Iranian Council Disqualifies Virtually All Reformers From Running For Office

200px-Voter_Cast_his_vote_in_ballot_box-_Iranian_presidential_election,_2013_in_Sarakh_3Ali_Khamenei,Iran’s idea of an election has always been something of a curiosity. No more so than this week. The Guardian Council, an unelected group composed of Muslim clerics and hardliners, disqualified all but 30 of the 3,000 reform candidates seeking to appear on ballots for the parliamentary elections. Six of the 12 members of the Council are clerics selected by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The Guardian Council determines who voters will be allowed to see on the ballot — guaranteeing that the Parliament will remain in the control of hardliners.

Ironically, Iran recently denounced Saudi Arabia for its lack of guarantees of free speech and basic rights for its citizens.

The disqualification of reformists has been a long problem in Iran but this year appears even more extensive in the heavy handed role of the Council.

Recently, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on all Iranians — even those who oppose him —to participate in the elections. What he didn’t mention is that they could participate only if they voted between the candidates that he approved. It is the Henry Ford version of politics: you can choose any color so long as it is black.

13 thoughts on “Iranian Council Disqualifies Virtually All Reformers From Running For Office”

  1. ‘davidm2575’ is correct!

    The Founding Fathers wanted only those who owned property be able to vote. The outcome had a direct affect on property regulations/taxes/etc. Why should renters, illegal aliens, slackers, suffragettes, and others be able to tell anyone else what to do, let alone vote themselves money?

  2. I have great respect and admiration for those trying to reform these extremist countries from within. They face threat to life and liberty.

    Hopefully one day soon the people will just have enough. But it’s so hard to change with all the brainwashing from birth.

    In Tehran, the roosaries are loosening, you’re seeing more hair peeking out, jeans are getting slimmer under the rain coats, and not as many women go about holding their chadors closed with their teeth. (Seriously, chadors MUST have been invented by men who never have to carry a dang thing.) Either the younger generation will be successful, or they will be put down hard by the establishment maniacs.

    I say good luck and best wishes for reform.

  3. issacbasonkavichi. Parliamentary systems do have either a President or a Monarch at their top. Most of these have little power compared to Prime Ministers or Chancellors.

  4. Good analogy isaac. I prefer to think of our current form of government looking more like an archaeological site. After 226 years, ideological sediment has buried what was once our constitutional form of government. Each election cycle has us adding to the layers of sediment and that is exactly the opposite of what we need to do. We need to dig ourselves out of this mess and rediscover the bones of our rule of law. Sadly though, most people don’t know the thing is buried and many that do know, don’t want it found.

  5. One way to fix democracy is to get rid of equal suffrage and adopt a weighted voting system instead. It is way past time to apply scientific analysis in a way that would make voting work for the people. Our simpleton approach to democracy does not work but nobody wants to admit it. They think letting someone who thinks Judge Judy is a Supreme Court Justice cancel out Jonathan Turley’s vote results in a fair and equal government.

  6. Time to evolve to a multi party Parliamentary system. No more President, no more us or them, no more polarization. In order to get in a representative is elected by his constituency and his or her constituency only, with nothing coming from private funds or parties. The government funds the time necessary for the candidate to say what he or she wants to say and they win or lose. When they go to Washington then they represent first their constituency and then their party ideology. With four or more parties no one party could dominate and screw things up-a la the three stooges-without the involvement of a party a little further to the left or right of them. This maintains a balance between left and right of center, where the power should rest. However, the extremes are there to kick start things if they ever get bogged down.

    This system works better than the one found today in the US. The US system of government is akin to a radiator that has collected sludge over the years and simply won’t let the coolant flow through to get cooled and cool the engine, or do its job. The polarization of the American political system is now sludge and the engine is at risk. It’s time to replace the radiator. It is past the stage of flushing it out. The scary part is that the dummy lights don’t always tell you your engine is about to seize up. It’s all about preventative maintenance and the US system of government is in dire need of maintenance, preventative or triage.

  7. I agree with isaac, neither of two wings of the big government party will tolerate any candidate that doesn’t march in lock-step with their progressive ideology. The illusion of a two-party system “feels” so good to most of the American electorate that they don’t even realize they are being duped.

  8. That’s one way to make it more difficult for foreign capitalists to incite a coup d’etat.

  9. The Republican and Democratic parties won’t allow anyone, i.e. fund anyone who doesn’t toe the line. But, hey we have two choices. They only have one. We are way, way, way ahead of Iran.

Comments are closed.