon.
One cannot equate the unpopularity of the Islamic Republic within the Iranian Diaspora, with that within the country itself- that's the nature of a diaspora. Whatever the feelings within the country itself, and I freely admit that I wouldn't choose that government for myself, these will now be more solidly behind the government than they were before this debacle, just as the Russian population is more solidly behind the current administration than it was before the Ukraine conflict.
Another parallel with the situation in Russia is that, just as a more liberal attitude within Russia- compared with the Cold War era- allowed agents of Ukraine and its allies to operate within Russia to co-ordinate the (pointless from a UKR tactical perspective but nevertheless inflammatory) attack on Russia's aging strategic nuclear bomber fleet, so the recently more liberal attitude of Iran's government compared to the earlier days of the Islamic Republic has allowed Mossad and other agencies to operate within Iran to co-ordinate the first wave of attacks. The parallels are striking.
Authoritarian regimes are a response to the pressures that have been applied by the collective West to developing countries over many decades for a number of reasons both ideological and economic. At the current time they are largely related to the slow-moving collapse of the Neoliberal financial order, though of course Israel has additional reasons relating to Iran's support of the Palestinian cause over many years.
Thanks for your comments Kevin — I really appreciate your perspective on why authoritarian regimes exist and why they can be so resistant to reform. I completely agree that we shouldn’t rely on the diaspora to fully reflect the views of people inside Iran. That said, I’d argue the Islamic Republic is relatively unpopular both within the country and among Iranians abroad. One of the key reasons for this is its deeply discriminatory policies against women, which alienate half the population — not to mention many other repressive measures.
You’re absolutely right that war can temporarily boost support for the regime and give it some momentum. I just hope they use this moment as a chance for some reform — though, I’m not too optimistic. Unfortunately, it’s more likely things will return to how they were before, or perhaps even get worse.
It comes down to the 'basket of values' phenomenon that I mentioned: The notion that nations can pick-and-choose what properties to place in the basket at will is a liberal fantasy and the root of the idea of the 'evil leader' or clique that can be removed to bring about positive change. Experience shows that removing these leaders / cliques by external force creates deadly chaos every time. The West tells a story it can forge order out of the fragments; in practice it settles for ongoing chaos, warlordism etc. as 'near enough', given the cost of reconstruction and the lack of guarantee that the population will be loyal to the 'liberator'. This is the reality 'switch' to the fantasy 'bait' of social liberal values.
Iran has several times from the 1900's sought democracy for itself and that has been overthrown by Western interference and replaced by a client monarchy. The lesson this teaches is that, in Iran's circumstance, democracy and national autonomy have not been compatible, so ultimately Iran 'chose' an autonomous theocracy.
Things are changing extremely fast at the moment: Recent conflicts are the death-throes of the hegemony of financial powers that are in retreat- even in their own countries / continents. This is a palpable truth.
If we can avoid thermonuclear oblivion (big 'if'- some would prefer planet-death to loss of power, others see it as biblical 'end-times'). Collapse of the hegemony will allow the resumption of history.
The darkest hour is before the dawn.
It is simplistic to say that "deeply discriminatory policies against women ... alienate half the population". It is patently obvious that the Islamic regime enjoys a degree of support among women as well as men. Perhaps not so much among the affluent classes, but certainly among the rural and urban poor.
You are totally right Geoff, not every woman is opposed to the regime purely because of its discriminatory gender policies. My point was more to highlight how those policies, such as the mandatory hijab, serve as a clear example of broader systemic issues. And even there, it’s increasingly evident that dissatisfaction with compulsory hijab laws is widespread, including among some who may otherwise support the Islamic Republic. The state’s insistence on enforcement—despite growing resistance—suggests the costs of maintaining this policy may now outweigh any benefits, even from the regime’s own perspective.
