How does one remove an authoritarian and dictatorial anti-democratic regime?

[shaad]

This is a serious question, inspired by the adulation shown on the BSMR thread. Make no mistake, I too applaud the instrumental role he played both prior to (see his 6-point plan, for instance) and in the events leading up to our independence struggle (although a coldly analytical argument could be offered that initially he simply wanted and deserved to be PM of a united Pakistan -- neither Mujib nor the Awami League explicitly advocated political independence for East Pakistan upon winning a clear majority of seats in the National Assembly in the elections of 1970. It was only after Bhutto and the PPP threatened to boycott the assembly and oppose the government if Mujib was made the PM, and the consequent delay in convening the National Assembly by Yahya Khan, that Mujib called for independence in the famous speech in the Race Course Ground on March 7, 1971).

But I wish to talk about the events after 1971. We shed blood in the millions for our independence, achieved it, and made Mujib our head of state. His governance was marred by nepotism and mismanagement; but that in itself, is not necessarily damning in the eyes of our nation -- after all, have we not seen the same phenomenon irrespective of whichever political party is in power?

Issues did come to a head, though, after the Famine of 1974, which resulted in 1.5 million deaths, and at least one cause of which, given that average food production was at a local peak, is attributed by Amartya Sen and other scholars to government mismanagement. This, combined with a flawed pricing policy, rising inflation, heavy losses suffered by the nationalised industries, and the poor performance of Mujib's ambitious social programs, eroded much of the popularity that he had previously enjoyed.

All these sadly, were still acceptable; we Bengalis/Bangladeshis are a long-suffering lot. But, in 1975, Mujib declared a state of emergency and passed a constitutional amendment banning and outlawing all opposition political parties. Only one party, an amalgam of his supporters called the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL) was allowed, all civilian government personnel were required to join it, and he himself was declared president for life and given extraordinary powers.

This, I dare say, is what many Bangladeshis found unacceptable. Were we to have eliminated one authoritarian regime, that of the Pakistanis, to find ourselves now under the jackbooted heels of another? Is this what we fought the Liberation War to bring about? Because the outlawing of all other political parties meant only one thing -- there could be no opposition party, hence no democracy; that is, the regime in power became an authoritarian tyranny.

Speaking for myself now, I am a democrat (the generic lower case term, not a member of the American political party). I concur with Churchill's view that "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." The crucial aspect of democracy is that it harbours the seeds of change, that if we found the current regime unpalatable, we had the right, the ability to vote a different administration into power. But Mujib, with his constitutional amendment and BAKSAL, had eliminated all that.

Now, much sadness has been expressed in the BSMR thread about the coup and his assassination. And make no mistake, I have never supported assassination as a means for achieving political goals. But my serious question to the readers here is this: how else, other than a coup, could you have begun the process to bring democracy and accountability back to Bangladesh?

Realize that there were no legal opposition political parties that one could vote for or join. Given that opposition activists were arrested, that Mujib had his own paramilitary force, the Rakkhi Bahini, that pledged loyalty solely to him, and was feared for torturing and making individuals "disappear", that Mujib himself had no qualms about boasting in parliament about extra-judicial killings carried out under his authority ("Kothai aj shei Siraj Sikder?"), Gandhi-esque non-violent protests were also a no-go. So my question remains: other than a coup (and one that didn't necessarily have to end in assassination), how could you have brought about an end to this authoritarian, dictatorial, anti-democratic regime?

I reiterate again that this is a serious question. I am interested in your answers. It is, however, not an excuse or an opportunity to heap criticism or praise on AL or BNP, on Mujib or Zia, on Khaleda or Hasina; open another thread if you want to do that.

[AsifTheManRahman]

Originally Posted by shaad
how else, other than a coup, could you have begun the process to bring democracy and accountability back to Bangladesh?

