It would be useful to reiterate the definition of
democracy.Democracy is a state where:
- Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
- Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voted based on the principle of one man/one vote.
- Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship or otherwise punished by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or even absurd.
It should be noted that this definition is for the purposes of facilitating a Socratic dialog. This is a broad definition of an
ideal democracy. In the real world, no such democracy exists, has ever existed or will ever exist. However, the standards laid down above are perfectly good ones against which to measure any given state claiming to be democratic.
In the real world we see states that claim to be democratic yet grant special status to certain members or institutions. For example, Britain claims to be a democracy, yet there is both an official church and a crowned head of state; in order to be the head of state, one must be a member of the Church of England and a direct descendant of William the Conqueror. However, the position of head of state is ceremonial. The real power is not in the head of state, the King or Queen, but in the head of government, the Prime Minister. As long as anybody can be Prime Minister, as long as all adult citizens are enfranchised with the right to vote and freely discuss civic affairs and as long as there are no limitations on who is a citizen, then Britain passes the democracy test. For a ceremonial head of state to be a hereditary position is inconsistent with democratic principle, but not a fatal flaw.
As for the relationship between church and state, while it may be that ideally there should be none, there is little wrong with the state turning over revenues to specific religious institutions to do the kind of work religious institutions do such as build and maintain hospitals and schools. As long as membership in a church or adherence to a specific creed, no matter how broadly defined, is not required to participate in civic affairs, the state may be said to be a democracy. The establishment of a state religion is a venial offense.
That situation does not exist in Iran. Here, one must not only be a Muslim to participate in civic affairs, but one must be a sufficiently devout Muslim. One's sufficient devotion to Islam is judged by a council of twelve clerics known as the Guardian Council. Anyone not judged a good Muslim by them is disqualified from running for a seat in Parliament. Of course, anyone who questions their authority may be deemed insufficiently devout. This goes beyond what is consistent with democratic principle.
There is no place in a democratic state for an elite council of stuffy old men, albeit presumably learned men, to determine who is fit to hold office. That is up to the people as voters. If the people of a given constituency collectively hold that one must be sufficiently devout to the Islamic faith in order to represent them in Parliament, then they will vote for one whom they consider to meet those qualifications. In a democracy, the people are to be trusted. They, not pretentious elitists, are the final arbiters of a political candidate's qualifications.
President Khatami deserves our support in his attempts to limit the power of the Guardian Council. Indeed, the abolition of this offense to democracy should be encouraged.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
