Untangling Iran's Politics

by Ali-Asad

On March 14^th Iran held parliamentary elections with ‘moderate’ conservatives and ‘reformists’ gaining ground but Ahmadinejad supporters still in control of parliament – the Majlis. Ahmadinejad won the presidential election in 2005 besting some well known politicians. Ordinarily, you would think that with controlling both the Presidency and Parliament Ahmedinejad would be the most powerful person in Iran. Think again. Iran has a complex government structure full of checks and balances seeking to accurately adhere to Islamic law (Arabic: shari'a). Below I have diagrammatically represented Iran’s complex government which consists of two executives (Supreme Leader and President) and one legislative body (Majlis) along with three other oversight bodies that seek to provide those checks and balances.


Iran's Governmental Structure

The Guardian Council has the most number of arrows pointing out of it making it perhaps the most powerful body of the government. The Council is composed of 12 scholars, 6 selected by the Supreme Leader and 6 nominated by the judiciary, which is selected by the Supreme Leader, and approved by the Majlis. This body is charged with maintaining the integrity of the Islamic Republic. Also, the Guardian Council acts as a constitutional court and vets candidates for the Presidency, Majlis and Assembly of Experts to make sure they meet the Islamic Republic’s standards. This body is often criticized for being a roadblock to reform. In last week’s parliamentary elections, the Guardian Council rejected over 1,700 reformist candidates. Evidently, the Council felt these reformists were a threat to the fairly young Republic.

To digress, Iran’s current governmental system was set up in 1979 after a popular uprising inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini lead to the ousting of the US-backed Shah. The newly established constitution created the position of Supreme Leader in accordance with Khomeni’s controversial ‘Rule of the Islamic Jurist’ opinion (Farsi: vilayat-e-faqih) – a scholarly ruling which stated that authority to rule in an Islamic state must be given to a religious scholar/cleric with a high amount of knowledge and education in the religious sciences. This idea was based on the concept of that scholars were now deputies of the 12th Hidden Imam and therefore derived some authority in his absence.

Iran’s Supreme Leader is the highest executive office with powers similar to that of the US presidency. The Supreme leader serves as Commander-in-Chief, sets the tone for foreign policy and has the last say on all domestic policy. Constitutionally, the Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts to a 7 year term. Iran has had 2 Supreme Leaders in its 30 year history. Although the Supreme Leader is the chief executive, the execution and formulation of policy is mostly attended to by the President who is the highest elected official and is elected to serve a 4 year term.

The Majlis consists of 290 seats with 5 seats reserved for religious minorities and is Iran’s only legislative body. It also approves half the members of the powerful Guardian Council. But since most laws must be authorized by the President and vetted by the Guardian Council, the influence of this body is limited. In order to facilitate the smooth running of government, the Expediency Council was formed to resolve disputes between the Guardian Council and the Majlis. The Expediency Council also advises the Supreme Leader.

The Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) formulates foreign policy and, importantly, the government’s nuclear policy. This body is chaired by the President and consists of the Supreme Leader, heads of all the major governmental bodies plus army chiefs, cabinet officials and diplomats.

In light of the above, it would be a mistake to assume that Ahmedinejad is the main player in Iranian politics. Here, I have demonstrated that Iranian constitution provides many checks and balances over the President and the Supreme through the one elected parliament and other appointed bodies that consist of religious scholars. But Iran’s constitutional Islamic Republic is less than 30 years old. And with any new form of government, important personalities help shape the roles of positions in government.

