July 21, 2005
Accepting an error
I hate being wrong. DJ posted in a comment a question to this post, where I said that Democracies have never gone to war with each other, a question. He asked, based on the post that I linked here, whether we hadn’t gone to war with Iran based upon the Democratic peace theory. I responded that I didn’t think, based upon the agreed-upon definition of democracy, that Iran fit the bill. And he quickly responded with Wikipedia data that showed, as far as I can tell, that by that definition, Iran is a democracy.
Here are the four points that define democracy, according to the link I provided:
1) The nation must hold competitive elections. To be defined as competitive, there must be at least two formally independent political parties (or similar groups).
2) 50% or more of the adult population must be allowed to vote.
3) Those in legislative and executive power must have been put into place by said elections.
4) There must have been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of power between independent political parties.
I haven’t verified #3 or #4, but I think #1 and #2 are satisfied. I think #3 does fit the bill, definitely, because they’ve had several elections since the revolution there. And I know that for #4, one of their recent presidents was a member of their “reform” party, so I think that might be enough to satisfy the conditions. It’s questionable, because their council of mullahs fits a similar (but more powerful, IMHO) position as our Supreme Court, and I don’t know how the turnover there has been, nor whether you can actually consider them to be a legislative or executive body. But if you consider them in the same vein as SCOTUS, they are not legislative or executive, so I’ll not question that part.
As DJ brought up in his post, I claimed that Iran was not a democracy based upon my own personal prejudice and taking the word of the blogger who had originally posted the above criteria. That was a mistake on my part, and I should not have done so. I think DJ was deliberately trying to draw me out with his question, and I proved an easy mark.
When it comes to Iran, my view is that they, at the very least, are not a free society. It is questionable whether they truly hold free and fair elections. While they may fit #1 above, where they have formally independent political parties, the question of who counts the votes is a big one. That, coupled with the fact that the council of mullahs decides who’s allowed to run for the presidency, and that the Supreme Leader controls the press, leaves a lot to be desired. As DJ says in my the comments to my post, neither he nor I would want to live in the system they have in Iran.
I think this is a good point to highlight the many issues I do have with democracy. As I’ve said on several occasions, I don’t consider democracy to be the end-all, be-all, of the world. Democracy needs to be tempered by the rule of law, supporting a system protecting individual rights, to truly create a system that I would want to live under. Iran may be a democracy, but I’d think that violating the Democratic Peace Theory to bring them in line would be a counter-example to the theory that I’d accept.
But either way, by Dean Esmay’s definition of democracy, it looks like I’m wrong. And I can’t explain how much I hate being wrong and having to publicly admit it. But such is life, no?
8 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Brad, in a country where a council of priests decides who gets to run for office I don’t see how it can be argued that the political parties are independent. They are as independent as the political parties that were allowed to exist after 1936 in Germany. That is to say, they toe the line if they know what’s good for them. Iran is a democracy in name only. I think DJ is using superficial facts to get you to admit an error that isn’t actually an error. Don’t fall into the trap.
There is no turnover among the Mullahs.
Oh, and you all are aware that the Supreme Guardian Council (the head Mullahs, in effect), have to vet every candidate, right?
In other words, if you don’t toe the party line, you aren’t getting on the ballot. Which makes you wonder, just how much reform can the “reform candidates” bring?
Anyway, to carry over the SCOTUS analogy, the unelected Supremes would have to approve any and all candidates for office.
Democracy? You decide.
Regardless, Iran does not pass Sharansky’s town square test, making its election results meaningless with regards to being a true democracy or not. (The town square test is whether or not you can go into the town square and say whatever you want, including criticism of the government. It divides the world into free societies and fear socities.) The test is essential to democracy, because if the society is based on fear, how can anyone honestly express their opinion through the ballot?
DJ is using my accepted definition of democracy to force the error. I used Dean’s definition of democracy, which is far too narrow.
As I said, I find the question of oversight of elections and the mullahs picking who can be a candidate to be some major problems with the system. But when you look at it, the Council looks at candidates and laws to make sure they’re consistent with Sharia, and our Supremes look to make sure our laws are consistent with the Constitution.
The main difference isn’t with the form, it’s with the substance. They have a few procedural processes that move them farther from democracy than we are, but the main problem is that their base is Sharia law instead of individual liberty, IMHO.
So I agree that they’re nowhere near being considered a free society. But a democratic theocracy? I can see that. We’ve seen some serious perversions of democracy in the last 100 years, so this isn’t anything shocking…
Look, my point is not that Iran is a great place to live or anything. But the rhetoric of “Democracy Peace theory” runs roughshod over the facts it considers inconvenient.
