Recent orders
Democracy matters by Cornel West
Name
Professor
Course
Date
Democracy matters by Cornel West
Known for his stance on American imperialism and fundamentalism, West uses his position as a writer, speaker and historian to tackle the issues the country faces. America is said to be the greatest economy in the world. This is credited to the level of influence the country holds in terms of international affairs. America is a relatively young country compared to the other countries. The county is formed from a number of different communities due to the immense amount of immigration during its formation. The country is recorded to have the highest rate of growth brought about by a number of factors. There are several theories as to why the country continues to lead as a super power. These theories have both negative and positive aspects. “Democracy matters” is a reflection of the principles and ideologies the country uses to govern its nationals. It is thus essential to look at the history of the nation from the time of its inception to the present day. West brings this out through his analysis of the foundation of the country and its adaptation of democracy.
The focus of this paper is to offer a critical review of a selected book. The book in this case is Cornel West’s Democracy Matters. The paper provides a personal interpretation of the content of the book. This is done by using the aspect of critical thinking so as to determine the view of the author from a personal opinion. The paper further provides quotes so as to give credit to the argument provided. The paper finally provides a conclusion that seeks to summarize the contents of the entire paper.
Democracy Matters is one of the latest editions of Cornel West’s rendition of books. This book acts as a sequel to his critically acclaimed Race Matters. It is essential to note that the author uses his experience in the country showcase the situation of the ordinary man. The main theme of the book talks on American imperialism and its effect of the country as a whole. West makes this known through the subtitle “The Fight Against Imperialism”. Imperialism is the adaptation of superiority in regard to a countries ideologies, principals and culture. America is known as the melting point of the world. This is credited to the variety of social communities that make up the country. The county is classified under nations that are formed as a result of immigration of white settlers. This is also one of the elements that define the country as an imperialist state. The United States prides itself on the fact that is one of the nations that spearheaded the adaptation of democracy. Democracy entails the principles that support a free state in regard to all aspects of life. Imperialism on the other hand fights against the principles of democracy in that it concentrates on imposing ideologies on its people. The fact that the country is democratic makes it difficult to associate it with imperialism. The author not only reinforces his stance but provides more information that argues that the country is indeed one of the most imperialist nations.
“It is found most urgently and poignantly in the prophetic and powerful voices of the long black freedom struggle—from the democratic eloquence of Frederick Douglass to the soaring civic sermons of Martin Luther King Jr., in the wrenching artistic honesty of James Baldwin and Toni Morrison, and in the expressive force and improvisatory genius of the blues/jazz tradition, all forged in the night side of America and defying the demeaning strictures of white supremacy”.
The book offers different explanations that support the thesis of the author. This is done through providing different examples that have made an impact in and outside the country. One of the areas that West places emphasis on is on the supremacy of the elite in the country. The country has several races that call the United States their home. This factor is however one of the issues that pose to define the country. The majority population is made up of the Caucasian race that is derived from a number of immigrants. The race accounts for the highest population in the country making them have a high amount of influence in all aspects of the country management. One of the issues that arise from different races is the supremacy of particular races. White supremacy is attributed for its attack on other races that do not possess the qualities of the white race. One of the areas that display the evils of this system is the importation of slaves from Africa into the country. The author uses this as an example for the countries imperialist nature. One of the darkest times in the country’s history is its involvement in slave trade. This involved using slaves to cultivate the farms so as to maximize on the profit at the time.
“In our market-driven empire, elite salesmanship to the demos has taken the place of genuine democratic leadership”.
The author does not shy away from the fact that this form of racism has created other forms of oppression. The United States is a capitalist state in that it allows for an individual to maximize on its profits. This system is meant to create a competitive nature that increases the rate of development of the economy. This system has however created the divide between different social classes due to the different level of economic strength. The country is known for its stance on equity and equality amongst the citizens. The current situation offers a contradictive scenario in that some of the communities have been left marginalized at the hands of the more influential in the society. This as a result gives rise to a new form of imperialism that seeks to separate the have from the have not’s. The author ensures that the book is reflective of the situation in and outside the country. As stated earlier, the country is known for its stance on all things democratic. It thus makes it priority to influence other countries on their ideologies so as to create a democratic world. Globalization is a key aspect in the theme of the book.
“The second prevailing dogma of our time is aggressive militarism, of which the new policy of preemptive strike against potential enemies is but an extension”.
The book explains the impact on globalization in the countries relation with its neighbors. West offers his take on present issues such as terrorism in the Middle East. America has clearly stated its position on the fight against terrorist activities in terrorist affiliated countries. All the leaders of the United States thus have a duty to secure the countries intention of monitoring the safety of the entire globe.
