in a real democracy, who chooses the candidates? the people? the press? perhaps, the Supreme overlord of all justice and church?
Ohkay, perhaps that last image is a little too extreme. But sadly, it is not.
A country should not be able to claim democracy just because it has a “electoral process.” Especially if that electoral process oversees (and determines) the legitimacy of the public electorial vote of the country. Iran falls into many different categories. Democracy is one of those categories that is over and misused by many “experts” and “media sources” that cover the Middle East.
Iran’s nuclear program is latent. Nuclear warheads have only yet to be manifested on a grander scale. And President Ahmadinejad has made it clear Iran “will not budge from the path [they] are committed to” (1). Yet, can we even trust his word? First off, the people did not elect this president. The Supreme Leader did. How so?
The Electorate is elected by the people. The people vote for the president. The president is chosen by that same Electorate. However, the candidates for the Electorate are chosen and allowed to run by the Supreme Leader. Not only that, but the Supreme Leader of Iran has the final say on who is elected for President. (2)
So does it matter what President Ahmadinejad is able to say? Or rather, even if he truly believes this, is it possible that he may be usurped by this overarching power found in Iran? Absolutely.
There is no question that the President of Iran is a mere figurehead in global politics. Not only was his own election corrupt–as that same electorate went against the people’s majority vote–but also his foreign relations policy still directly shows the continuity of the Theological Backing that supersedes the true democracy of Iran.
“No enemy of Iranian has ever tasted victory.” (1)
Yet, what do the Iranian people (not the government or the Supreme Leader) view as their enemy? And how? Iran is a growing nation in world politics. The tensions between America, Western Europe, and Iran have only furthered its dominance in global foreign policy. Nations such as Russia and China will refuse more economic sanctions (1) because they view Iran as another upcoming nation beaten down by the far-too-dominant West. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear represents another ally to the upcoming Eastern powers. Allies are allies are allies. The issue comes when one Ally sides directly against the other Ally.
AKA Russia’s support of Iran (in the past) and America’s support of Israel (in the past, present, and hopefully future) has pitted them against each other for decades now. Russia, who in its history, has had multiple territories taken from it. China, in its history, has also had many territories taken form it. As China’s global influences increase, Russia turns to its neighbor for alliance. Even though China and Russia are allied with the United States it is their foreign policy that determines whose global side they are on.
So as the economic sanctions are not going to backed by either one of them, we see Iran gain increasing footing the world. And with two the world’s most influential countries, why should Iran not go after Israel and blame America as having “invalid claims” (1)?
If we aren’t willing to trust the International Atomic Energy Agency at its reports, we shouldn’t be willing to trust Iran just yet. The Supreme Leader has ultimate authority, over the government and its armies. Russia and China’s backing of Iran hold power over it. Truth be told, Ahmadinejad should worry about his own “empty claims” (1). Because as I see, his statements hold little to no power over Iran, over foreign policy, and over his people.