June 13, 2011

MISAPPREHENDING THE ROLE OF THE MONARCH IN A REPUBLIC:

Two years after Iran's marred election, hard-liners anything but triumphant: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was declared the 2009 winner by a landslide, and his aides have been dismissed by conservative rivals and clerics as a "deviant current" in Iran's theocracy. (Scott Peterson, June 12, 2011, CS Monitor)

Iran’s unique system of government – a blend of preeminent theological and declared democratic values that are often in tension with each other ­– once sought to offer a model to the world.

Instead, even as hard-line leaders proclaim the Islamic Republic to be at the peak of its powers, the events of the last two years have exposed political dysfunction.

Iran “simply has not developed the institutions and rules that are needed to prevent very unsettling change,” says Farideh Farhi, an Iran specialist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. “So rather than moving toward stabilization… what we see is a system that is constantly faced with deepening political turmoil.”


By intervening too much in matters of day-to-day governance and by limiting the electoral choices overmuch, the Grand Ayatollah so disillusioned the reform-minded in the electorate that their participation in elections waned and made it possible to elect governments that lack popular support. It's been a costly lesson but a useful one....provided his successors can learn from the example. The monarch must be the final defender of the republic, not its micromanager.


Posted by at June 13, 2011 6:09 AM
  

blog comments powered by Disqus
« THE ONLY INCENTIVE FOR PROVIDERS TO CONTROL PRICES...: | Main | IT'S A TWO MAN RACE: »