The title of the book clearly states that democracy is essential in any part of the world. The countries choice to act as guardians of peace has been met with both positive and negative views. It is significant to note that the United States administers for equality amongst countries. The fact that the country has a significant amount of influence in the business of other countries displays the hypocrisy that the country holds. The book talks of the use of the army to monitor activities in the Middle Eastern countries. The events in the previous years expose the United States in reference to their interference with Middle Eastern politics. West explains the imperialism the United States displays through creating policies that give the country an upper hand in international matters. The book thus acts as a form of criticism of the United States government which claims to be democratic.
“The rise of an ugly imperialism has been aided by an unholy alliance of the plutocratic elites and the Christian Right, and also by a massive disaffection of so many voters who see too little difference between two corrupted parties, with blacks being taken for granted by the Democrats, and with the deep disaffection of youth”.
Politics is one of the subjects that feature in the content of the book. The country is divided into political parties that define the country as a democracy. The author looks at the position of each political party and their role in the provision of democracy. Democracy entails the ability to express oneself concerning different matters in the country. The country is known for its strong stance on democracy. This principle is not reflective in the country due to the immense level of oppression that the society experiences.
In conclusion, the author offers strong opinions regarding different democratic matters. This is ideal for the understanding the role of the United States in the fight for democracy. Like any other book, the book provides a number of criticisms that state the stance of the author. This in turn educates the reader on true democracy in the eyes of the author.
COUNTERFACTUALISM IN HISTORY
COUNTERFACTUALISM IN HISTORY
A point made in the third of these essays, on the value of history, was the widespread human enjoyment of a good story. It was suggested that history played a part in satisfying this need. The consistent success of fiction based on a simple form of counterfactual history — Robert Harris’s “Fatherland” is a good recent example — seems to indicate that this type of history is equally appealing. Sometimes known as “what if”, or “alternative” history, or, in the title of a recent collection of serious counterfactual essays edited by Niall Ferguson, “virtual history”, it takes as its starting point some historical event, assumes that it turned out differently — Harold wins at Hastings or Napoleon at Waterloo — and develops a possible course of events from then on.
All of this has great potential for some intriguing speculation, particularly so in the case of events within living memory, as shown by Harris’s bestseller. However is that all that can be said for counterfactual history? Is it no more than a supply of good storylines for novelists, shading perhaps into something not unlike science fiction? It certainly does do these things, no doubt thereby adding to the gaiety of nations, but I believe that there are some more serious points to be made in its favour, and that it is a wider concept than what has just been described. We shall however have to attempt to deal with some highly unfavourable opinions of counterfactualism held by many professional historians. Consideration of these views may in fact help us to a better understanding of the true meaning of counterfactualism.
I think there is certainly one dimension of alternative history which has as much philosophical content as merely fictional; it seems to provide philosophers of a particular metaphysical bent with some welcome grist to their mill. I refer to those for whom the notion of parallel worlds holds fascination, since every venture into alternative history involves by definition the creation of a parallel world. As I shall try to show, such parallel worlds, if they are to contain any meaningful truth, will need to correspond as closely as possible to the real world, but it is clear that an element of conjecture, or fantasy if a harsher term is preferred, is a necessary part of any such exercise. While this necessary limitation may lie behind the reluctance to accord counterfactualism academic respectability, it in no way invalidates the contention that there does seem to be a real human urge, and therefore legitimate grounds for philosophical investigation, to ponder over the questions raised by such fictional works as the “Back to the Future” films, or novels like Wyndham’s “Random Quest”; the latter is of course a book, and subsequently a film, whose plot is firmly embedded in a world where twentieth century history has turned out very differently.
Good counterfactual history calls for the consideration not only of the main counterfactual — Napoleon’s victory at Waterloo — but also for an intelligent appraisal of what in a different context E H Carr called the “significant” facts among a potentially infinite number of knock-on changes, the “Garden of Forking Paths” of the eponymous short story by Jorge Luis Borges. Such a need for careful analysis of cause is inherent in any serious writing of counterfactual history, and seems to me to speak strongly in its favour as a discipline for any historian.
There is one form of counterfactualism which we are all constantly using throughout our lives. Every time a businessman runs a sensitivity test on the economics of a new project he is undertaking a comparison of a number of possible worlds, of which at best one, more probably none, will represent what actually takes place, and obviously is itself not counterfactual. The businessman is working before, not after the event, but he is basing his assessment partly on his knowledge of the past. A different time perspective is found in certain legal situations, briefly assessed in the earlier essay on historical causation. In attempting to decide, for example, what really caused an accident to happen, the court cannot help becoming involved in considering what else might, ideally would, have happened had one or more antecedent factors not applied. This too is counterfactualism, differing from the example of the businessman in that it enjoys the benefit of hindsight.