So, is Iran a democracy? Yes, insofar as the government relies of popular support for legitimacy. All governmental authority emanates from the people. Iran’s Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts which is elected by the people. The President and Parliament are both directly elected. But with the Supreme Leader able to select the Judiciary, the Supreme Leader basically selects the Guardian Council – the body that interprets the constitution and approves candidates for President, Parliament and the Assembly of Experts. Therefore, the Supreme Leader indirectly exercises great influence over the directly elected bodies of government. In other words, the constitution greatly dilutes that power of the ballot. But then how is Iran a democracy if the Supreme Leader can easily dismiss the will of the people? Of what use are elections? The constitution empowers the Supreme Leader to resist public opinion and keep the State on an ‘Islamic’ path. Therefore, only an overwhelming majority of public opinion that filters through to the highest echelons of power could force change. In the mean time, the Iranian people will have to settle for a slow, gradual evolution of change after their revolution.

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment Below.

References/Further Reading

Iran Between Two Revolutions (Princeton Studies on the Near East)

Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic

Politics and Government of Iran, Wikipedia

Understanding Your Political Philosophy

by Ali-Asad

If you ever wondered where you fit on the political spectrum but couldn’t be asked to take some quiz, this post will seek to generally explain how political philosophies can be simply deconstructed and where you might stand. Firstly, we divide political philosophies between social and economic issues. Social issues are concerned with personal freedoms: abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization etc. Economic issues are concerned with economic freedoms: taxes, free trade, unregulated markers etc.

• Social conservatives (traditionalists/religious moralists) – This groups opposes abortion rights, gay marriage, drug legalization etc because they feel these are moral issues and would harm society if they were made legal.
  
  
• Social liberals (personalists) – This group favor abortion rights, gay marriage, drug legalization etc because they feel the government has no right to dictate morality. They feel morality is a very personal thing.
  
  
• Economic conservatives (individualists) – This group favors unrestricted free trade, unrestricted freedom for businesses, unregulated markets etc. because they think individuals must be the center of all economic activity and so should be free to do what they want with their own money. They feel that if everyone looked out for their own self-interest, society as a whole would progress farther and faster.
  
  
• Economic liberals (communitarians/statists) – This group favors government involvement in the economy to reduce wealth inequality. Therefore, the economy should be run primarily by the state in order to fairly manage the wealth of society.
  

I do not intend to define the above terms as if political views on social and economic issues are dichotomous. Each philosophy contains several political views that their adherents may not agree with. In reality, each policy issue has a sliding scale where most people find themselves in the middle. Unfortunately, the political discourse in the US has become so wrapped up in a left-right political atmosphere that there is a need to simplify ones views.

I’d recommend taking the political compass quiz to accurately identify your political philosophy. Wikipedia has a comprehensive article on the political spectrum which you can find here.

And that's jus' the tip.

Science has no Morality

by Ali-Asad

Last month, uproar broke out in the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill over comments made by a biology professor. In Professor Harris’s opinion, an unborn fetus that will develop Downs syndrome should be aborted. A student took offense to this statement of opinion and subsequently called her pastor who protested and asked that the university fire the professor. Let us set aside this argument - the professor prefaced his comments with ‘in my opinion’; demanding his firing is misguided because he has a right to his own moral opinion.

But I take issue with a professor using his knowledge of science to take a moral position. Science has no morality. That’s not a bad thing and I do not mean to demean science in any way. But science focuses on answering the ‘how’ question, not the ‘why’ question. So a scientist can tell me that a child will develop a debilitating syndrome early in life. But the scientist cannot then turn around and argue that ‘the right thing to do would be to abort the fetus’. This argument disingenuously uses science to argue a moral imperative. I don’t disagree with the scientist about the science. I disagree with the scientist on the philosophical basis for his views. He may hold true that any genetic mutation and evolutionary mistake should be corrected or terminated, and he has a right to that view. But again his premise holds true that life itself either has no purpose, or is not sacred or special in anyway. This difference is the crux of the argument.

The real debate is about philosophical views on life. A scientist cannot use his scientific expertise to give a moral judgment when he has not made clear the personal philosophical beliefs and views that have gone into making that judgment. That would be quite unethical, and dare I say, unscientific.

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment below.