At the same time, you’re right to point out that the regime still retains some support, including among rural populations or those who feel ideologically aligned. But overall, its unpopularity is substantial across gender and class lines. Many are alienated not just by repression of political and social freedoms, but also by the regime’s inability to deliver on basic economic needs. Sanctions, corruption, and mismanagement have led to very high inflation and soaring unemployment. What we’re seeing is a state that is increasingly unable to meet its own citizens’ expectations—ideologically, socially, and economically.
Regime change from outside carries too much baggage, as does the Pahlavi dynasty which was installed after the overthrow of Mossadegh. In fact the CIA admitted they erred in doing so. Had Mossadegh not been smeared as a Soviet lackey, he may have been Iran's Kemal Ataturk. The Shah's 1979 fall led to a power jostle between his deposers, and amidst the confusion Ayatollah Khomeini seized power. It's also worth noting that Khomeini regarded Mossadegh as too secular.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/19/politics/cia-iran-1953-coup
And there's a strong likelihood of a Dubya-style invasion turning into Vietnam or Afghanistan, and further accelerating America's declining world reputation. A successful Persian Spring along the lines of the Portuguese Carnation Revolution or Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution would be the ideal but hardest outcome, given the strength of the Ayatollah regime & the IRGC propping it up.
Things could be getting worse inside Iran right now, according to this:
https://www.dw.com/en/iran-regime-intensifies-crackdown-amid-israel-ceasefire/a-73065973
Great analysis — and thank you for bringing up the 1953 coup against Mossadegh by the US and UK. That’s such a crucial starting point for this whole discussion. It’s also true that no Western country has ever supported Iranians in moving toward the process of democracy — quite the opposite, they’ve often pushed them back as you mentioned like the 1953 coup.
https://open.substack.com/pub/mdavis19881/p/the-increased-nuclear-threat-after?r=19b2o&utm_medium=ios
Quite a good article but Parisa ought to be a little bolder with the ethical and international law concerns. I broadly agree with everything she wrote but I'd go further:
1) While Iran is run by an authoritarian regime we may find distasteful, it arose from a previous despotic regime via popular revolution from within Iran in 1979. It was not as a result of regime destabilisation from external forces. In fact it was a response to a previous regime change operation conducted by the UK and US secret services undermining and subverting the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh government back in 1953. The reason for this was the government's "audacity" to nationalise the oil company which was owned by BP (though i think it was its predecessor). In other words colonial empire greed and fear of communism etc.
The lesson of course is that revolution is never a good thing whether instigated internally or externally - this is a lesson the west has yet to learn it seems
2) The above should be sufficient to consider the current regime is legitimate in so far as it was brought about as a result of an internal revolution against a prior despotic regime. i.e. it was neither a revolution to topple a legitimate government nor was it brought about by the interference of external forces.
3) Given this legitimacy the country has sovereignty. Other countries have no right to interfere or attempt to destabilise the government. Only UN sanctioned actions can be considered legitimate if its processes are followed and not themselves subverted. This extends to the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
4) There's been a lot of debate about whether Iran is enriching Uranium to make nuclear weapons and on top of that assertions that once they get them they'd immediate nuke Israel because there have been calls from within to "destroy Israel". These are not serious arguments but, rather, implicitly racist and Islamophobic arguments mouthed off as articles of faith, not reasoning. Firstly Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has been the operating principle between nuclear armed states since the beginning so there's no reason to assume Iran would be any different. They don't have a collective suicidal death wish and nor do their leaders. Secondly calls to "destroy Israel" are not to be taken to mean "death to Jews", but rather a somewhat unfortunate and offensive use of words in making the quite legitimate claim that the state of Israel, as an ethno-nationalist/colonial state/project with different rights for people with different ethnicities (and the persecution of the Palestinians in particular) needs to replaced. Thirdly, if Iran was an irrational state that is hell bent on "going out with a bang"they have plenty of missiles with which they could pretty much destroy Israel with if they wanted to but in fact what we have seen is enormous restraint in spite of some pretty severe provocations. This indicates they are a state that wishes to endure.