And what are we to make of all the attempts that there have been to learn from history? In the essay on the value of history we saw that, in spite of various claims that we do not in fact learn from the experience of history, we nevertheless do not stop trying to do so. If we look at one or two examples it quite soon becomes clear that such efforts are themselves a kind of exercise in counterfactualism, of what I have called the after the event kind. How could we have prevented the Wall St crash in 1929, it was asked. By putting in place certain control and supervisory mechanisms, it is suggested. What would have been the effects of their existence is the next question, and right away we are in the business of evaluating alternative possible worlds. Perhaps the most frequently asked “what if” question is how could the Great War have been prevented; this usually ends up with counterfactual conjectures about possible different personalities for the Austrian, German or Russian emperors, alternative mobilisation procedures and imperatives, even different decisions by British cabinet ministers about going out of London for the weekend. Some of these conjectures undoubtedly informed post-war decision making, which led, inter alia, to the idea of collective action, initially through the League of Nations, later the United Nations.
The German Kaiser was mentioned. His treatment of his mother after the death of his father, who reigned so briefly as the Emperor Frederick III, while certainly shameful, was probably influenced not only by his perception of her liberal influence on her like-minded husband, but more specifically by his assessment and fear of a possible future world where the German Empire would be run along what to him would be uncongenially liberal lines. That such a world did indeed turn out to be counterfactual may have been at least partly the result of his unattractive behaviour.
So, if we have shown that the concept of counterfactual history is not entirely frivolous, why have so many respected historians apparently resisted, or even despised it? They make an impressive array. E H Carr dismisses counterfactual history as a parlour game, one which may provide consolation to those who have suffered from some great historical event (in his case it will have been the Russian revolution), and who then let “their imagination run riot on all the more agreeable things which might have happened”. This is a “purely emotional and unhistorical reaction”. That may well be true, but does it entitle Carr to argue from the particular circumstances of aggrieved victims of the Bolshevik revolution to a general assertion that counterfactualism is without merit? He effectively equates counterfactual history with the accident view of the subject, the Cleopatra’s nose theory which he so abominates. E P Thompson is even cruder in his objection to counterfactualism, but both Carr and Thompson may be described as determinist historians and as such should perhaps not be expected to have a great deal of sympathy with alternative accounts to what actually, and from their point of view presumably inevitably, did happen.
Niall Ferguson, in the introduction to “Virtual History”, points to a problem which J S Mill has as a result of his awareness of the existence of counterfactual alternatives. In his “Elucidation of the Science of History”, Mill acknowledges that without Caesar “the venue …. of European civilisation might …. have been changed”, and that without William the Conqueror “our history or our national character would not have been what they are”. Ferguson holds that this acknowledgement that counterfactual possibility exists weakens Mill’s subsequent determinist claim that there is an increasing tendency for the evolution of mankind to “deviate less from a certain appointed track”.
There are however others who are not seen as determinists, yet who show equal lack of sympathy for counterfactual theory. Benedetto Croce is one who will have no truck with it. “Historical necessity,” he says, “has to be affirmed and continually reaffirmed in order to exclude from history the ‘conditional’ which has no rightful place there”. He seems (ironically enough) to foreshadow Carr in referring to it as “a game which all of us in moments of distraction or idleness indulge in”. If alternatives were pursued seriously he believes that this would lead to an “effect too wearisome to be long maintained.” This last comment may perhaps be taken as a back-handed compliment, implying as it does recognition of the requirement inherent in counterfactual history thoroughly to explore causation, which we have already noted.
Michael Oakeshott, an idealist philosopher, and certainly no determinist, says that counterfactualism results in “the complete rejection of history”. It is a “monstrous incursion of science into the world of history”. If any room for doubt about his opinion were left, it would hardly remain after reading his claim that “the historian is never called upon to consider what might have happened had circumstances been different”.
These objections from non-determinists may seem puzzling, since counterfactualism is compatible with accident theory, certainly with any idea of human agency, and as such could be expected to find favour with those not altogether out of sympathy with the concept of free will. One reason for their disdain may be the pride of the professional historian, reluctant to muddy his work with mere fiction, while a more defensible reason could be that the pursuit of alternatives is seen as a distraction from the real work of the historian, which is to examine and interpret what actually did happen.
