After the recent election results, which Moussavi roundly rejected as being fraudulent immediately following the government's official release, hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets to protest the farcical election. So far, they show no signs of relenting. Even the higher-ups are looking into it now, specifically, the Guardian Council. Even the Grand Ayatollah has supported a recount, and he's the real powerhouse in Iran, not Ahmadinjad or anyone who fills the post of president there. More than likely, knowing Khameini's history, this is just to buy time, to let the dust settle on the protests. I mean, he can't use military force, or the hope for the Islamist movement becoming the popular sentiment will be ruined (and already, an assertive, progressive, younger middle class is showing itself that it is a force to be reckoned with). Then again, can he afford to let them have their way? The Grand Ayatollah just might find himself looking for a job if they succeed in their ends. Already, he has betrayed a chink in his armor--the supreme leader of Iran, both politically and religiously (is there really ever a separation, anywhere in the world?), has stuttered and stammered on the results of the election. First, he cheered for Iran's "sacred" victory in re-electing Ahmadinejad, was shaking his hand in congratulations before the official three day period was up for closing an election, and now he's saying there should be a partial recount. Moussavi has also rejected this. Who could be behind an electoral coup like that but the grand ayatollah? The man behind the curtain, he's pulling all sorts of strings, and meanwhile, everybody is going crazy about the president. Just like in Amurrica, I suppose.
In talking to my friend, he reminded me that Gore and Kerry, who both lost elections to George W., and more than likely due to corruption and electoral fraud, conceded the victory to the illustrious Bush with hardly more than whimper in protest. When your candidate concedes, what are his supporters supposed to do? I guess that's true: Moussavi's decrying of the election legitimized his supporters' rallying to protest, and that would not have been true in America.
But what is democracy, if not people proactively rising up against government actions that they condemn? Do the democrats just not have that spirit? With the rise in domestic terrorism, we can see that the right wingers, however flawwed their actions may be, are not afraid of standing up for what they believe in (and no, I'm not condoning that crazy ass who shot up the holocaust museum, not by any means, or the dude who shot and killed the abortionist, Dr. Tiller). Nor am I calling for splinter cell vigilante "justice" or "democracy," or whatever you'd want to call it. I'm not calling for anything, actually. Just wondering why the Iranian middle class, a country whose government is one of the most vocally anti-American organizations in the world, and one of the most hated by the American government, is exhibiting democracy better than Americans!
Iran's voter turnout was greater than in America. The last stat I read was some 85% of Iranians voted in this election, and even with all the time and effort put into canvassing the whole country and inspiring people to vote, only some 70% of Americans actually voted. So yes, by all means, America should be the posterchild for democracy! We are so good at it, after all... By Iranian law, the Council can veto presidential candidates. In America, you have to be: rich (how else can you afford to campaign effectively? And also, it basically takes money to be a recognizable figure in this country who has any intention of being in a position of power) and ensconced in the system. I used to say white, but Obama kind of confounds that (although, if you're a conspiracy theorist at all, you might say that Obama is the puppet of the World Bank and NAFTA and all those international trade big-wigs, and they played on American guilt for eight years of Bush and knew they could get him into office). Maybe there isn't any official council vetoing candidates, but let's face it, we have a very small pool of people from which to realistically choose our president. That doesn't sound very democratic.
We must remember, though, that like Iran, the president is, more or less, just a figurehead. A paper tiger. Here, it's the house and senate that are the real power in legislature (and don't think that their power comes from simply being popular--most of them are rich, too, and make laws based on what they've sunk their own interests in... most recently, Obama's cabinet members are looking at bills relating to healthcare reform, and what do you know, many of them have shares in huge pharmaceutical companies!). I don't think it's any coincidence that we (and by we, I mean the media and those who consume it) place much more emphasis on the president than on the house and senate. It's a good distraction for the public. It's a good way to keep us complacent. We think, "Oh, we get to vote, we have a choice, we have some control." Not really. Individuals who are not politicians will find that they have very limited choices when it comes to policy decisions, the vast majority of Americans who are not enmeshed in the structure and discourse of the American government. That doesn't sound very much like "the majority rules" philosophy at all.