There was no other way. The coup was necessary (but not the assassination of course). I've always had mixed feelings about Mujib and his administration. Independence was more than necessary, but the sequence of events beyond 1971 were hardly so. To be honest, I feel Mujib and co. simply showed us what our politicians really are - money/power hungry rajakars. No one, NO ONE has the right to exploit the nation's resources like these blood suckers have been doing for 38 years, irrespective of what their role was in liberating us. In fact, one might even get the impression that the whole move for independence was to quench Mujib's thirst for "owning" a nation.

Don't get me wrong - I acknowledge his leadership that led to bringing Bangladeshis together like it has never done in any other instance in the nation's history, but he is not quite the saint that text books will portray him as.

[Zunaid]

Asif has echoed very well my own thoughts. Having personally lived through the era - I can attest to how the country was ground down to dirt for the personal aggrandizement of a few. Remember where the words kambol chor started. And unfortunately, we are condemned to relive it all. Subsequent governments (under the ostensible guise of democracy) has been just as adept at looting the countries coffers.

[Beamer]

As a big AL supporter, and with maximum adulation and respect in place for BB, I must say that I have no answer for the questions that Shaad Bhai has laid out in front of us. Post independent Mujib was an utter failure and probably laid the foundation for the cronyism and nepotism that has engulfed us ever since. A coup, or a people's revolution are probably the only way to remove despots, but history also shows us that very rarely do the aftermath of any such events lead to what people really aspired for.

[FagunerAgun]

I am not a supporter of any of these parties and leaders because, to me, they are great but corrupt and inapt.

The aftermath of great 1971 was a political, economical and social failure because:



BSMR is a great leader but failed to connect administrative management with his legendary leadership.

• He removed dictortorship in 1971 and then he became a dictator himself trampling down individual rights and liberties, failed to manage and control political behaviors, even of his own family members..
• When Kabir Chowdhury and others came back from Moscow after an extensive study that BAKSAL cannot be implemented in Bangladesh because of religion and people’s aspiration for freedom, Mujib and other compatriots went ahead with that, thus killed the very sensitive issues of religion and democracy.
• BAKSAL created an opportunity for anti socialist and ant independence elements to be united and go against BAKSAL.
• BNP is a union of segmentations of other political parties gave rise to a full blossomed political corruption, at some point it denounced the very core elements of our Independence, thus it denounced our political dream again, and Zia embraced his fate.
• Since then, it was a process of changing names and hands, same disappointment, frustration and extremism from different political parties.

I personally believe in democracy, but when democracy fails what is the alternative then? Military, no.

The idea was brilliant, the caretaker government, but the implementation was flawed again because that is in our blood. If politicians can do their job democratically, we do not need military or caretaker government But again, true democratic process may begin after the death of some corrupt and power mongering dictatorial politicians.

The flawed Caretaker government made some positive changes:

• The independence of Judiciary System
• The independence of EC.
• The independence of DUDAK!
• Arranging a fair election
• Political parties constitution and transparency and other positive changes.

By these steps, the caretaker government created an opportunity for democracy, but now wait and see, how our ‘wise politicians’ use that opportunity and move on to fulfill our dream for democracy.

The purpose of the creation of the caretaker government was to remove the anti democratic dictatorial government and pave a way for a democratic government.
I feel bad because I am a “murderer” as I came from a “murdering” country where two Presidents were murdered and no justice yet. May God bless Bangladesh and her politicians.

[Fazal]

Good thread but I am afraid it will start with good intention but end up with personal attack and few warning and locking the thread.

However if you ask me, there is no easy and quick answer. May be the nation need to suck it up and do the sacrifice and do it right than looking for quick and dirty fix. And to me a coup is indeed an attempt of quick and dirty fix. Usually the coup conspirators take advantage of the short coming of the nation's current democracy (what ever convoluted form it is). Usually the coup conspirators have their own motives and interest in their mind which has little to do with the well being of the national. For example for me, the way citizens get rid of Ershad is the way to go rather than the way they get rid of Mujib or Zia. To me the way they(USA) dealt with USSR is the way to go than the way they tried to impose democracy in Iraq for example. One is to wait for the right moment for the people of the nation to force the government to make a change and the other is using force to impose something to the nation and claiming that they are doing for the people.