This of course is a central theme of R G Collingwood, very much an idealist among philosophers of history, who insists that the role of the historian is to enter into the mind of the subject whom he is studying and of whom he is writing. The historian must understand what his subject was thinking, since, Collingwood believes, true history is the history of human thought. seems to me that in saying this Collingwood has immensely strengthened the case for what is admittedly a loosely defined form of counterfactualism, perhaps better described as the need closely to consider alternative courses of action. If the historian is really to understand what his subject was thinking, then one of the things which he must try to assess and appreciate is just what were the alternative courses of action which faced the subject and how did the subject, with the information available to him at the time, assess those alternatives. In other words the historian is doing an after the event analysis, but from a before the event perspective. To take the case of the Kaiser and his mother, which we looked at earlier, it is hard to see how one could begin to explain his actions without thinking about what he, the Kaiser, thought might happen if he behaved differently. And there is nothing special about the case of the Kaiser, for it seems unlikely that anyone’s reasons for behaving in a particular way can be adequately explained without reference to their own assessment of the alternatives which they faced. Our businessman’s calculation too was a before the event analysis.
I feel sure that Messrs Carr, Thompson, Oakeshott, Croce et al would agree with Collingwood that the basis on which both Kaiser and businessman make their decisions represents a necessary piece of information for anyone after the event to describe accurately why they behaved in the way they did. SO their objections, it would seem, lie elsewhere, and I think we can accept that so distinguished a group of professionals is likely to have a point. I think that the division of counterfactualism into before and after the event kinds may not be the only fault line which runs through the concept, perhaps not the most significant one either. If we look back at what we have already said about different kinds of counterfactualism, and different examples, we can see that we have sometimes referred to what would have happened, and sometimes to what might have happened. In discussing the case of the law court, we even brought the two ideas briefly together. If we then look again at some of the historians’ quotations which we have used, we see for example, that Carr is ridiculing those who dwell on more agreeable things which “might” have happened, and that likewise Oakeshott is dismissing things which “might” have happened had circumstances been different. Are what these professional historians attacking not truly counterfactual judgements at all, but only speculations? Can we tighten up what we mean by counterfactual argument and still leave anything meaningful which is of value to the historian?
I think we can. The other word to which I referred is “would”. There seems to be something altogether more solid in Mill’s acknowledgement that things “would” not have been what they are without William the Conqueror: “would”, not “might”.
I do not suggest that there is any easy distinction between the ability to differentiate in a counterfactual sense between what might and what would have happened, but I do suggest that the more able the historian is, the further will he be able to travel along the road towards the (ultimately unattainable) goal of establishing just what would have happened. Such skill would involve the most detailed analysis of and insight into causation; the widest knowledge of what may have happened in similar historical circumstances, always allowing for the fact that “similar” can never mean “same”; the ability to construct a counterfactual world as consistent as possible with the actual historical world under discussion; and perhaps above all a most Collingwoodian ability to re-enact the past. It is by such use of serious counterfactual judgement that historians can come closest to a true assessment of the success or failure of historical agents in choosing courses of action most likely to lead to their desired ends. This can of course include judgements on how successful they may have been in preventing unwanted things from happening, with possible lessons to be learned for future behaviour.
As a footnote to the discussion of alternative history, one can add that the history of evolution could if one so desired be reduced to a process of what might be called iterative counterfactualism. Evolution produces a constant succession of random mutations as the raw material of natural selection, the survivors being those best adapted to the contemporary environment; the vastly greater number of mutations do not survive, but could well have done so in a different environment. Expressed thus, this is little more than stuff for Croce’s “moments of distraction or idleness”, but what about the mutations which have survived but seem to confer no benefit? Did they confer a benefit in the past? If so, in what sort of environment? Successfully to work the growing goldmine of knowledge about the history of our planet and its lifeforms calls for an approach in which the examination of countless possible alternatives plays an essential part.
So although we should probably concede that counterfactual history of the purely “might have been” kind may be more suited to fiction than to serious historiography, its main benefit lying in its entertainment value, we should still maintain that there are forms of counterfactual thinking which are of very real value to the historian. In addition to the use of the concept as an aid to understanding the evolutionary past which we have just mentioned, other benefits include not only understanding what alternatives would have been considered by historical agents, but also the possibility of making reasonable assessments of what would have been the likely outcomes of decisions which in fact were not made.
Democracy is an issue that
Iran’s Political System
Student’s name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction
Democracy is an issue that has always been elusive in Iran. This is despite the non-violent revolutions meant to establish a system of governance that promotes political accountability and public freedom. The growth of democracy in Iran is hindered by various obstacles and it requires combined actions from Iranians to achieve it. Iran lost democracy for a period of about one year and two months as a result of a disconnect with Shah’s rule Khomeini Social injustice religious. Currently, Iran’s political system follows the Constitution of 1979 which is founded on the Islamic Revolution and the amendments passed by the popular 1989. Iran is democratic based on the fact that the president is elected democratically. Iran operates under a parliament known as Majis and an assembly of Experts which appoints the supreme leader as well as the local councils. The constitution of Iran recognizes Iran as an Islamic nation but also recognizes Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism as official religions. Article 13 of the Iranian Constitution grants Iran’s citizens the right to exercise the religion they deem right (Alipour, Hafezi, Amer, & Akhavan, 2017). Since Iran was founded as an Islamic religion, there have been all kinds of sanctions that have been imposed. From 2005 and 2013, during the tenure of president Ahmadinejad, Iran became one of the most sanctioned states in the world. These intense sanctions imposed by Ahmadinejad’s administration harmed life severely because they misguided socioeconomic policies. Further, crude oil exports from Iran have decreased sharply, domestic production has fallen, the rate of inflation has gone up, unemployment increased, the cost of consumer goods increased, and the currency decayed. This downturn did not result in the downfall of the regime. Although this regime had negative effects, the country took measures to get through the sanctions. The purpose of this text is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Iran’s political system.
