Iran - a form of democracy

Iran should not be judged by Western standards of what constitutes a democracy, an academic and leading authority on the country says.

Hossein Moghaddam, the Convenor of Persian and Iranian Studies at the Australian National University, said one of the reasons why Iran is placed at the head of a list of rogue states is the inability of the West - and particularly the United States - to comprehend how the country works.

He said Iran began to develop the concept of elections a century ago - a process interrupted when British and American intervention overthrew the elected government of Mohammed Mossaddeq to restore the autocratic rule of the Shah in 1953. A form of democracy has been restored since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 that deposed the Shah. “Today we have a government which to a great extent reflects the voters’ choice,” he said.

“Iran has never claimed to be a democracy in the Western sense of the word. It has a system based on Islam and while it does not accord with the concepts and formulae of democracy that the West is familiar with, it works for the country and may well work for other countries in the region.

“It is true our constitution makes provision for the Guardian Council to vet parliamentary candidates, but of the 7,000 people who came forward for the forthcoming elections, only 280 had some uncertainty about their eligibility and most of those have since been approved.”

Dr Moghaddam defended the current Iranian regime and called for a “new era based on rationality and mutual understanding which can pave the way for a better relationship”.

“Iran is not a monolithic country like North Korea and Libya,” he said. “The clerics we hear so much about in the Western media constitute only the top layer of leadership and foreign policy. Then comes the president, the Assembly and within the Assembly organisations such as the National Security Council and the Expediency Council, all serving different purposes. It is a complicated process - a mix of many factors - and the West should have patience with it.”

Speaking at a meeting of the Canberra Branch of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Dr Moghaddam came in for some close questioning on Iran’s stand on a number of issues including its nuclear industry, attitude to Israel, women’s rights, its ambitions to be a regional power and relations with Iraq.

He said that while current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is associated with the international stand-off over Iran’s nuclear program, nuclear power had been pursued as an option under previous presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami. “Over 25 years the country has developed a dynamic foreign policy over nuclear energy and has gained a lot from using it as a bargaining chip in negotiations.”

On statements by President Ahmadinejad that Israel has no right to exist and should be wiped from the map, he said Iran has never recognised Israel but the West should learn to differentiate between “the formal political message and the emotional and revolutionary message which is part of the Iranian social fabric”.

“The Supreme Leader of the country, Ayatollah Khamenaei, says we will have no confrontation with any member country of the United Nations and that includes Israel,” he said. “A few days afterwards President Ahmadinejad himself said Iran is not going to attack Israel even though Israel is encouraging the United States to attack Iran.”

The status of women in Iran is far superior to that which exists in many neighbouring countries. “Women are in parliament and they are defending and expanding their rights. One of the most prosperous businesses in Tehran is run by a woman.

“We have more than two million people working for the Government and about 40 per cent of them are women; more than 60 per cent of university students are women

“Of course there are limits. This is an Islamic country and women do not have the same freedoms as they are defined in the West, but even in Australia you have the problem of women being paid less for the same job as men.”

Dr Moghaddam denied that Iran has any ambitions for old-style hegemony in the Middle East. “The time for that kind of dominance has been over for many years,” he said. “Iranians understand this and know their limits. Today you can have leadership only if you successfully compete with other neighbours in economic, political and cultural spheres.

“It is actually a weakness in our foreign policy that we do not initiate developments. For instance, we helped the Afghan people get rid of the Soviets, but we waited to be asked for our help rather than offering it.

“Why don’t the Americans come to us and say ‘let’s have talks on Iraq’. Iranians have no ambitions in Iraq, it is not their country, but they do have influence there because many of the Shiite clerics who are now in the government were given refuge in Iran during the war with Iraq.

“Many Muslim countries respect Iran just because it has stood up to the United States in the past, so it could be a good mediator, a model for political change within other Islamic countries.”

He suggested that Australia could play a bigger and more influential role in the Middle East if it were not seen to be so closely linked to the policies of the current US Administration. “I believe there is a revision of foreign policy towards Iran and the Middle East generally going on in Europe at the moment. You can see a growing divergence with the US over Iraq and a willingness to re-establish relationships, especially in the economic sphere.”

“In view of this it would be wise for Australia to have an independent policy based on its own interests.”

While Dr Moghaddam insists he speaks as an independent academic and has no official connection with the Iranian Government, there is little doubt that much of what he says is official policy - a view supported in conversations with an Iranian Embassy official in the audience.

It will be difficult for Australia or anyone else to swallow his suggestion that Iran does not really mean what it says when it calls for the destruction of Israel and that President Ahmadinejad’s speeches on the subject are nothing more than rabble rousing. However, the current cat-and-mouse game being played over Iran’s nuclear program is increasingly counter-productive.

Either the US will launch a strike against the nuclear facilities (those it knows about) which will add another powder keg to an already dangerously volatile Middle East, or Iran will continue to develop whatever it is developing in an atmosphere of obloquy and half truths, or Iran will use the oil weapon in response to increased sanctions, seriously damaging international economies already reeling under $US100-a-barrel prices and heaping misery and frustration upon the Iranian people which will be carefully channelled into rage at the outside world.

None of these scenarios is worth contemplating and the time may be ripe for less stick and more carrot in the international community’s dealings with Iran.