Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 This from CNN.From the article:Voters were lining up, standing in the blistering sun, even before the polls opened at 8 a.m. The polling stations were to stay open for 12 hours after officials extended the polling time to accommodate the high turnout.The election is pitting incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against reformist Mir Hossein Moussavi, and two other candidates.Kamran Daneshjoo, head of the election office, said the turnout was unprecedented, and that several polling places had already requested to stay open for two more hours.But text messaging was not working in Iran on Friday, an issue that could affect Moussavi, who has used technology to inform his supporters.In addition to Moussavi, two other challengers -- former parliament Speaker Mehdi Karrubi, another reformist, and hard-liner Mohsen Rezaie, secretary of Iran's Expediency Council -- hope to unseat Ahmadinejad in the election.Is there reason to hope the goofy President of Iran will be unseated and a real reformer will be put into place? Further, is the popular upheaval in favor of the reformist candidate a reason to hope theocracy in Iran is getting weaker and may be replaced by a more western friendly Government?[Thread title edited per EHK's request] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usotsuki Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Is there reason to hope the goofy President of Iran will be unseated and a real reformer will be put into place? Further, is the popular upheaval in favor of the reformist candidate a reason to hope theocracy in Iran is getting weaker and may be replaced by a more western friendly Government?If you mean can Mousavi win then the answer is clearly yes, he can triumph at the ballot box and possibly even win at the count, but when exactly do you think Mousavi become a "real reformer"? He doesn't claim to be a reformer, doesn't have any history as a reformer but is in fact a long standing member of the oligarchy, he even has the endorsement of Rasfanjani possibly the most corrupt leader in the Middle East outside Kurdish Iraq. He is not Ahmadinejad, let that be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Is there reason to hope the goofy President of Iran will be unseated and a real reformer will be put into place? Further, is the popular upheaval in favor of the reformist candidate a reason to hope theocracy in Iran is getting weaker and may be replaced by a more western friendly Government?It would be a good start, but as pointed out above, we are probably not getting a real reformer. I have long thought that Iran should be our natural ally in the Middle East. They are democratically-minded, and just about got over the ass-fucking we gave them in the 50's. They are one of the youngest countries in the world, demographically speaking (I think something like 60%-70% of the population is under 30), and have been the regional seat of power for the last 3000 years or so.Much as I dislike President Obama he is doing the right thing by softening the rhetoric on Iran. Maybe if Iran gets a softer-toned president in whatever-color-house they use there, we can start to achieve some sort of understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 Usotsuki,I was going on what I've heard on NPR this week about the protests and their representation of the candidate as a "Reformer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 He is not Ahmadinejad, let that be enough.He seems fairly reformist when it comes to women's rights, if he is serious about it. As for the rest, maybe not so much, but at least it is something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I was going on what I've heard on NPR this week about the protests and their representation of the candidate as a "Reformer."He's more 'reformist' than Ahmedinijad, for what that's worth, and is or claims to be more moderate than he used to be. Since all of the actual reformers were disqualified from standing by the Guardian Council, it's a question of taking what you can get. Certainly, a while back it was taken as read that Ahmedinijad would walk it, so I suppose this is an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Karroubi is the reformist. Mousavi would be better described as a moderate, though he seems to be accepting the reformist label at the moment, within strict limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrostar Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 When are results expected to be tallied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 The results are usually announced within 24 hours. If no candidate gets 50% there will be a run-off between the top two on 19th June. The result has then got to be ratified by the unelected and all powerful Supreme Court Guardian Council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrostar Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Being on the Guardian Council sounds like the job to have. That's what is headed by the clerics, I take it, with the Ayatollah as its leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Not quite. The Guardian Council has half its members directly appointed by the Supreme Leader, but he is not himself a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrostar Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 And to think we (UK with the help of the US) got rid of Mossadeq to replace him with an absolute dictator, so that people really thought it would be better to have this kind of theocracy instead...I really need to borrow All the Shah's Men from someone so I can finish it...I feel painfully uninformed about how the theocracy really works, however. I shall consult Wikipedia, I guess, and see if that helps :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 This is a good guide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrostar Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 This is a good guide.Thank you. I can now consider myself at least moderately informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 This is a good guide.Do you happen to have a link to this information from a more reliable source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 It would be a good start, but as pointed out above, we are probably not getting a real reformer. I have long thought that Iran should be our natural ally in the Middle East. They are democratically-minded, and just about got over the ass-fucking we gave them in the 50's. They are one of the youngest countries in the world, demographically speaking (I think something like 60%-70% of the population is under 30), and have been the regional seat of power for the last 3000 years or so.Much as I dislike President Obama he is doing the right thing by softening the rhetoric on Iran. Maybe if Iran gets a softer-toned president in whatever-color-house they use there, we can start to achieve some sort of understanding.I'd agree that Iran is a logical ally of the West in the Middle-East, but the West propping up the Shah and then installing sanctions against the country during and after the Revolution didn't really help (not to mention the whole supporting Israel thing). That said, US-Iranian cooperation with regards to Afghanistan proved to be surprisingly helpful and easy to accomplish for countries with no official ties (just arrange a meeting at the UN, job done).A softening of the rhetoric followed by real engagement could pay off quite well, but it depends on how the nuclear stand-off is handled, as well as seeing if Obama is actually going to take any kind of definitive action in the Middle-East Peace Process (actually just wrote Middle-earth Peace Process, which gave rise to images of Obama getting Theoden and Saruman to shake hands and make up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Mousavi's claiming he won, while the state-run news services are saying Ahmadinejad won.Iran's state news agency reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election Friday, but his main reformist challenger also confidently claimed victory at a news conference moments earlier. The rival claims came even before the close of polls, which authorities permitted to stay open an extra six hours, until midnight (1930 GMT, 3:30 p.m. EDT), to allow long lines of voters to cast ballots. Official results were not expected until Saturday.Neither the report in the IRNA news agency nor the competing announcement by Former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi gave details on what their claims were based on.http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009...ion.php?ref=fpaYe gods, I hope this doesn't turn into a big fat mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andriy Czarchenko Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 The news was Ahmadinejad has 67% with 19% of the votes counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 is it really a theocracy if folks can a) vote b) for non-priests?the vetting of candidates by conservative religious folks doesn't seem very different in principle than the vetting of candidates by corporate interests, to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ontology Interface Layer Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 is it really a theocracy if folks can a) vote b) for non-priests?the vetting of candidates by conservative religious folks doesn't seem very different in principle than the vetting of candidates by corporate interests, to be honest.Eh, the biggest problem is that the President of Iran doesn't have all that much power; the Supreme Leader (who is not popularly elected and does have to be a priest) is the one really calling the shots.Former President Khatami seemed pretty progressive (within the context of Iranian politics) but he wasn't able to really change the system. I'm not sure if there is any way to really change the system from within there, short of a revolution or coup.ETA: Looking into it, I suppose it's possible that stealth reformers could slip past the government screening and get elected to the Assembly of Experts, and depose Khamenei and install a reformist Supreme Leader. But the odds are stacked against that on an institutional level, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.