We had Mujib, Zia and Ershad one after another. One can make a case for each of them how they abused democracy and created dictatorial anti-democratic regime to solidify their own power. You can make a case that all three are responsible for killing people (directly or indirectly) to keep their power. Two of them are dead by coup and one was the luck one who is still surviving. And unfortunately, in case of Mujub, it’s not only him, who gave his life, it’s almost his entire family and his relatives (including females and children) who end up giving their lives. Now if you ask me, I would say out of these three, and how they lost their power (and life in some case) in government, it’s the way Ershad was removed was the right way and gave the nation the hope for democracy. The other two created two scars that will last forever and still haunting us.

I know after that we are still struggling with democracy, and we had 1/11. But at least we have hope and transparency. For example after Ershad people voted for BNP. They didn’t met people's expectation and therefore they voted for AL, then BNP again to AL. That tells me that none of the major two parties were able to meet their promises and they were penalized in the next election by the people power. It may not be perfect, but to me, this is what democracy is all about... people may vote for the wrong party but then when they realized they have the chance to vote for someone else in the next election. This what democracy should be all about... it will not find a good leader for you... but it will help you with the process.... the citizen still need to identify and vote for the right leader.... democracy will not do that for you.

A little bit about the coup issue. Historically speaking, through out the world, Army lead coup doesn't bring any good for their nation long term wise. it creates more suffering to the people. A authoritarian leader with firepower is much harder to get rid of than a authoritarian leader coming through faulty democratic system.

So I say, a coup takes a nation 25 years backward. So I would never support coup to fix a faulty democratic system, to me coup and democracy is mutually exclusive, there is no correlation between them.

[One World]

The world history provide a lot of other options for this (in many cases its a mix):

1. Civil War
2. Foreign pressure and involvement w/t bloody coup
3. Social non co-operation movement/Boycotts

I wish number two took place without much of vengeance and keeping the reestablishment of past pride out of the window thus avoiding the inevitable murders and blood.

[Puck]

Originally Posted by shaad

I reiterate again that this is a serious question. I am interested in your answers. It is, however, not an excuse or an opportunity to heap criticism or praise on AL or BNP, on Mujib or Zia, on Khaleda or Hasina; open another thread if you want to do that.

democracy is not the best of a worst lot for our age but it certainly was in the context old winston had meant it for. beyond that, churchill was a public school educated aristocrat with a thorough grounding in classics. he knew why athenian democracy worked. it worked because there was a clear separation between the soceital classes. citizenship itself could only be obtained by being born in athens and owning property or possessing slaves. democracy also worked in ancient india (the republic of licchavi) because the only landowners could participate in the decision making process. in the contemporary context of the first world, we see 'representative democracy' rather than the classic form. it works the best when even the lowest social classes have access to free education, healthcare and a welfare state, and as a result lead less politically polarised lives.

back to our bangladeshi context; idolatry seems to be in our blood whether it is religious, political, social or familial. we make gods out of gods and humans. being human is not quite enough, we need to impose our own brand of iconoclasm. this is not a problem specific to bangladesh alone but all developing nations and in particular and african and indian subcontinent. we seek heroes and envisage the hero carrying an ancient phalanx riding into the sunset. if only the hero carried on riding towards the sunset. as his hands tire, this hero-god turns their back on the sunset and return to face the adoring fans, that phalanx has to pierce through someone.

how do you take down the hero-god? don't create one in the first place.

[BanCricFan]

Shaad, is this anti-democratic regime a western one...say, United States or eastern...say, Pakistan? Because, there are horses for courses.

