Emmanuel Konde
Last Friday, 12 May, Iranian incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared winner of the presidential election that guaranteed him a second four-year term.
Given the nature of the Iranian political system, few observers would feign that they did not know that the outcome of this particular election was pre-ordained. Yet Ahmadinejad’s chief rival, Hossein Mousavi, his supporters and other so-called moderate candidates are contesting the election. They claim that the vote was rigged, and have decided to capture that which they could not through the ballot by recourse to massive protests.
Probably taken aback by the weight of the demonstrations, the all-powerful Iranian Guardian Council has opted to recount the vote exclusively in those areas where the losers charge that their chances of winning were wrenched from them fraudulently. But Mousavi wants a new election, which he might or might not get. Yet his desire for a new election can only be interpreted as self-serving because it is designed solely for his personal aggrandizement—to ensure that he emerges as victor in the second election.
Strangely, some are supportive of Mousavi’s putsch, even though second elections have never been held in any existing democracies. Stranger than Mousavi’s call for a second election is the lopsided analysis that has unleashed a misguided notion of Iran as a democracy. This notion has erupted on account of an election and has been repeated over and over. But even elementary school children who have been following electoral politics know that elections do not make for democracy, especially in a theocratic state.
It is obvious that all those who project themselves as political analysts understand what manner of political entity Iran is. If this is true, one cannot but wonder in silence and despair why some of these so-called experts in political commentary are assigning to the theocratic Iranian state attributes of a democracy that they well know do not exists in that country’s political system.
The concept theocracy is derived from the Greek word theokratia, a compound word consisting of two terms: theos and kratein, translated as “god” and “to rule”, respectively. A theocracy, therefore, can be defined as a state in which the ruling elites are guided by the belief in a god or by specific religious beliefs. The rulers in a theocracy tend to see themselves as messengers of their god who designated them to rule their people. The word republic comes to us from the Latin phrase res publica that can be translated as “public thing”. Thus, a republic is a country that is not ruled by a hereditary monarch, a political system in which the people have some input into how they are governed.
The Islamic Republic of Iran can be defined as a theocratic-republic, combining the features of theocratic rule with some public input into the governing of the country. Contrast this with democracy—from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía), meaning "popular government"—and you begin to approximate how far Iran is from a democracy. Whereas theocracy is a religious oligarchy, democracy is rule by popular will. This distinction should at least be abundantly clear to the talking heads who adorn our television screens uninvited every day.
Political analysis is the articulation of informed opinion. It isn’t a science. It follows a pattern of observing human action in society, drawing general conclusions about how people would behave under, or react to, certain situations or circumstances, and explaining these to the larger society. Imbued with even the slightest tinge of ideological proclivity, the entire analysis becomes overly-loaded with inconsequential rant, which explains what analysis of the 2009 Iranian presidential election has become in some Western media outlets. It is not enough to extrapolate from the past to the present. Because human nature is inconstant, there is no guarantee that people are going to react to similar situations the same way in 2009 as they did in previous Iranian elections.

Hm...please can you just provide an example of a democratic nation in the world?
I can bet you wouldn't find any! The so-called democracy you described is a farce and does not exist - in fact, it dies so fast after its inception; despite the modern-day representation of any government with a parliamentary system that includes an opposition, plus an annual vote session as a democratic system
Posted by: Reex, Flames | Tuesday, 16 June 2009 at 05:23 PM
Iran is a theocratic republic?
Why do they hold free and open democratic campaigns, then rig the elections ? They have messed with dangerous force, after all Mullahs were brought to power by a revolution of the masses.
While we are on the subject, which is better a theocratic republic or a kleptocratic kakistocracy?
Posted by: facter | Tuesday, 16 June 2009 at 05:35 PM
Well, atleast Iran is not Africa where criminals rig elections with impunity and the people stay petrified. This Iranian drama is very good for feeble Africans. Let us see what happens in tiny Gabon if Bongo's seeds step in his shoes.
Posted by: Ras Tuge | Tuesday, 16 June 2009 at 05:59 PM
Is Cameroon a Kleptocracy or a Kakistocracy or both, or something yet to be defined.
Posted by: facter | Tuesday, 16 June 2009 at 06:14 PM
*So-called* moderate candidates?
New election for Mousavi's *personal aggrandisement*?
They *CLAIM* that the election was rigged?
Some are *SUPPORTIVE* of Mousavi’s putsch?
Theocrative Republic?
Emmanuel Konde is yet another African who is against free elections, freedom of speech and of course democracy. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: UnitedstatesofAfrica | Tuesday, 16 June 2009 at 07:05 PM
The country called Iran (Ancient Persia) has been many things within my own lifetime. In 1953, the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, which could be described as a secular democracy was overthrown in a coup instigated by the British and engineered by the CIA. The reason was oil. With good reason, the Iranians are still sore about the overthrow of the popular prime minister.
He was then replaced by the emperor, The Shah, who ruled with an iron fist. Opposition to the Shah, coalesced around the Shia religion, because at that time it was the most effective way of overthrowing the Shah, which happened in the 1979 revolution, bringing 2500 years of monarchy to an end.
Now we have the Islamic Republic which the writer describes, consisting of extreme believers and of people who joined up for nationalistic reasons to overthrow the Shah, whom they regarded as a puppet of external forces.
If one follows the modern history, roughly every 30 years, Iran appears to go through serious political rupture. I would caution the writer not to take the position that the theocratic republic as presently constituted is something written in stone. It is a product of very recent Persian history and could well be washed away by the present wave of outrage. Perhaps it will not happen, but there is a serious split in the revolutionary generation that created the Islamic republic. Mr Mousavi is himself one of the revolutionaries from the era of Ayatolah Komeini.
The writer also makes light of the credible allegations of serious manipulation of the polls. I shall not elaborate, because it is easy to find the evidence and intimates that Mousavi is self-serving in mounting opposition to the cheats. I think the author is projecting, as a supporter of the Camerounese regime. The hidden message is do not criticize electoral misconduct in Cameroun because you do not really understand.
Posted by: Ma Mary | Tuesday, 16 June 2009 at 07:13 PM
"The hidden message is do not criticize electoral misconduct in Cameroun because you do not really understand. " - Ma Mary
*blank stare*
..............................................................................................
.......................................
..................................
.........................
..................
...............
.......
.....
....
...
..
.
Posted by: UnitedstatesofAfrica | Tuesday, 16 June 2009 at 08:55 PM
here is always a big margin between "WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE" and "WHAT IS". It's true real democracy has never existed but it is also true that some rulers (whether self imposed or otherwise) have been endowed with amazing leadership qualities.
If the president of Cameroon sees himself as chosen by God (reasons for his prolong stay in power) but is compelled by political trends to brand his government as Democratic (reasons for the fake elections); if his government is composed of shameless thieves backed and maintained by him, we would be left with a DEMO-THEOCRATIC KLEPTOCRACY. I don't know the world that best explain this system. This is prevails in 3/4 of countries world wide.
Facter, I'm sure this answers your question. The bitter truth is that PRETENSE is the order of the day.
Posted by: Bob Bristol | Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 04:55 AM