Iran has been deemed a powerful monster that stretches as far as the Middle East, however, the Islamic Republic has to deal with a range of issues, both abroad and at home. Iran’s latest problem is among the most serious problem, the regime has faced for a long time. The regime has recently become unpopular among its people. The problems that Iran faces tend to limit its power and create openings which undermine the influence it has. Some of Iran’s allies including the United States note that the country’s foreign policy is vulnerable and shaky in the structure of its economy, political authority, diplomatic and military posture. Additionally, its weaknesses are bound to lessen the country’s clout and foster infighting making it hard for regimes to increase the way it has across their borders. If not properly managed, some of the weaknesses are likely to cause more political unrest.
Iran’s biggest problem has to do with the unusual yet unwieldy dual system of government that combines elections with a Supreme Leader. Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran exercises veto in decision making and are the head of the judicial system, state television, state television, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IGRC) among other powers. It has been said Khamenei, who is 80 years is set to step down because of several reasons. Although his role is said to be founded on religious authority, he tends to lack the charisma demonstrated by his immediate predecessor. Further, his religious credentials have always been the subject of scrutiny. Khamenei gained the power and authority he possesses from political loyalty and revolutionary action as opposed to theological study but at the same time, he managed to build upon the power and grow the institution of the Supreme Leader (Azad, 2017). Iran’s Supreme Leader was already making plans to ensure that succession goes smoothly but despite this, the possibility of infighting looms around. His successor inherits institutions tied to the position of Supreme Leader but there is a possibility that they might share similar religious credentials with the current leaders. Because none of the most educated theologians are revolutionary die-hards, succession will go to someone else who does not have a top clerical rank. As a result, the highest political authority that exercises power in the name of religion is most likely to remain distinct and to stand out from non-political clerics that are rather skeptical about the system. Revolutionary elites are more likely to hang together but at the same time, they depend too much on the particular leader who has been elected as well as the current politics that exist. Power struggles existing between elites are rather common and the person who holds power requires more time to consolidate it. This is particularly true for authoritarian transitions. Generally, the Islamic Republic has demonstrated a gift for the management of the struggles and complementing factionalism but the act of balancing has proven harder under the rule of a new leader who is also weak. Worth noting, in addition to the uncertainty, Iran’s economic status remains rather vulnerable. The recent protests started with economic issues before they turned political. Iran’s economy had begun to shrink before the lifting of the sanctions. However, the sanctions relief such as additional export opportunities and the unfreezing of assets has improved the economic condition of the country. Iran’s current rate of growth is 7% and it has been so for the past recent years which has contributed to a stable economy and stabilized inflation (Dizaji, Farzanegan, & Naghavi, 2016). The economy is plagued with mismanagement and corruption. Further, other hurdles follow that religious foundations and IRGC control the majority of the economy and there is stifling competition which makes political reforms rather difficult. Private investments remain on edge, particularly in the energy sector. The rather low price of oil exacerbates the situation making these structural problems more painful.
History
1979 marked a year when Iran went through the most dramatic changes in history when the Iranian Revolution took place. During the revolution, Mohammad Shah was replaced and overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini. The once patriotic monarchy was abolished and replaced with an Islamic kind of governance and it was based on the principles of Islamic jurists where clerics function as the head of states and in other governmental positions. There was a pro-Western foreign policy that emphasized on pillars of mandatory hijabs and largely received opposition from Israel and the United States. The once rapid modern and capitalist economy was replaced with an Islamic and populist culture and economy. Ayatollah Khomeini was the founder and the leader of the Islamic Republic Revolution and he served as the Supreme Leader until 1989 when he died. Ali Khamenei took over as the Supreme Leader. During the Islamic Republic era, Iran grew from a population of 39 million in 1980 to 81.6 million in 2017. Most of the things remained the same as they were under the monarchy. To date, Iran has maintained the status as the most significant regional power which is bigger than any of its neighboring Gulf countries and possesses big oil and gas reserves. National cohesion has a brought long history to the nation. Additionally, the oil export revenues and the strong central state has brought Iran respectable income levels, college enrollment, infrastructure, literacy, and reduced infant mortality. Further, trends that were there during the monarchy system of government such as literacy increased enrollment into higher education, and urbanization continued.