[Tigers_eye]

I think 1) we also need to shed some light on Abdul Hamid Khan and his "ek dofa". 2) List all the "choi dofa". 3) Everyone who lived and fought (some great warriors and leaders) was not from Awami League Party. So they were forced to join BAKSAL.

Understanding the background would not ease the pain of losing a great leader (or the way he was removed) but at least one can understand the mind set of people back then. We can not change the past. But I think had there been no coup the country would see an uprising by the commoners. More bloodshed, death of innocence than what we already suffered.

Without the fear of the GOD Almighty in the Administration (accountibility for a one party admin) , the social betterment/change can not occur.

[Puck]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye

Without the fear of the GOD Almighty in the Administration (accountibility for a one party admin) , the social betterment/change can not occur.

it does not appear to have occurred with such fears either

leaving aside the domestic examples, the supporters of maududi and sayyid qutub are all god fearing individuals. they are vociferous about this fear too; rather like the mullahs in this forum. their achievements in office is not noted for fairness although their unique interpretations of the islamic scriptures did lead them to actions, which they thought would lead to social betterment.

while we shall agree to disagree on this particular issue, my own assertion would be that the exercise of power can only be totally fair when the individual holding the reins of power believes that doing good is its own reward. furthermore, the nature of goodness must include all good acts that benefit the power-invested-individual as well as his entire constituency.

[Shafin]

Originally Posted by Fazal
So I say, a coup takes a nation 25 years backward. So I would never support coup to fix a faulty democratic system, to me coup and democracy is mutually exclusive, there is no correlation between them.

The problem with BB was that, his regime was not democratic. As Shaad has put, at the end, it became an authoritarian and dictatorial anti-democratic regime. How do you fix that? In the history of one party one leader countries, other than a coup, natural death of the leader seemed to be the only way out, demonstrated by Stalin, Tito et el.

[yaseer]

My thoughts here is similar to the Fazal's

To point to the exact matter, Mujib's incident created some more critical scenario for us to solve and divided us more as a nation. Yes, Mujib's administration was going nowhere but pulling us down, but to remove the man of his caliber in that way was never to call for any sort of betterment. It was not done for any betterment or not for the sake of country or not to fix anything or not for democracy.

Do anyone think the people behind that assassination did it thinking for the better future of the country? Never. This type of action never well intended and never brings any good.

[shaad]

I would like to thank all the respondents so far for your mature, candid, and temperate comments in this thread.

Fazal, I think, raises a couple of very good questions. He points out that a coup is an attempt at a quick and dirty fix, and wonders whether we might not have been better off sucking it up and sacrificing. Now, like him, I am not naive enough to believe that the coup was organized solely from altruistic motives; however, I think it served the purpose of eventually bringing about an end to non-democratic regimes. Note that I am not suggesting that the coup was some sort of a panacea (it did not usher in democracy overnight, and Zia's and Ershad's regimes that succeeded it were both autocratic), but it was necessary. I suppose we could just have waited it out, but, like Zunaid and some of you, having lived through that period, I think that's asking a lot of people. Besides, who's to say that the non-democratic regime would have vanished after Mujib's death by natural causes? We do have examples of sons succeeding fathers in dictatorships, after all, like Kim Jong-il succeeding Kim Il-sung.

Fazal also points out that the way Ershad was removed from power was the right way. I agree. However, I have to point out that these were two quite different scenarios, and that I don't believe that the circumstances during Mujib's regime would have allowed him to be removed from power peacefully. Note that during Ershad's regime, there were already two existing large and organized power blocs that could oppose him -- AL and BNP. In contrast, there was no such opposing organized bloc during Mujib's regime; most Bangladeshis had voted for AL, after all, in the 1970 elections; and, moreover, all opposing parties had been banned (something Ershad didn't do). And then, there was always the fear of the Rakkhi Bahini.

