What are your reactions? Do you agree/disagree? Is this the only way Iran can become democratic, or is this not a way at all? Try to cite something from his book included in the reader.
Don't forget that you need to post by next week...
-Amir
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think President Khatami, who ruled from 1997 to 2005, offered viable solutions for change in Iran. My initial reaction to the clip was that he was a bold man, insofar as acknowledging abuses. In particular, I enjoyed the section, in which, he stressed that human rights abuses occur worldwide, as well as in Iran. His honesty and committment to reform was also manifested in his speech at an Iranian university, which we watched in yesterday's lecture. I found it quite interesting that although a number of students protested Khatami, he still held himself accountable for the empty promises made during his tenure.
From what i learned about Khatami during lecture and from the various videos we saw, he definitely had a dream for the republic of Iran. Although he was in no way for changing the entire structure of Iran's government, he was definitely a liberal in the Iranian sense in reforming the current structure. His ability to discuss the faults of his nation openly makes me feel at least that he was "keepin it real". He was able to show the citizens who were deeply opposed to the Islamic Republic that as much as they might dislike the way of things, given the countries current socio-economic situation and the religious will of the people and the religious side of the government, any revolution would only result in the death of thousands of citizens in a situation which is bound to fail regardless. He goes to show that there can never be a true democracy in Iran and as much as it make suck, I believe that he is right in his statements.
I think that Khatami did hope to bring about true change in Iran, yet his position offered him little true power to do so. I think because he ran on the platform of liberalization and reform, many people were greatly disappointed when he failed to implement all of the democratic changes that his platform seemed to promise. There were many instances when Khatami really did attempt to reform Iran, to make it more democratic and free, yet he often clashed with hardliners and conservatives in the Iranian government, those who control powerful governmental organizations like the Guardian Council and whose members are appointed by the Supreme Leader. I felt that Khatami obviously could have done more, he could have done a better job throughout his presidency by pushing harder for some of his reforms--yet with the benefit of hindsight we can say this about virtually any president. Ultimately, the video of him speaking to the university students really impressed, especially when he made the statement about how nowhere in the Middle East would students (or anyone in general) be allowed to boo their president. I even doubt that they would allow that in the United States...overall, I am interested to see what happens in the upcoming elections and what will become of Khatami.
I think that Khatami did hope to bring about true change in Iran, yet his position offered him little true power to do so. I think because he ran on the platform of liberalization and reform, many people were greatly disappointed when he failed to implement all of the democratic changes that his platform seemed to promise. There were many instances when Khatami really did attempt to reform Iran, to make it more democratic and free, yet he often clashed with hardliners and conservatives in the Iranian government, those who control powerful governmental organizations like the Guardian Council and whose members are appointed by the Supreme Leader. I felt that Khatami obviously could have done more, he could have done a better job throughout his presidency by pushing harder for some of his reforms--yet with the benefit of hindsight we can say this about virtually any president. Ultimately, the video of him speaking to the university students really impressed, especially when he made the statement about how nowhere in the Middle East would students (or anyone in general) be allowed to boo their president. I even doubt that they would allow that in the United States...overall, I am interested to see what happens in the upcoming elections and what will become of Khatami.
I think President Khatami's push for a democratic Iran is not likely to happen in the context of our style of democracy. He has pushed for a democracy that does not devour Iran by western ideology, but a democracy that is specialized for Iran. This brand of democracy is odd to me in that there are a number of high power institutions and officials that are not elected by the public. How can a democracy as we understand it exist in a place where the choice of presidents are first decided by a specialized group of religious leaders? Is that democracy? It is true that democracy is not a goal but a long road of changing norns and social values. In this sense the type of Iranian democracy that Khatami is suggesting may be the first steps in a long process of democratization. In comparison to Mohammad Reza's White Revolution, Khatami's view is incomplete. The White Revolution was a middle class movement to redirect the state to progress while at the same time diminish the role of the Monarchy so that true progress could take place. From history we can see that when landed elites take control of the state you end with Fascism/Autocracy. When the lower class take control of the state you get Communism/Socialism. But when the middle class takes control you get Democracy. In this sense the White Revolution was going to put Iran on track for a bright economic future. Unfortunately it was put to a halt by landed elite and misguided youth with too much disposable income. There will hopefully come a time when Iran can have a democracy and I think that the role of Islam will take a back seat for the future progress of that state.
When i first saw this video and the video we saw in class of Khatami at a university in Iran, I was very shocked. Khatami truly attempted to reform some of the problems of Iran, but he was clearly not in a position to provide "complete reform." I respect him to a certain degree for accepting some of the faults of the Iranian regime and being somewhat truthful to the people. He had some harsh words directed at the U.S but if you take a step back and look at where he and the Iranian people are coming from, the American government has not been there to help Iran in times of need, so what makes people think they will help now? Many people may disagree with me on this, but take a look at the situation in Iraq and the mission of establishing a "democracy." Again, I really appreciate how Khatami acknowledges Iran's own shortcomings, but at the same time he makes a great point by saying if we let a western nation such as the U.S "establish democracy" then we will be worse off than we are now. On page 105 of the reader Khatami defines the term development and goes on to say:
"The way i see it, development is a western construct, and all those who seek development must become modern. This means that development as currently defined is a branch of the tree of modern civilization...those who claim that adopting Western thinking and values is neccessary precondition of development are not misguided...but i also believe that development, as conceived today, is only one form of transformation and evolution in human society, not the only and exclusive version of it. We who discuss development today cannot go back four hundred years at the time when the West started their journey in order to get where it is today. Instead, the vast experience of Westerners is before us, and if we are thoughtful, we must choose our future path on the basis of experience."
