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.
-Amir
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Official DeCal Blog
15 comments:
Simply because I'm not Iranian can I understand the views of an Islamic Democracy. Someone like Khatami who has studied Islam in depth focuses his ideas more on religion that practicality. Any basic religion promotes ideas of freedom, faith and pursuit of happiness. At the same time, many religions obligate a person/follower to live by the standards of the faith. In that sense, when we speak of democracy, we must understand that democratic principles promote individual rights. So can an Islamic Democracy work? Only if everyone is willing to cooperate and believe Islam is democracy. I only speak from opinion, and I know that perhaps mine isn't the most correct or accurate.
It is my opinion that government and religion or spirituality are two distinct entities. It is difficult for me to accept a system which combines the two completely and I therefore disagree with Khatami on the basis that a more democratic system can develop under the current Islamic Republic regime. That is to not means say that the western way of government is the only right way. I agree with his assertions about the harm America has caused in the Middle East and I think most of the western motives have been negative and detrimental to the country’s development. I supported Khatami’s claim that following in the footsteps of America and developing a western style democracy would not really work in Iran. The history of the west’s influence and interference with the country has made it develop so differently and with a great deal of anger and distrust of the system as well as foreign powers and their interests in the country. I found it interesting in his book when he cited the shortcomings of western development and how there have been devastating consequences. The build up of democratic systems by the United States seems to be so much more of a ploy to get countries to follow their line of thinking so that they may serve the purpose the US sees fit. While I disagree with religion in many cases, I also feel that perhaps Iran, as Khatami declares, needs a different style of government, however I am very skeptical as to whether or not a system such as the Islamic republic could produce a viable form of democracy that afforded the same rights and protections and basic equalities that are enjoyed in the United States by the average person. Perhaps it is because it all seems so foreign to me and my own thoughts about what kind of a system I would like to live under. I think that within the US, we are able to exercise a great deal of freedom even though I have many discrepancies with the way much of the American system operates. Beyond the borders however, I think that much of the US foreign relations and actions abroad are completely anti-democratic. It seems almost hypocritical in some instances, so while I disagree with Khatami’s claim that a more progressive system can develop out of Islamic fundamentalism, I think that they have every right to be skeptical and distrustful of a system that is in line with the west.
From what I recall from Jahangir Amuzegar's article in the Middle East Journal, Khatami was trying to bridge Islamic theocracy and participatory democracy. I agree with Amuzegar's assessment that with Khatemi you had a relaxation of moral codes, more openess politically, women's acess to university education was considered, etc...but clearly Khatami had to contend with political forces from within...hard line institutions still found ways to operate, an example of this is the Student dorms incident where many were awakened in the night to violence.
The question of whether Islamic democracy is possible depends on whether the majority of Iranians choose to have one. I think what Khatami was trying to say was that Western Democracy is not possible in Iran. I feel that is why he mentioned Afghanistan. In U.S terms, democracy in "undemocratic" nations has always meant...we need to seize thier nation, culture, values, and place a McDonalds on every corner.
Elterero- I too find this to be a very difficult subject to speak on because I am not Islmaic or Iranian. Just listening to this video and knowing what I know, Khatami seems to be speaking with a lot of reason. I don't know if this is the only way Iran can become a democracy because I don't know enough about Iran or about "the will of the people." Ideally I believe in the separation of church and state. But, maybe what Khatami and other Reformers propose is the first step in the right direction. Of course now that Khatami is no longer running for president who knows what will happen.
PS I also appreciated that Khatami did not attempt to hide/deny human rights violations that occur in Iran. At the same time I have heard that reformers are often involved in these same violations.
I enjoy hearing Khatami speak because his tone and words are much better if you were to compare him to the current and previous presidents of the Islamic Republic. Even though I am a secular Iranian living in the U.S. I would love to have somebody run Iran who is much more liberal and open to dialogue with the West. I would love to see these unnecessary sanctions lifted that have plagued Irans citizens. An Obama-Khatami combination would definitely be beneficial to putting an end to this whole nuclear issue.
I cannot speak as to the desires of the Iranian people, but to give Khatami the benefit of the doubt and assume that the majority of Iran 'wants' an Islamic Democratic Republic, then perhaps it is true that the a true democracy would require the help of Islam given that it is the will of the people. A problem with democracy however is that it does not inherently guard against mob rule. So (as an extreme hypothetical example) if the majority says that all citizens who don't conform to religious regulations should be executed then so be it, it after all is the will of the people (please understand that I'm not saying that is the actual will of the Iranian people). I see a problem in protection of minorities. In the inaugural address in the reader Khatami refers to "...the people's most fundamental right, the right to determine their own destiny." If Islam is imposed on people through government does that not infringe upon this right? Or in saying this does he mean on a collective basis, in which it is the collective will of the people in which individual "destinies" are less important?