One World provides several other possible answers to my original question: how does one remove an authoritarian, dictatorial, non-democratic regime? His first option, Civil War, might well have been something we eventually devolved into if the coup had not occurred. The second, foreign pressure and involvement, seems a tad unlikely to me -- India and the Soviet bloc were not too unhappy with the status quo at the time, and the West then tended to prefer coups and assassinations over the currently in vogue colour revolutions. And, as I mentioned in my original post in this thread, I thought non-cooperation movements/boycotts were a no-go given the outlawing of opposition parties and the arrests and often "disappearance" of individuals.

Several of you have commented that we have not seen any real improvement in our politicians or political leaders since Mujib's time. That may well be true, but I remain guardedly optimistic, because I think there has been considerable improvement in the voters' mindset. With the new generation of voters, and also the presence of multiple newsmedia channels, I have noticed less of the "my party, right or wrong" mentality and more of a willingness to punish parties that did not live up to expectations.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Puck
it does not appear to have occurred with such fears either

leaving aside the domestic examples, the supporters of maududi and sayyid qutub are all god fearing individuals. they are vociferous about this fear too; rather like the mullahs in this forum. their achievements in office is not noted for fairness although their unique interpretations of the islamic scriptures did lead them to actions, which they thought would lead to social betterment.

while we shall agree to disagree on this particular issue, my own assertion would be that the exercise of power can only be totally fair when the individual holding the reins of power believes that doing good is its own reward. furthermore, the nature of goodness must include all good acts that benefit the power-invested-individual as well as his entire constituency.

then its not real fear...if i purport to be afraid of the dark and never turn on the lights...

[Zeeshan]

I really want to participate in this thread....kintu shahoshe kulaitse gadhar moton ki bolte ki boila falamu....plus i really liked Valkyrie yesterday and it reminded me of this thread.

[Zunaid]

Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
I really want to participate in this thread....kintu shahoshe kulaitse gadhar moton ki bolte ki boila falamu....plus i really liked Valkyrie yesterday and it reminded me of this thread.

You have already fulfilled your prophecy.

[FagunerAgun]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye

Without the fear of the GOD Almighty in the Administration (accountibility for a one party admin) , the social betterment/change can not occur.

In the administration, most of them pray more, lie more.
We have been #! for four consecutive years as per Transperancy International when we have more than three hundred twenty thousand mosques in the tiny country.
Only thing works for them is beter bari.

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by FagunerAgun
In the administration, most of them pray more, lie more.

Wondering... what they pray for....

[bujhee kom]

I whole-heartedly support the late hon. Shaheed Shiraj Shikdar and the Bangladesh Shorbohara Party!

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
You have already fulfilled your prophecy.

.... must be the fasting that makes me laugh like this!

On topic. The nature of the struggle must be determined by carefully thought out strategy and tactics in light of two things:

1) Comprehensive, moral righteousness of the cause, meaning both the ways and means must be a justified alternative to the unjust regime. Being reactionary does not justify anything because the transgressions of the enemy doesn't mitigate your own. Such behavior only adds to the fundamental problem which is transgression itself. Maintaining the moral high-ground must be exemplified by the day-to-day practices of the movement as much as possible, not through soundbites and spin doctoring. True righteousness also takes into account long term moral impact upon future generations and the environment, and in way puts non combatants at harm's way for political propaganda.

2) Sustainability of such a struggle, assuming that the ability to sustain a movement would lead to eventual success, meaning the capture of state apparatus.

Bearing these principles in mind, the armed or nonviolent nature of resistance can be effective for a given movement. Generally speaking, a somewhat righteously managed armed movement can succeed only after all peaceful means have been thoroughly exhausted without compromising the fundamental principle of justice.