This is a little excerpt from Islam, Liberty, and Development and I feel like it does an excellent job to portray what Khatami was trying to say in the video. If you continue reading the article, the video and Khatami's logic will become more clear and understandable. Anyways, all in all I think this video and Khatami's message is that there can never be Western democracy in Iran, but maybe a different solution is plausible.
When i first saw this video and the video we saw in class of Khatami at a university in Iran, I was very shocked. Khatami truly attempted to reform some of the problems of Iran, but he was clearly not in a position to provide "complete reform." I respect him to a certain degree for accepting some of the faults of the Iranian regime and being somewhat truthful to the people. He had some harsh words directed at the U.S but if you take a step back and look at where he and the Iranian people are coming from, the American government has not been there to help Iran in times of need, so what makes people think they will help now? Many people may disagree with me on this, but take a look at the situation in Iraq and the mission of establishing a "democracy." Again, I really appreciate how Khatami acknowledges Iran's own shortcomings, but at the same time he makes a great point by saying if we let a western nation such as the U.S "establish democracy" then we will be worse off than we are now. On page 105 of the reader Khatami defines the term development and goes on to say:
"The way i see it, development is a western construct, and all those who seek development must become modern. This means that development as currently defined is a branch of the tree of modern civilization...those who claim that adopting Western thinking and values is neccessary precondition of development are not misguided...but i also believe that development, as conceived today, is only one form of transformation and evolution in human society, not the only and exclusive version of it. We who discuss development today cannot go back four hundred years at the time when the West started their journey in order to get where it is today. Instead, the vast experience of Westerners is before us, and if we are thoughtful, we must choose our future path on the basis of experience."
This is a little excerpt from Islam, Liberty, and Development and I feel like it does an excellent job to portray what Khatami was trying to say in the video. If you continue reading the article, the video and Khatami's logic will become more clear and understandable. Anyways, all in all I think this video and Khatami's message is that there can never be Western democracy in Iran, but maybe a different solution is plausible.
I give a lot of credit to Khataami because of the fact that he accepts the flaws and the fact that he tried very hard to reform Iran. I would like to completely disagree with him about the point he makes that it is impossible to have a democracy Iran if this regime is removed. I believe that Iran can definitely have a secular democratic government in the future. It is the corruption in Iran that has completely ruined Iran. It is not true that Iran has the best conditions out of all the neighbors. Iran has one of the worst economies of Iran. Let's not forget that no matter what he says, he is in fact a religious leader and everything he says is in a religious perspective of Islamic fanatics.
I was taken aback initially by the things he says. However, then I realized I was being ethnocentric and tried to see the logic behind his readings/video. (Ethnocentrism is the way we judge other nations/cultures based on our own.) The influence of religion in their country and among their neighbors, I think, would make it more difficult for a western democratic style government to take place in Iran. He is essentially embracing democracy, but as it would apply to Iran. He seems to work with an honest perspective on things (i.e. his views on abuse, etc.) Note that although he seems reasonable, I can see potential in the things he says to be taken out of context and used against him in the US media.
Khatami's stance on democratic change in Iran is honorable but not realistic. Whenever a government changes its form of governance, whether it be from authoritarian rule to aristocracy or socialism to democracy, it is often violent and a long transition. The reforms he promised, if implemented rapidly, will upset a lot of people, especially the elite and will most likely cause violence. If Khatami implemented the reforms slowly then he would not be able to build a working democracy in Iran under his leadership, since it would take too long, and who knows if the next leader will take up his leadership on democracy. This does not mean that his ideals are out of place though; the first step towards change is talking about it.
I think it sent the world a clear message when Khatami acknowledged the human rights abuses occurring in Iran, that Iran acknowledges the realities people face in the country. One of the essential components of democracy is transparency and accountability, and by acknowledging the human rights abuses in Iran, Khatami is slowly incorporating aspects of democracy into Iran's politics.
It is of course controversial to have a religious democracy because what happens when someone who is not Muslim wants to run for the presidency? Although this situation is of course very unlike in Iran it is a situation that could be faced if democracy were to take hold in Iran. And if it were a democracy then Iran would have to let the guy run, even if he had no chance of winning.
I think that over time Iran may become a democracy, but right now it would cause too much chaos among the elite and ruling class if democracy were pushed upon the government, by external or internal forces. It is better to let the country remain stable and slowly implement all of Khatami's reforms, then try to change Iran over night.
I thought that President Khatami spoke and presented himself in a manner that he was very supportive of change and passionate for reform in iran .He made me believe that he was fighting for his people and his personal beliefs. I liked how stated that this new form of democracy could work but then i ask myself why didnt he talk about these changes when he was in power or had the power to change? I think that now since he isnt ruling that he can express what he wants or believes but couldnt do so when in power. Or he truley thinks that this type of refrom could never work and that is why he didnt bring it up when he was in power.
It is important to understand that Iran is currently an Islamic nation. I agree with the points that Khatami makes in his book: Islam, Liberty, and Development. Khatami and the people of Iran are not interested in a Westernized Democracy. However, in order for Iran to have a democracy, they must undergo a transformation that will "be humane and productive." To do so, people must "knowingly and willingly participate in the process," the process requires "that serious and established thinking be present," and such thinking must be based on freedom. He points out the importance of remembering that the West had its own problems when "the West started the journey in order to get to where it is today." Freedom of thought must be respected. Islam cannot be exploited to control the people, but rather to respect the people. I believe this is a great starting point for Iran to move towards Democracy.
Post a Comment