5) Like always, the West focus on the wrong question and avoid analysing their implicit assumptions. i.e. whether Iran is secretly aiming to build nuclear weapons or not and how close they are to getting it done is a side show. They have the right to build a nuclear deterrence if they feel its necessary and the west has no right to attack them because they might be. The UN charter is pretty clear on this and, similar to the laws of incitement, a country can only attack another country in self defence if there is an attack or a real and imminent threat. On this basis it is in fact the US and Israel who are the aggressors and Iran had the right to defend itself. Instead what we heard is pretty much all the western leaders once again asserting Israel's right to defend itself. Now that is simply morally bankrupt in this context and its a disgrace that the MSM and government have not called this out.
6) As the article states Iran has not been building a bomb but enrichment to 60% goes far beyond the 4 or so % needed for nuclear power. This was the state of play when the US unilaterally withdrew from the JPOA and did not lift sanctions and Iran has used this to gain leverage. Perhaps a foolish strategy but there it is.
7) If they want now to produce nuclear weapons the most appropriate way forward would be to withdraw from the NPT rather than attempt to do it covertly and dishonestly within the NPT. While the original objectives of the NPT were laudable the fact that Israel and the US, both nuclear powers (Israel of which covertly produced nuclear weapons and has never submitted itself to the NPT) have made an unprovoked attack on Iran and the failure of the nuclear powers, generally, to take significant steps to substantially disarm themselves (i.e. reducing their stockpiles to the smallest number possible to act as a deterrent) failing to operate only with the express permission of the UN etc the NPT is now "toast"and nuclear weapons are bound to proliferate. The lesson in this is that if you want to be safe against aggression become a nuclear power. North Korea and Israel are proof points of this, while Iraq, Libya and now Iran are the counterfactuals.
Finally, the assumption by the West that "Iran cannot be allows nuclear weapons" and the subsequent question as to whether Iran's nuclear ambitions have been destroyed (rather than self reflecting on these issues as ethical concerns) is actually just a path back to the resumption of war, next time much more dangerous. i.e. it's pretty obvious that this is only a relatively modest setback to Iran (and anyone not half asleep knew this would be before the recent attacks) and the following things will now occur:
1) It is highly likely Iran will now withdraw from NPT and produce a nuclear weapon and who can blame them. Similarly Saudi Arabia will accelerate their nuclear developments.
2) The drums of war from the neocons, the fundamentalist Christians and Zionists in general will start to beat more loudly again to "go back and finish the job".
Because this immoral, mechanistic, totalitarian machine is unable to self reflect the next time it'll be a lot more violent and the chances of escalation in directions that are simply horrific and threaten us all are ever increasing. Time for some self reflection for us all in the west!
Oh I forgot to add, for anyone in the west who really is committed to democracy I'd suggest that democracy is actually a process rather than something you either have or don't have. i.e. it's up to the people of the country to evolve the quality of its society. It is specifically NOT for outsiders to buy influence, destabilise and forcefully overthrow a government. You can't argue that because Iran is not a democracy like ours we have the right to interfere. Get your hands off. Otherwise it's perfectly legitimate for outsiders to "do unto us what we do unto them" - I think Jesus said something similar to this and it's worth reflecting on.
i.e. It is up to the Iranian people to evolve their own society and system of government. It's a long, hard and slow process but doing it the "quick way" has proven to be the path to hell so many times why do we keep thinking it's OK? Think Iraq, Libya (and even Iran back in 1953)
Of course democracy is not a 'Christian (or any other theological) value' despite what the West, USA in particular, seems (once seemed?) to believe. Arguably democracy- particularly representative democracy- has proved to be so delightfully manipulable by elites, some of which preceded and others which have evolved alongside it, that they would install it everywhere! To that extent, I might even favour a benign absolute monarchy, assuming I can't have a mandated, recallable version of democracy based on technically informed policy rather than the current pork-barrel, bait-and-switch etc. teamsport idiocy.