In our case, armed resistance to Pakistani occupation and war crimes in 1971 was totally justified because of the number of accumulated issues since day 1947. Before "Operation Searchlight" made it essential for us to defend ourselves and our loved ones, we survived sociopolitical discrimination, cultural and religious ridicule, economic exploitation, and denial of our political rights won through free and fair elections. Before BAL (then AL) and the overwhelming majority who voted for them was denied their legitimate and Constitutional rights after the 1970 general elections, United Front was denied of their rights after the 1956 elections.

The facts are available for everyone to see, and no matter what Salfist/Maududi (nowadays there's a Qutbist element also) politicians, terrorists, and war criminals and their Wahabi children both here and abroad like to believe, neither our struggle, nor our victory was the successful product of a brilliant Indian (Kaffir) conspiracy to undermine Pakistan in particular, and Islam in general.

In the end, Mr. Tajuddin (RIP) conducted our democratic government in exile, perhaps the most authentic democratic venture in our history, in exemplary fashion and victory was ours. Sadly, the nepotistic, dictatorial and corrupt practices after independence eventually led to the subversion of our founding democratic principles and BAKSAL dictatorship. resulting in the murder of at least 30,000 freedom fighters at the hands of their Rakkhi Bahini death squads. Facts.

As far as nonviolent resistance is concerned, one must look at the political success of Mahatma Gandhi (RIP) and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (RIP). They coordinated democratic, non violent movements that led to the end of British colonialism in South Asia, and the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States. We can also add the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that toppled the Shah, before widespread murder, torture, and exile of Ayatollah Khomeini's political opponents within the revolution led to the destruction of its democratic principles, the banishment of Liberation Theologians such as Grand Ayatollah Montazeri (link to a vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzoV7PhX4ns), once deemed the successor to Khomeini, and eventually the recently stolen elections destroying the last semblance of limited democracy in that country.

That said, recent statements by Ayatollah Khamenei suddenly distancing himself from his puppet Ahmadinejad and the brutal security apparatus through statements canceling allegations of "foreign engineering and sponsorship" of the democratic and nonviolent resistance movement in Iran, show the effectiveness of the popular movement led by Liberation Theologians from Qom, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, Ayatollahs Sanei and Rafshanjani, and revolutionary theoreticians, heroes, and establishment leaders such as Khatami, Mousavi and Karroubi.

One must also look at the success of Nelson Mandela and the ANC in South Africa. Although the ANC's military wing, Umkonto We Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), participated in widespread sabotage of state infrastructure and targeted specific individuals from the Apartheid regime's Military, Paramilitary, and Police establishments, the movement on the whole conducted itself on the basis of its democratic principles.

Then we can look at reactionary movements that target non-combatants, including women and children, and put "their own people" at harms way in order to reap propaganda-related, narrow perception management "benefits" while brutally neutralizing internal dissent, no matter how legitimate it may be. These movements, JMB (BD), Hamas (PAL), pre-pluralist Hezbollah (LEB), Taliban (PAK/AFG), Al Qaeda (global), PKK (TUR), LTTE (SRL), and ETA (SPA) to name a few, do not occupy the moral high-ground necessary to generate strategic support necessary, either internally or externally, in order to overcome their military inferiority. They only perpetuate the cycle of reactionary violence and injustice by maintaining and enhancing the status quo of iniquity and injustice. In the process, they only gratify their egos and animal selves.

An eye for an eye indeed makes the world blind, and peace and justice are NOT mutually exclusive. I wish these delusional, vengeful animals, no matter how articulate they may be, or how intelligent they may appear to the gullible, or how skilled and charismatic they are practicing the manipulative arts of "decontextualization", reductionist intellectual dishonesty, "similarization", and "convolution" -- would make the effort to rediscover their spiritual center and find peace in their hearts. Or at the very least, see a therapist, take some meds, or simply get laid well before infecting others with their evil for generations to come.