After the 1979 constitution was approved, the Jaafari school of thought became Iran’s official religion. The Islamic Republic which was headed by the Supreme Leader under the Islamic theocracy became the new system of governance (Hallinger, & Hosseingholizadeh, 2020). Iran has a president who is elected and government bodies at the provisional, national, and local levels that allow both males and females to vote when they reach 18 years. The elections are supervised by Islamic theocratic bodies such as the Council of Guardians that have been given the power to decide who can run vie or parliamentary seats in the Islamic Consultative Assembly. It also holds the final word as to whether bills can be passed as laws. Nonetheless, elected organs have more power than the organs than equivalent organs within the government of Shah. Additionally, Islam is the main religion practiced in Iran. The country is also governed by Sharia law. Under the law, women must wear the hijab. At the same time, the country has the lowest attendance when it comes to going to the mosque than any other Islamic country. The Iranian clergy complain that over 70% of their Islamic population does not carry out dairy prayers and only 2% go to the mosques on Friday. For many religious minorities in Iran, life is often mixed. Khomeini called upon Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims to unite. Before the revolution, Khomeini made statements that were deemed antagonistic towards the Jews. Following his return from exile in 1979, Khomeini gave out an order that demanded the equal treatment of Jews as well as other minorities. The people who are deemed as minorities from the non-Muslim communities do not have the same equal rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, four out of the 270 seats are particularly reserved for the minority religions that are non-Islamic.
Iran’s Political Culture/Organization Over the Years
The revolution in Iran began several decades ago and through the years key events have taken place which has contributed to the current system of government. Here is how the chronology of events in Iran’s political space took place. Between 550- and 330 BC, the first Persian Empire was ruled by the Achaemenid dynasty. It stretched from Libya to the Aegean Sea all through to the Indus Valley. 636 BC marked the advent of Islam in Iran. The Arab invasion helped start the Islamic rule by putting an end to the Sassanid dynasty. In the 9th century, the modern Persian language emerged which was written using an Arabic script. In 1220 BC Persin was overrun by the Mongo, forces that later became part of the Ilkhanate which was ruled by the descendants of Hulagu. In 1501, Shah Ismail become the first ruler following the massive support of the warrior tribes of Shia Qizilbash. He ruled the Islamic Safavid dynasty till Islam was declared to be a state religion by Shia. Between 1571 and 1629, Apogee who worked under Shah Abbas, reformed the army, sidelined Qizilbash and established the maiden links with western Europe. By 1794, Mohammas Khan located Qajar’s dynasty and restored Iran’s stability after half a century. In 1828, Iran gave up control of the Caucasus to Russia following the Second World War and by 1907, the constitution was introduced which served the purpose of limiting the absolutists power which rulers had.
1921 to 1953 marked a period of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran. Reza Khan, who was military commander seized power in February 1921 and by April 1926, he crowned Reza Shah Pahlavi as the leader. In 1935, Iran adopted its official name for the country. In 1941, the allegiance of Shah after the Second World War led to the Anglo-Russian occupation and a deposition where Shah’s son, Mohammad Pahlavi, was favored. The parliament cats a vote in April 1951 to nationalize the oil sector which was initially dominated by the British-owned Anglo-Iran oil Company. Britain imposed a blockade and embargo, which halted the trade of oil which hurt the country’s economy. A power struggle ensued between Mohammad Mossadeq and the Shah. In 1953, Prime Minister Mossadeq was overthrown in a coup which was planned by U and Britain intelligence services. As a result, General Fazlollah Zahedi took over the role of prime minister and Shah returned to exile temporarily. In 1963, Shah launched a program to reform land and social and economic modernization. In the late 1960s, Shah started depending on the SAVAK secret police to control the opposition movements. In 1978, the policies implemented by Shah came to an end as martial law too following mass demonstrations, strikes, and riots.