Yes representative democracy has proven to be manipulable especially when combined with the nihilism of the west. Im sure this has proven the undoing of the west. But hey we had around 250 years of hegemony to enrich ourselves on and nothing lasts forever... ;-)
The idiocy of politics as "teamsport" is encapsulated in Sir Michael Cullen's infamous boast "We won, you lost, eat that".
The solution is not to have "winners" or "losers".
That can be achieved by not having general elections. If we are to dispense with general elections we need to institute a system of continuous election. That would bring many other benefits. Apart from making election campaigns and opinion polls redundant, it would eliminate "voter remorse" and broken promises, give the public real control and influence over their representatives and avoid the abrupt policy changes that come with overnight changes of government. Any changes to public policy would be clearly signaled well in advance as trends in public opinion became evident through shifts in support for the various political actors.
Delegates rather than representatives.
Delegate or representative? As I understand it a delegate is one who acts under the direction of the body (constituency) which appoints him. That direction is only possible when the appointing body is a real entity capable of joint deliberation and decision making.
Delegation requires that the constituency be relatively small (say, with fewer than a thousand members) and characterised by a common interest, mutually recognised relationships, and the capacity to meet together at appointed times and places. For example a local branch of a union or political party sends a delegate to a national assembly with broad instructions on how to represent the branch. Typically the delegate takes with him proxy votes equivalent in number to the number of members of the branch.
The differences between the delegation system and the representation system of the current Westminster system are obvious enough. Geographic constituencies are large, there is little in the way of common interest to bind the constituents together (the Maori seats are something of an exception) and there is no provision for the constituents to meet together as a whole to deliberate on matters of common interest, and thus to guide their representative. At the general election the successful candidates are given an irrevocable mandate to represent the community for a period of up to three year or longer, and the constituency itself has no power over the representative because the constituency has no real existence and no legal standing.
Hapu are the constituent bodies in rangatiratanga. They have all the qualities required of a system of delegated representation. They are real entities which meet together at formally appointed times at marae where matters of interest are discussed. Those dialogues are also carried on within the hapu informally at other times and in other places. Hapu are not artificial constructs, and no outsider has authority to prescribe their boundaries (that is to say who belongs or does not belong to the hapu). Members of the hapu themselves determine who belongs to the hapu, according to their own rules.
The constituent parts of a radically reformed democracy would have the same qualities as hapu. They would be relatively small, self-determined, not necessarily based on geography and they would be non-uniform in size. Delegates or representatives to a national assembly would not have a vote in their own right, but would have proxy votes equivalent in number to the number of persons who they represent. That simple change in the way that votes were tallied in the national assembly would make it apparent that the people themselves had entered into the process of government.
I have heard this analogy of hapu as base level councils several times from several different people- enough consistency of thought and diversity of source to give it credibility. There's a good argument for individuals belonging to multiple councils, say 2 or 3 to represent different facets of their lives. a tiered system of geographical councils could perform the functions of community, district and regional councils as well as being a part of the National assembly. Another of economic interests, another of cultural interests. Just ideas.
There's been a lot of chatter over the years about NZ being 'over-governed'. Probably this was due to the dominance of farmers in old NZ. Likely the farmers knew that government at all levels had their back, so a more diverse and engaged democracy could only negate rather than enhance their interests. Also the old adage that 'it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always wins' which is a way of saying that democratic engagement is just a respectability mask for a system where real power is held within the apparatus (true). The corollary of this is: If people felt that democratic engagement had real meaning, would they be prepared to dedicate time to its functioning, or do they actually prefer being disempowered, then 'sticking it to the man' by petty acts of defiance that actually only degrade the lives and environment of their neighbours.
We don't have to resort to a benign absolute monarchy, the stuff of Plato's dreams, never encountered in the real world. Instead we can have a genuine democracy based on the open ballot, self-determined non-uniform constituencies, and continuous election. That would decisively shift the power from the manipulative elites back to the people. It would also deliver the rangatiratanga promised to our people in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.