I think separation of state and religion is a political construct which originated in the West. This does not imply that such a separation is required for the establishment of a democratic order. Democracy should not be construed as a system which can only exist under a specific set of conditions. Especially in a country like Iran, it is hard to conceive that a separation of state and religion is even possible, considering how closely fused they are. The large amount of religious diversity in a country like the United States would require a separation of church and state for democratic principles to be ensured, but Iran does not have the same degree of religious diversity. Religion seems to me to be a much more universal structure in Iranian society.
It's amazing how reassuring Khatami can get without renouncing Iranian rivalry with the United States. What makes him sound more normal is his unwillingness use that rivalry to brush off criticisms of Iran's domestic policies. Where Ahmadinejad says "You say we ignore human rights, but you're an imperialist power!" Khatami says "Yes, the imperialists are around us, but we still have problems at home that we need to solve."
Being Iranian I do not particularly care for the fact that religion and government are united in Iran. It seems inefficient and purely subjective, as the domineering force in government is Islam, and will continue to be as such even if the word "democracy" is tacked on it.
I appreciated that Khatami did not just sugarcoat the civil situation, and did acknowledge that Iran does indeed have faults and injustices. He is the calmest, and by far the most eloquent, and open-minded of the leaders that I've seen (thought I have only seen a few). He was civil and did not wish to incite negative feelings by bringing up controversial events. It can be inferred that he was under severe internal political pressure as well.
An Islamic Democracy unfortunately sounds a bit paradoxical. It is difficult to comprehend that a religion with such defined laws and groupings which everyone in the country will be subjected to can allow for the expression of individuals' rights.
Yet I thoroughly disagree with Khatami's statement that it is "impossible to establish a non religious democracy". The United States have managed fully function whilst separating church and state. Perhaps it is Western democracy that is incompatible with Islam.
I can only surmise that the religion is part of what causes the rift between the younger generation that does not hold Islam as a priority and the older which hails Islam as a fundamental part of life, including government. For the older generation it will indeed be impossible to have any type of government without Islam because it is such a fundamental part of the culture and those people will never acquiesce to that option.
It is obviously difficult for any non-Iranian person to answer these questions, but I still think that something can be said. I think that it makes sense to a certain extent what Khatami is saying - we can't expect Iran to become a Western-style democracy over night.
However, I find it hard to reconcile the idea of a state based on religious laws and the idea of a democracy. Can a theocratic state be democratic at the same time? I don't think so. Democracy is man-made, and based on the rights of the individual, while if you evoke a god in the state's laws, you automatically remove power from the people to the will, or interpreted will, of a god. That is my opinion, anyway.
I do think, though, that a road to democracy should be followed through reform rather than revolution, so in that I agree with Khatami. Perhaps, by going through different reform stages, including Khatami's Islamic democracy, Iran might become a secular democracy in the end?
If the government continues like this, continually losing the support of its citizens it will end either in another revolutionary clash or a severe reform of the current system. I think countries need to want desperately to be democratic, and preferably have a tradition of democracy. I hold what Khatami says fairly highly he is a reform voice, though not a liberal voice, and it is essential not to underestimate culture and tradition when trying to gauge the path a country will take down either theocracy or democracy.
I agreed with a lot of what Khatami said in the Islam, liberty and development reading. He did a good job of explaining how the current political culture of Iran came to be the way it is, whether it was the tyrannical monarchies or the legacies of colonialism. Still, his ideas were different in that he wasn't opposed to Western ideas. in fact, he claimed that one can learn from the progress and failures of Western ideas that have been put into practice over the years. I agree that while no country should try to imitate a political model of another, it might be a good idea to learn and model their own after those that did work. Democracy doesnt have to be seen as a Western concept. Iran can borrow selective aspects that would be compatible with their own culture and customs, while taking into consideration the differences that exist between Iran and the rest. This is beneficial because it saves a lot of time and effort by skipping the process of trial and error. It is too bad that his ideas couldn't materialize into anything concrete due to internal power struggles that existed during his term as the president.
Like a few whom have already posted, I feel it is hard for me to comment on the possibility of an Islamic democracy because I am not religious and see church and state as two things that should never be intertwined.
But in Iran, there really is no question of a separation. If the Iranian people want a democracy, they can form some sort of democratic government, but by U.S. standards it obviously wouldn't be considered a true democracy. I completely support religious freedom and also the freedom not to follow any religion, so I worry about small groups of people who do not want to follow an Islamic Democracy. But, if it is what the people want I think it could be possible in one way or another.
I agree with Khatami when he says a western style democracy would not work, so they would have to mold one of their own that fixes the problems he mentioned like freedom of speech and basic human rights. This is where an Islamic democracy could get sticky. Could it allow all basic freedoms other democracies believe in, or would faith become too involved?
Post a Comment