In January 1979, Shah alongside his family was forced into exile as the political situation deteriorated. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini came back after spending 14 years of exile in France and Iraq. In 1979, the Islamic Republic came into effect following a referendum and in 1979 November, 52 Americans are taken hostage by the Islamic militants in the US embassy located in Tehran (Rahnavard, Alipour, Dehdar, & Khalili). They were demanding the extradition of Shah at the time of the trial. Abolhasan Sadr was elected ad the first Islamic Republic president in 1980 and his administration set out to begin the major nationalization program. In 1980, Shah succumbs to cancer while in Egypt. In September 1980, Iran was invaded by Iraq after years of disagreements over their territories particularly the Shatt Al Arab waterway (Daneshvar, 2016). . This was after the Iraqi president announced his intention of reclaiming Shatt al Arab, after which a war that lasted eight years broke out. In 1981, 444 hostages were released following negotiations but the United States and Algeria. In 19585, the Unites States seeks to sell arms to Iran in exchange for them to release seven Americans held as hostages by militants backed by the Iranian government in Lebanon. In 1988, Iran agrees to Resolution 598 formed by the United Nations Security Council which led to a cease-fire in the Iraq-Iran war. In 1989, Khomeini dies and the elected body of clerics known as the Assembly of Experts appoints Ali Khomeini to take over as the national leaders. Later that year in August, Ali Rafsanjani is promoted to the position of president after serving as the speaker. He was an influential member of the Council of revolution within the early days of the Islamic Republic. Rafsanjani won the election in 1993 and in 1995, the United States put up trade and oil sanctions against Iran and accuses Iran of seeking to sabotage the peace process in Israeli and Arab, carrying out abuses against human rights, and accusing the country of perpetuating and sponsoring terrorism.
Ali Mohammad Ardakani becomes elected as the president in a landslide victory after making pledges to reform the social, economic, and political facets of the country. In 2000, allies of president Khatami won 189 out of the 290 parliamentary seats which set the stage for reformers to start controlling legislature for the first time since the Islamic revolution took place in 1979. President Khatami won the re-election in 2001 and 2002, President George Bush accused Iran of actively perpetuating weapons of war and mass destruction, a speech that was met by anger. In 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency notes the lack of evidence pointing to nuclear destruction and Iran agrees to cooperate during the more rigorous inspection to be conducted in regards to nuclear facilities. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for ways to ease the tension but at the same time continues to defy the deadlines given by the United Nations to stop activities linked with enrichment using uranium. In 2007, President Mahmoud announced new economic sanctions that targeted the military and halted Tehran’s nuclear program. In 2008, Iran’s suspected research has deemed an issue of concern by the International Atomic Energy Agency and a year later, President Mahmoud is declared as the victor in the presidential elections, an issue that sparked demonstrations by the people who supported his opponent candidate, Hossein Mousavi, who tried to appeal the results through the Guardian Council of Iran without success.
Iran’s Interest Articulation
Interest articulation refers to the avenue used by members of a given society to express their needs to the people in the system of governance. To articulate their interest, countries use various interest groups, trust, and civil societies. In Iran, there are hardly any interest groups in the repressive regime of the Islamic Republic. In Iran, almost everything is deemed religious. However, the main interest group is the Bonyads. This is a charitable trust which dominates the non-petroleum economy of Iran. This means that it is in charge of controlling about 20% of the country’s gross domestic product. Notably, this issue remains highly controversial as it is exempted from government control as well as taxes. Most people consider it as a weakness in the Iranian economy. Additionally, it is hard for citizens to access and participate in society and terms of voting rates, the 2009 election recorded 80% voting rates. Furthermore, the use of social network tools and websites is becoming a rather important avenue for civil society activists to capitalize. Notably, the government is constantly blocking the sites. Civil society has limited authority and can best be described as a barren intellectual exercise. Currently, the Iran political doctrine is subordinate to the divine sharia which is enforced by the government despite being increasingly rejected by most of the Iranian population.
Interest Aggregation
Interest aggregation has to do with the activities in which a group of people used to ask for political demands is brought together as programs. In Iran, formal political parties are a new concept and most conservatives still prefer working in a group of political pressures as opposed to political parties. However, Iran is still considered a party system that is competitive. Various conservative groups came together as two separate coalitions; the Popular Coalition of Principlists and the United Front of Principlists. The rest of the groups remain outside the coalition. Reformist groups such as Islamic Iran Participation and Mujahideen of the Islamic Religion (MIRO) joined together to form a reformist coalition before the Majles elections held in 2008. The National Trust party was also an influential reformist group. Notably, Iran has 30 provinces in its administrative subdivisions and the average suffrage is 18 years.
Government structure and Leadership
The government of Iran has four divisions namely, the executive, legislative, judicial, and military. The executive comprises the president, council of ministers, assembly of experts, the expediency council, and the council of guardians. The Supreme Leader is the head of States, he is appointed to serve for life unless the Assembly of Experts decides to remove him. The supreme leader has the final say when it comes to Iranian policies and he appoints the 12 members of the Guardian Council and the head of the judiciary (Danaei, Farzadfar, Kelishadi, Rashidian, Rouhani, Ahmadnia, & Malekzadeh, 2019). The President, on the other hand, is the head of the government, He is elected for four-year terms by popular vote are responsible for government decisions, the appointment of the council of ministers, and the implementation of the constitution. The Council of Guardians comprises 12 individuals where 6 are religious individuals appointed by the supreme leader and the other six by the Majles. The council of Guardians is tasked with ensuring the legislative complies with the judiciary. The legislative functions in a 4-year cycle and comprises of a 290 member Majles. The judiciary is responsible for supervising the enforcement of laws and establishing legal and judicial policies. The military is tasked with keeping Iranian borders safe.