For example, Mike says, “There is no turnover among the Mullahs.”
How quickly we forget–”the mullahs” (and here I assume you’re referring to the theocratic branch of government) are elected to eight-year terms. There’s probably about the same turnover as the U.S. House of Representatives, except that in Iran, these guys only meet for one week a year.
And speaking of Mike’s concern about “election results meaningless with regards to being a true democracy or not,” how does the 2000 U.S. election bear on the theory? I recall being taught as a child in public school that America was a democracy, but then suddenly we became a “republic” instead in 2000 (if you were to listen to the Bush apologists’ reasoning).
Let’s get back to Dean’s definition of democracy: the reason it’s so “narrow” is because it has been formulated and reformulated to avoid the sticky counter-examples.
There’s no room for subtleties there. Which begs the question: why aren’t we holding Iran’s steps toward “real” democracy in higher esteem? Why would we rather support dictators like the House of Saud or the Shah? The short answer is: it’s because our leaders’ realpolitik knows that democratic peace theory is bullshit, but it’s useful to bring up in speeches justifying unjustifiable military actions.
The long answer is the subject of a blog post I’m still working on; hopefully I’ll be done tomorrow. (I post slowly because I always do my research, even about things I’m fairly sure of).
Anyway, Brad, your repentance is duly noted and accepted. =)
DJ, you may have learned in school that the country was a “democracy” but some of us knew, for years, that it was a republic. The “it’s a democracy” thing is yet another way to undermine the limited power theory of the constitution.
It’s not my fault that your teachers fed you a line of newspeak.
And the 2000 election isn’t the first time such things have happened. So stop acting all shocked about it. The difference between the mullahs and the supreme court, for example, is that the supreme court doesn’t decide, prior to you getting to run for office, if you are acceptable, or not. They only become involved if there is a constitutional issue that can’t be resolved any other way (i.e. Florida 2000). We may not like their decision, we may not agree with it, but it is vastly different from how the mullahs operate.
Now, taking aim at the mullahs and how Iran does things does NOT mean that I (or Brad for that matter) are ignoring the Saudis. Are you arguing that the US shouldn’t say or do anything regarding Iran because there is any other country out there that’s “bad”? That’s the typical BS argument from the left, I expected better of you.
Iran is proof that Democracy, without limited power, is completely compatible with tyranny.
Excellent point, Quincy…
Look, I’m not saying they have a better system, but that it still qualifies as a democracy by Dean Esmay’s criteria, which are already fairly narrow.
Everyone involved in the government is either elected or appointed by electees. That’s pretty simple, isn’t it? And in terms of the CG vetting candidates–as I said, I wouldn’t want to live there–it’s still within the purview of a ‘democratically elected government.’ It’s a severely limited democracy, but there it is. If you really want to get into it, the first-past-the-post system has much more effect on our (or any other democracy’s) choice of candidates than any mullah has ever exerted on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The reason I brought up “democracy” vs. “republic” is because it potentially disqualifies America from being considered a democracy in terms of “democratic peace theory.” It just makes my skin crawl when Bush, etc. talk about “bringing democracy to the Middle East.”
Now, Eric, in response to the question, “Are you arguing that the US shouldn’t say or do anything regarding Iran because there is any other country out there that’s “badâ€?”
Simply, put no. I’m against invading countries because it doesn’t work in terms of fostering democracy (something that comes from below, not above). Nowhere did I say that you or Brad were ignoring the mullahs, and the only reason I didn’t is because neither of you have been directing US foreign policy for the last 50 years.
My question was, “Why would we rather support dictators like the House of Saud or the Shah?” Let me clarify: when I say, “we,” I mean the United States (I’m a citizen). I’m sure you don’t like the Sauds any more than I do (check out these little dossiers on recent civil rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and Iran). That is entirely not my point.
“ That’s the typical BS argument from the left, I expected better of you.”
Me too. Go tell it to the strawman you’ve constructed. =) Actually, there are any number of good reasons not to invade Iran, including the fact that we’re currently overextended, and the fact that they actually have a healthy military, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan.
Listen, as a tip for the future, I don’t imply things. I say them. You may have noticed I can get long-winded–it’s because I believe in firmly stating my points, not making intimations about linkages or leaving my real point to the imagination.
And Quincy, I couldn’t agree more, if you stick with Dean’s definition. But as Emmanuel Wallerstein and I hold, democracy isn’t just a political order. It’s a socio-economic one as well.