Indeed, this is directly at odds with the so-called "Amurrican spirit" that we love to celebrate and but largely hate to participate in. Democracy, after all, does not stop after casting a single vote for a figurehead. In theory, it should never stop--American citizens should have two jobs, the one they make money at and support their family with, and the other of being an active participant in their government. Except in this culture, there really isn't much time for a job, the second job of being a citizen, and having a family and a life. Funny how having a family and a life come after the rest of all that... funny, but true to the American philosophy of life--if you aren't producing, you're worthless. That is one of the most important facets of American identity: work. What you can produce, how much money you can make. This often comes at the expense of family and quality time spent pursuing one's personal interests. But anyway, that's not the point.
I am just as guilty of complacency as anybody, I suppose. Americans are complacent. At least, enough of us are complacent that it undermines the smaller proportion of the population who holds onto faith and tries to proactively create change in their world.
My friend said that revolutions are sloppy. That even when successful, trying to get the government back to being organized and functional is difficult. That the results are often short-lived. I think he's probably right. But maybe that's just the price of change. It takes getting used to. Call them growing pains, if you will. Obviously, the 1979 Islamist Revolution in Iran is still echoing in the memories of the older generations of Iranians. And Americans, for that matter. While obviously the political (theocratic?) structure of Iran is not democratic, there is a definite spirit of democracy in its middle classes. They are, perhaps, more outspoken than Americans. Women are enjoying more and more freedoms than they ever have, relative to a country with a conservative, traditionalist government in place anyway. Women, in fact, make up a great number of Moussavi supporters because he is a reformist, and their votes (for all they mattered) might have changed the results of the vote had it not been rigged.
Ironically, at the end of this post, I'm starting to see a lot of parallels between the United States and Iran, particularly in how a country's government can be so radically different than the sentiments of its people. The American spirit does not require an established "democracy" in which to engage a people's government; for all that matter, the American spirit is not really American at all. I'm sure we appropriated that rhetoric during the world wars to bolster morale, but we're starting to see that revolutionary spirit everywhere, and that's a good thing.
I'm still wondering why America didn't do this under George Bush. And furthermore, I'm wondering why we don't protest as much as people in Europe seem to do--at least, they get more publicity. Labor strikes, mass protests that encompass more than just pissed off university students... I'm not sure they are all that productive, but at least they voice their opinions when they're pissed off at their leaders. We just grumble to ourselves while watching the news (or yell at the computer screen, in my case). We get drunk and have slurred, pseudointellectual conversations about how we could change the world but never will. We get riled up and then go about the rest of our day, because, well, what else can you do?
Maybe we need a Lysistrata-type rebellion. Women, we should all refuse to have sex with our men until they give us our way. Or withhold labor until they give into our capitulations. Of course none of this will ever happen. I wonder, though... what would happen if even 90% of Americans refused, in a single day, to work or buy anything? The Day the United States Stood Still.
Idle musings, I suppose. My version of complacency--coming up with ideas that could never work. Sigh. This is why I was not a poli sci major.
2 - 720 east second st. - DSM
515 698 -5044
I think you're being a little too harsh on America, and I also think Iran is a little more complicated than how you're painting it. Iran has long been one of the most pro-Western nations in the Middle East, and American democracy has been a huge influence on the liberal attitudes of the youth pushing this movement. We saw the same thing in China in '89 - the educated college students led the charge, also heavily influenced by American democracy. Just because some of the ideas that lead toward more liberal ideas and civil rights, doesn't mean it is naturally corrupt because it is co-opted from American political ideology. What is missing now isn't so much a national ideology - polls show that America is more liberal across the board now than it has been at any other point in my lifetime.
ReplyDeleteI feel that you're actually quite vague in describing what you think should be radically overhauled in our country. I get some sense that you're interested in economic justice and moving closer to a true Rousseauean democracy. I would argue that the #1 most important thing the drives any successful movement against structurally enforced inequalities is education. In modern history, Russia (and then China) relied heavily on college educated young people to create a governmental and economic model to excite the public and use as a basis for revolution. The civil rights movement relied heavily on younger people, particularly young black men to literally put their bodies on the line to make a stand for justice following the ideological arguments of young educated civil rights leaders. Who are our current ideological leaders in our country and who are the followers of those leaders? I can't really answer that question, but I'll give you a list of the names of people that come to mind: Barack Obama, Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan, Oprah, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Rush Limbaugh, M.I.A., David Simon, Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin... We don't have young radical leaders, they've thrown their chips in with the system. We are very much a reformist society, and in fact, Iran wanted reform with Moussavi - the stolen election put them over the edge with how it was stolen - brazenly.