[FagunerAgun]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR
That said, recent statements by Ayatollah Khamenei suddenly distancing himself from his puppet Ahmadinejad and the brutal security apparatus through statements canceling allegations of "foreign engineering and sponsorship" of the democratic and nonviolent resistance movement in Iran, show the effectiveness of the popular movement led by Liberation Theologians from Qom, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, Ayatollahs Sanei and Rafshanjani, and revolutionary theoreticians, heroes, and establishment leaders such as Khatami, Mousavi and Karroubi.

Nope, I do not agree with you.

1. “That said, recent statements by Ayatollah Khamenei suddenly distancing himself from his puppet Ahmadinejad” There is a difference between “foreign engineering and sponsorship" and 'foreign political meddling'. I cannot remember when an Iranian politician alleged the West with “foreign engineering and sponsorship" but Iran alleged the West specially UK with meddling.

Instead of investigating, UK grossly, and being biased denounced the authenticity of Iranian election and the validity of the complain of vote rigging. The Iranian government wanted the European Parliament, which has been quick to denounce Iranian authorities' heavy-hand with the peaceful protesters, should conduct a thorough investigation and, if needs be, issue a stern warning for British government for violating Iran's sovereignty by, among other things, deliberately and in through various questionable methods, trying to fuel the fire of a "velvet revolution" in Iran, undermining the Iranian government, supporting armed opposition groups, etc.

The U.S. was using and abusing Iran's protests by making the protest as a political hot potatoe even though President Barack Obama clearly understands US and Iran are not fated to be enemies for ever.


It is evident that instead of maintaining objective neutrality as called for by BBC's own guidelines, its correspondents covering the (post) election in Iran deliberately gave biased, hostile, one-sided coverage that in some instances was meant to agitate the population against the Iranian government.

So Iran’s allegation against the West with meddling in Iran is a right one from a democratic point of view.

2. “Ayatollah Khamenei suddenly distancing himself from his puppet Ahmadinejad”. Ahmedinejad is never a puppet, this small man is the only counter balance to Israel and Imperialist neo-con Zionist design and strategy in military and political manouvering in the ME for dominance and source grab under the very notion of democracy and freedom, and Bush’s misguided offensive strategies in Iraq. But still emerging regional power Iran has some opportunities like reducing the double digits inflation, improving in human rights and transperancy. But the world is very optimistic about Iran because of Iran’s rich history and culture, and the intelligence of the Iranians; further more, Iranian politicians are patriotic, cool and calm with political foresightedness, strategy and wisdom.

The brave heart freedom fighter, the pioneer of emerging regional power modern Iran, Iron Man democratically elected President Ahmedinejad is much, much better than US puppets in the ME like Mubarak, Saudi King and others.

[Sohel]

Argumentative and tragically misinformed about the Islamic revolution in Iran, its revolutionaries, and post revolutionary history! Quite embarrassing, really. Use the available means to do a little reasearch before flaunting passion for seeing only what you want to see regardless of real facts. That way, the righteous indignation may sound more convincing, and the narcissistic feeling of self-importance more justified ...

The statement made by Khamenei with regard to "foreign involvement" is a matter of public record and was broadcast in Iran also. The statement represents a clear reversal from his earlier position. Facts.

Also, the assumption of objectivity in journalism is moronic. It is impossible for human to be "objective" when reporting human events, especially those involving violence and opression. The idea is to be "fair" by presenting views from both sides. In that sense, Al Jazeera (what I watch), BBC World and CNN World haver done a much better job than the state controled media of the IRI. Then again, such media blackout is considered fair by some idiots in love with other violent idiots.

[BANFAN]

Some how the comment "Ahmedinejad is a puppet of Ayatullah's" makes me laugh. It is commonly being framed by the western media.

I don't think they have the constitutional position of the Ayatollah's in your mind. If some of us aren't aware of their position; in brief the Ayatollah's are ellected by indirect vote and are like the house of Lords in British democracy. Head of that Shura is called the supreme leader. So he had to back a person elected & declared by the ellection commission as winner. Rightly or wrongly.

