Ahmadinejad is fundamentally politically illiberal, but political illiberalism doesn't necessarily entail cultural and social illiberalism, and he does not appear to me to be more conservative on social and cultural questions than a majority of Iranians, though no doubt he is more conservative on such questions than the secularizing contingent of the urban Iranian elite.
<blockquote>In an interview with ISNA, Mehdi Kalhor, the president's representative in the Council of Supervision Over the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), added, "The problem of the country is not how people dress, but rather economic injustice. Many seasoned cultural and social experts consider the attempts of people to complain about problems as faulty and they do not think their appearance really shows how they feel. The rule of the thumb is that in societies where the demands of social strata are ignored, they react in ways that appear to be irrelevant, but are rooted in their dissatisfaction (with the status quo)." ("Gov't Concerned About Injustices," 27 December 2005, <http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2462/html/index.htm>)</blockquote>
It would be interesting, however, to empirically investigate the trends of civil liberties violations (e.g., numbers of newspapers shut down, intellectuals and activists detained, strikes suppressed, etc. over time, under successive administrations in Iran, since 1978-9).
On 8/24/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:26 PM, Marvin Gandall wrote:
> > It seems to me that the onus is on the regime's critics to identify
> > alternative forces in Iran which are as committed to its national
> > independence and to addressing its social inequalities along with
> > their
> > more enlightened policies towards women, gays, secular dissidents,
> > trade
> > unionists, etc., Yoshie's point is that the more socially progressive
> > Iranian left, in reaction to the Islamists, has compromised itself by
> > adapting to the West's agenda for the region.
>
> You ignored my point that the regime is not Ahmadinejad, and whatever
> his personal virtues, he lacks the resources to deliver on his
> populist agenda and is subordinated to a wretched power elite.
No, the regime is not Ahmadinejad, and I have never said that it is.
But the balance of power among political leaders, among political factions, among social forces that leaders and factions represent, etc. is not fixed in any nation, and it is, imho, particularly volatile in Iran today.
If you had watched Iran closely for a long time, you would know it, but Ahmadinejad is the first president of Iran to spend so much time visiting urban slums and rural provinces, addressing working people directly, listening to their demands and grievances, rallying support for his faction's political program. No other Iranian president has done what he is doing even during electoral campaigns, let alone after getting elected. This is a significant development, noted by Iranians as well as the Western MSM. If Ahmadinejad eventually wants to wrest power from the unelected leaders of Iran*, what he is doing is the right thing.
* The Supreme Leader is unelected, but the Assembly of Experts, which appoints and oversees the Supreme Leader, is an elected body, and the next Assembly of Experts elections will be held on 15 December 2006 (postponed from the initially scheduled date of 18 November 2006), which will coincide with municipal elections. It will be interesting to watch both.
On 8/24/06, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
> I would disagree with Yoshie only insofar as she seems to regard "political
> illiberalism" to be universally characteristic of the masses. Unless I am
> misunderstanding, this seems to be echoing Wojtek from his left. While it
> may well be true of Middle East Islamist populism, it doesn'tat all seem to
> be the case with respect to the Latin American populist movements, which are
> essentially social-democratic in character.
The Bolivarian Revolution is an illiberal democracy, not being neutral on the question of good life (cf. <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20060821/044468.html>), so will Bolivia be, if it becomes like Venezuela. The rest of Latin America will move in that direction if masses have their way.
On 8/24/06, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
> With all due respect to Yoshie, then, I think her focus on the domestic
> policies of Ahmadinejad and the Islamists is politically misguided. It
> provokes unnecessary controversy which typically detracts from rather than
> assists in winning support on the left for the Islamist resistance to US and
> Israeli aggression. It reminds people of what they DON'T like about these
> movements rather than inspiring support for them.
I know of no leftist who favors a war against Iran, and leftists who favor economic sanctions against Iran are few and far between. So, it's unnecessary to make any effort to win the support of leftists on these two points. The problem is that leftists are so few in the USA that they make no difference, whatever they think or say or do, no match at all for the US power elite, at least for the time being.
The Iranian people, as well as others targeted by Washington, are basically on their own.
I'm far more interested in the domestic policies of Ahmadinejad, Hizballah, etc. because whether or not they and their peoples can defend their respective nations from the multinational empire and support the Palestinian people and others, remaking the Middle East, largely depends on the success of their domestic policies. That's in addition to the fact that they are fascinating in and of themselves. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>