Obama-Hillary or Hillary-Obama?

by Ali-Asad

The shine has come off Barack Obama’s campaign in the last couple of weeks. Firstly, on February 29th, Hillary Clinton’s campaign rolled their now infamous ‘3am’ ad asking a pointed question: who would you want to be President in the middle of a crisis? Obama countered with an ad of his own stressing his judgment in opposing the Iraq vote from the start. You can see both ads here. But Clinton’s ad seems to have resonated with voters. Exit polls showed late deciders in Ohio and Texas going to Clinton by large 20+ point margins. Then on March 3rd, the day before the Texas and Ohio primaries, the AP press agency got hold of a memo detailing a meeting between Obama economic advisor and Canadian official where Obama’s advisor said that Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric was just political posturing. Obama countered that the memo was not important and the Canadian government went to great lengths to deny the event. In any case, this story questioned Obama’s character and image and a truth-teller who seeks to move away from the ‘politics of the past’. Also, this story called into question Obama’s commitment to help those in Ohio who have been affected by free trade. On the same day, Obama held press conference where he was peppered with questions about his ties to Tony Rezko, a supporter who is currently on trial for corruption. Rezko’s trial will continue throughout the primary campaign. Obama’s reputation for honesty could be damaged if the trial finds new information that Obama did not disclose about his dealings with Rezko. This barrage of negative stories calls into question Obama’s invincibility as a candidate. Now, democrats are revaluating who really would be the strongest candidate against McCain.

The next important primary will take place on April 22nd in Pennsylvania. This state should be Clinton-country so a loss here would be a significant, but not fatal, setback. Obama narrowly leads Clinton in delegates. This lead is unlikely to change either way significantly because delegates are allocated proportionately in the democrat’s primaries. A Florida and Michigan revote will not change the numbers significantly. Hence, unless a deal is reached, the nomination contest will likely go to the Democratic convention in late August where the politician-delegates (superdelegates) will decide the nominee. But a tie-breaking decision by superdelegates would be extremely unpopular especially if they side with the candidate that got fewer votes – that would be Clinton right now but even the popular vote is quite close. Either way, the Democratic Party would be damaged by a very undemocratic selection of their nominee. Democratic officials understand this sentiment and will do anything to avoid it. Hence, Hillary Clinton’s suggestion last week that the process may be heading toward a ‘dream’ ticket with both rivals joining forces. But who would head the ticket?

Obama argues that his appeal to independents and republicans makes him the right choice to take on McCain – the so called Obamacans who are fed up with Republican Party and desire a fundamental change. This argument is less convincing in light of recent polls showing a significant presence of McCainocrats – Democratic voters who put a great deal of importance on national security issues. McCain’s experience and independent thinking appeals to these voters, and so they would favor McCain over Obama. Hillary can now make a counter-argument to Obama by saying that she can cancel out McCain’s foreign policy advantage. This counter attacks Obama’s weakest area – his lack of foreign policy experience. Democrats now really need to ask if they want Obama at the head of the ticket.

The only way to resolve the contest before the convention would be to hash out a deal. Before Ohio and Texas, Hillary had a greater incentive to compromise and offer herself as a VP candidate because Obama had all the momentum. Hillary would have preferred to be on the ticket in some fashion rather than leave the primary contests as a defeated former frontrunner. But choosing Hillary would undermine Obama’s central theme of change.

Now, Hillary has regained some strength and remains committed to the race. She has found some potent points of attack that have helped her campaign and put Obama in trouble in addition to blunting his momentum. If she secured the nomination at the convention, she would be under huge pressure to pick Obama as her running mate in order to unify the party and reward his exceptional campaign.

So, as time goes on, the chances of an Obama-Hillary ticket get slimmer while the chances of a Hillary-Obama ticket increase but the overall chances of a deal are dwindling. Either way, one needs to secure the nomination first. With no deal, we’re off to the convention.

And that’s jus’ the tip.

Comment below.