Bush was a puoppet of the US senate or what? He was backed by the CIA or whom ? He clearly lost in Florida in 1st ellection. So the legal machineries backed him because he was declared winner. Rightly or wrongly.

How but a puppet of the people of his own country??

[Sohel]

Laugh and similarize as much you want but that won't change the facts. Please assume less and read a little. There's a lot of material out there, not all of it "western." Then again, ignorant talk and moronic posts is a matter of prerogative, especially when you're not living in society of fear that Iran has become. Then again, love of Fascist oppression is typical of many. Not nice to see the Razakari spirit and its ahistorical and fabricated demagoguery is alive and well.

Facts:

According to the Constitution of the IRI, the Supreme Leader, now Ayatollah Khameini, holds the ultimate power in Iran. For example: 1) he solely approves all candidates in all IRI elections, including all Presidential candidates and selects 6 out of 12 Islamic jurists of the Guardian Council. The other 6 are nominated by the Head of the Judicial Power, also selected by the Supreme Leader, and elected by the Majlis, the Parliament; 2) directs the foreign policy of the IRI; 3) directs internal security of the IRI; and 4) has absolute veto power over any and all laws passed by the Iranian people as represented by the Majlis, their Parliament.

"House of Lords"! How irritatingly inaccurate! The "Guardian Council" which you may be referring to, is charged with interpreting the Constitution of the IRI and vetting all Constitution related bills raised by the Majlis. There's the "Expediency Council" charged with resolving differences, if any, between the Majlis and the Guardian Council. Again, the Supreme Leader's say is final.

Then there's the "Assembly of Experts", a deliberative body of 86 Islamic Scholars, mostly from Qom, who can remove the Supreme Leader. Ayatollah Hashemi Rafshanjani, one of the leaders of the reform movement that challenged the rigged election results, is the current Chairman. He is also leads the Expediency Council.

The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini, in light of his powers, is expected to be somewhat neutral. He has been anything but. He openly nurtured and developed Ahmadinejad since before the also disputed elections of 2005, and turned the Revolutionary Guard into his private force through extensive and unlawful purging. This time he went several steps beyond that and openly supported him and the appointment of his supporters to the Ministry of Interior responsible for conducting the elections. The Ministry actually campaigned for him! Until Supreme Leader's recent flip flopping speech contradicting Ahmadinejad's constant claim of the "Western conspiracy" that so many of his crypto-Fascist groupies, including some Bangladeshis, buy into and then try to mislead others with their lies.

Ayatollah Khameini, who led the unlawful arrest, torture and murder of Iranian voters using the same lame propaganda, is doing this because his position is in jeopardy thanks to the Assembly of Experts. Ayatollah Khamenei has also begun to fire the most thuggish of Ahmadinejad's close associates, Saeed Mortazavi, the prosecutor involved in the recent mass trial of opposition activists, being the most recent. Reformists dubbed him the "butcher of the press" and "torturer of Tehran" because he was behind the closure of many newspapers and the imprisonment of dozens of journalists and political activists over the past decade. He was "officially" fired by Sadeq Larijani, the handpicked Head of the Judicial Power.

Anyway, no use talking to folks fond of talking out of the wrong end thinking others are just as gullible and ignorant as they are. Such nasty, Fascism delusions don't work in light of the facts but leave a heavy cloud of sulfur. The best way to describe a moronic post is "a moronic post." To suggest that the leaders of the Reform movement, leaders such Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, Ayatollahs Rafshanjani and Sanei, former IRI President Khatami, former IRI PM Mousavi (also a founder of Hezbollah), and former IRI Speaker of the Majlis Karroubi is nothing short of moronic. To ignore the state imposed media blackout in the IRI, then using idiotic polemics and banter, go after the BBC and CNN World services while conveniently ignoring similar reports from non, often dubbed "anti-Western" services like Al Jazeera, also flies that moron flag pretty high. Disgusting!