Policymaking Process in Iran
Iranian presidents play a fundamental role in the country’s decision-making process. The 2009 elections evoked international interest in their presidential elections with the focus shifting to the importance of the president’s office in shaping policies in Iran. The president is under the authority of the Supreme Leader and makes most decisions on the significant issues on foreign policies, for instance, the country’s relationship with the United States, nuclear negotiations, and security and military issues. The office of the president on the other hand is involved in the important role of deciding domestic policy particularly on matters that touch on the economy. The president also has the power to move a motion on international relations in a different direction. The system of governance of Iran is unique in the world with the Supreme Leader being in charge of matters of peace and war, a division that is mostly handled by the president in most countries. The Supreme Leader holds the final say when it comes to a matter relating to the State of Iran.
Comparing Iran to Russia and China.
A lot has been said as regards the democracy of Iran. Some analysts hold that Russia’s political system is just like Mexico and Turkey’s and similarly, others hold that Russia today is a free market and more democratic than it was in the year 2000 (Chubin, & Zabih, 2020). This is despite the various troubling restrictions on political parties and the media. Iran and Russia share various interests. The two countries both oppose the idea and the influence brought about in the Middle East. Both countries are afraid of the internal democratic opponents and maintain that the United States ought to support them. They also fear Jihadists in the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. Despite the many common interests, Iran and Russia differ on important issues. Russia has good relation with countries that Iran considers as adversaries such as Israel, United Arab Emirates, Bhanraina, and Saudi Arabia. The Islamic Republic of Iran poses a challenge to the interest that the US has in the Middle East. It continues to dissuade Iran from making nuclear weapons at all costs. The imposed sanctions against Iran rely on international actors such as Germany, Id=ndia, Russia, South Koram, and Turkey which each maintain financial and commercial ties. However, the United States has not managed to win the cooperation of China. To date, China is reluctant to support sanctions raised against Iran and this is as a result of the deep and broad partnership that has existed for the last three decades. Despite the thirst for independence from foreign external controls, Iran relies heavily on China diplomatically, economically, and militarily. The main countries that Iran faces are corruption and economic problems occasioned by oil export. If it was a democratic country, it would be easy to address the gaps in governance that led to corruption.
Conclusion.
Democracy is an issue that has always been elusive in Iran. This is despite the non-violent revolutions meant to establish a system of governance that promotes political accountability and public freedom. Currently, Iran’s political system follows the Constitution of 1979 which is founded on the Islamic Revolution and the amendments passed by the popular 1989. Iran is democratic based on the fact that the president is elected democratically. Iran operates under a parliament known as Majis and an assembly of Experts which appoints the supreme leader as well as the local councils. After the 1979 constitution was approved, the Jaafari school of thought became Iran’s official religion. The Islamic Republic which was headed by the Supreme Leader under the Islamic theocracy became the new system of governance. Iran has a president who is elected and government bodies at the provisional, national, and local levels.
References
Alipour, M., Hafezi, R., Amer, M., & Akhavan, A. N. (2017). A new hybrid fuzzy cognitive map-based scenario planning approach for Iran’s oil production pathways in the post–sanction period. Energy, 135, 851-864.
Azad, S. (2017). Iran and China: A new approach to their bilateral relations. Rowman & Littlefield.
Chubin, S., & Zabih, S. (2020). The foreign relations of Iran. University of California Press.
Danaei, G., Farzadfar, F., Kelishadi, R., Rashidian, A., Rouhani, O. M., Ahmadnia, S., … & Malekzadeh, R. (2019). Iran in transition. The Lancet, 393(10184), 1984-2005.
Daneshvar, P. (2016). Revolution in Iran. Springer.
Dizaji, S. F., Farzanegan, M. R., & Naghavi, A. (2016). Political institutions and government spending behavior: theory and evidence from Iran. International Tax and Public Finance, 23(3), 522-549.
Hallinger, P., & Hosseingholizadeh, R. (2020). Exploring instructional leadership in Iran: A mixed methods study of high-and low-performing principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(4), 595-616.
Rahnavard, F., Alipour, H., Dehdar, F., & Khalili, H. (2019). The framework of government-citizen relationship in Iran: An institutional approach. Journal of Public Administration, 11(1), 27-46.