Will the Real Democracy Please Stand Up?
Are the American and Iranian government’s all that different?
The claim that Iran is not a democracy because its President lacks certain powers is a very strange argument.
Their are various powers such as the power of the purse or the power of the sword. According to the theory of separation of powers, these powers are divided between the various branches of government. In the American conception of separation of powers, the branches of government are the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The power of the purse is granted to the legislature, the power of the sword is granted to the executive, and the judiciary is granted the power to review laws and negate the acts of the legislature and the executive if they disagree with the Constitution which is purportedly the supreme law of the land.
However, before we hold up the Iranian or Islamic models of government to the American standard of democracy, we need to first ask ourselves: is the American model itself democratic?
Firstly, does it matter whether these powers are appointed to a particular branch of government? If, for example, Congress were granted the power of the sword and the President was granted the power of the purse, would that make the American government undemocratic? The answer, I would think, is that it is irrelevant where the powers are dispersed so long as those exercising the power are representative of the people. Having three branches of government is irrelevant; one can have four branches of government, or five branches of government. So the mere fact that the Iranian government has an additional branch of government (the Guardian Council) does not per se mean that they are not a democracy. Thus, the standard of review is not whether the President has powers, but whether powers are properly dispersed throughout the government and are representative of the will of the people.
The Iranian government, as was stated above, is a form of government that is unique. It contains a branch of government that doesn’t have a corresponding institution in the American government. This branch has certain powers, but is largely passive in nature. It is more akin to the Supreme Court of the United States. It is the ultimate authority in the land and shoots down other actions of the government that are not in line with the authoritative source of law. For Muslims, that is the Shari’ah and for Americans, it is the Constitution.
Now, let me make the following observations:
1. The American President is not elected by the people directly but through an electoral college that is comprised of individuals who are selected by our elected officials. Thus, the American president isn’t voted ‘by the people’. This is a myth.
2. The justices of the Supreme Court are not elected by the people either. They are nominated by the President and appointed with the consent of the Senate (not the entire Legislature).
3. With regards to Iran, the Supreme Leader is actually elected:
Quote:
| Article 107After the demise of the eminent marji’ al-taqlid and great leader of the universal Islamic revolution, and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatullah al-’Uzma Imam Khumayni - quddisa sirruh al-sharif - who was recognized and accepted as marji’ and Leader by a decisive majority of the people, the task of appointing the Leader shall be vested with the experts elected by the people. The experts will review and consult among themselves concerning all the fuqaha’ possessing the qualifications specified in Articles 5 and 109. In the event they find one of them better versed in Islamic regulations, the subjects of the fiqh, or in political and social Issues, or possessing general popularity or special prominence for any of the qualifications mentioned in Article 109, they shall elect him as the Leader. Otherwise, in the absence of such a superiority, they shall elect and declare one of them as the Leader. The Leader thus elected by the Assembly of Experts shall assume all the powers of the wilayat al-amr and all the responsibilities arising therefrom. The Leader is equal with the rest of the people of the country in the eyes of law. |
In other words, the leader is indirectly elected through an electoral college that is itself voted by the people. Thus, some might argue that the Iranian form of government is more democratic. Unlike the American electoral college, the members of the Iranian electoral college are directly elected by the people.
This is why I’ve been constantly insisting that we define what we mean by “democracy.” There are different understandings of what a democracy is and it wouldn’t be fair to impose one understanding over another without engaging in a critical analysis of what the term ‘democracy’ entails. __________________
Sphere: Related ContentPublished August 25, 2006 . Filed under: Critical Democracy Studies
Posts
“thats hot.”
August 25, 2006 @ 11:59 pm
The Problem with the Iranian Government is often the extent to which the Consitution is ignored. The fact that it wasn’t capable of preventing executions of dissidents (especially in the early period of the Islamic Republic), doesn’t keep the government from turning people out from their homes at the whim of a cleric, and doesn’t undermine the hegemony of a handful of powerful clerical/industrialist/mafia (and I mean this as a description, not as an insult) families means it leaves much to be desired. The fact that the Guardian council (which is half appointed by the the Supreme Leader)
gets to vet candidates for the parliament is problematic too. This isn’t about religion so much as its about an elite furthering its own interests. When has the Supreme Leader been known not get his preferred candidates elected to the Guardian Council slots which he does not directly appoint? One quibble: the power of the sword (to declare war and raise armies) is in the hands of congress, too. The fact that we have chosen to make our Presidents Emperors is a sad aberation that has little basis in the constitution.
August 26, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Yes, well thats my point exactly. If one looks at the letter of the laws itself, the design of the government, there are many areas where a conventional American understanding of Democracy and an Islamic understanding of government overlap. I’m not claiming that an Islamic government is completely synonymous with democracy, but merely that there are certain elements that are in common. Although an Islamic government has entirely different scheme for human life which affects the organization and objectives of the government, some of those objectives are similar or analagous to the organization and objectives of a democratic government.
August 27, 2006 @ 6:11 pm