The US And Iran's Quest for Democracy

If the recent US threats and actions damage the process of development of newdemocratic structures in Iran, then it will not be the first time that Iranians'efforts to build a democratic system has been setback by foreign intervention.The last major intervention in Iran was the US-backed coup detat against thedemocratically-elected government of Mossadegh in 1953, followed by 25 years ofstate terror and repression that convinced most Iranians that the US did notwish to see democratic progress in Iran, and gave cause to expressions ofanti-US feelings.

It can be argued that Iran has a stronger claim to a democratically-electedgovernment than the US. Iran's President Khatami has been elected by anoverwhelming majority of Iranians for a second term. In contrast, there is somecontroversy on whether President Bush won a majority of the votes in the USelection.

President Khatami's efforts to find common ground between different oropposing international interests, and his civilising idea of dialogue amongcivilisations is in sharp contrast to US's unilateral and militaristic approachto problem solving. The US even rejects advice from its allies, such as Franceand Germany, on a greater reliance on diplomacy and negotiations.

Furthermore, the label "a rogue State" levelled at Iran (andgenerally those who dare to disregard the US's dictates) is a more fittingdescription of the US foreign policy, given its consistent disregard for theauthority of the UN and for international treaties such as the Koyoto and theABM. The US was also found guilty, by the International Court of justice, ofeffectively terror against another country in a case brought by Nicaragua.

US-backed regimes in the Middle East are not particularly well known fortheir commitments to democratic development and human rights. Under the Shah,whose regime was installed and supported by the US, Iranians lived in terror ofhis security service.

Iran is now firmly on the learning path of development of democraticinstitutions and a pluralistic culture based on the realities and complexitiesof its own social traditions and political history. Iran has a long way to go,but it is on the right direction. In Iran there are passionate debates at alllevels of the society, and most notably in the press, the parliament, thegovernment, and the state, between various forces of conservatism and theprogressive forces of modernisation.

These political forces happen to reflect the texture and the realities of theIranian society. These debates are a necessary learning process as part of thedevelopment of a culture of pluralism and democracy in Iran, a process that wasso often interrupted by those who do not consider a democratic Iran in theireconomic interests.

Iran is currently the only model of a developing democracy in a predominantlyMoslem county in the Middle East and Central Asia. Nowhere else in the MiddleEast or Central Asia, other than Iran, people demonstrate for democracy, becauseelsewhere in the Middle East the political development priorities aresubstantially different from Iran. Previously, during the Shah there were notdemonstrations in Iran for democracy, because people knew the limitations of theShah's police state, and that as a compliant servant of the US interestsproviding more democracy, and accountability was not in the Shah's gift.

The development of democratic civil societies is the key to stability in theMiddle East and elsewhere. It is not a chance coincident that most of thehijackers who crashed aeroplanes into WTC and Pentagon were Saudi nationals. TheSaudis are a major buyer of expensive weapons. Indeed, the perception in theMiddle East is that the US and its allies install and support undemocraticregimes in order to continue to stifle progress, create dependency and sellarms.

The Shah was also a major buyer of expensive arms at a time when theoverwhelming majority of the Iranians lived in abject poverty and needed basiccivil infrastructure such as roads, electricity and health care. This is seen bythe population as a form of extortion or taxing of the people of these countriesbecause the trillions of dollars wasted on arms would deduct from the money thatcould have been spent on civil and economic development. These people know thatwhat they need are schools, universities, hospitals and civil and democraticinfrastructures. Instead, they feel that they have imposed on them tension,militarism, and war, leading to a deep sense of frustration, helplessness andultimately of not having much to lose and then to such tragedies as those ofSeptember 11.

The Bishop of Winchester Michael Scott-Joynt brilliantly observed that tounderstand the horrors of September 11 one has to understand that theconsequence of military-industrial economy is to keep the standard of living inthe West high at the expense of the people of the southern hemisphere.

George Bush's new world order is not any different to the older world orders.It is based on militarism, bullying, creating tension, and demonstrating thatthere is a price to be paid for disobedience, particularly if the disobedienceis rooted in a desire for self-determination and democracy, as was the case withthe US overthrow of Mossadegh. It seems what is behind the US president's recentverbal attacks on Iran is his earlier demand for obedience: "You are eitherwith us or against us".

The US sanctions against Iran, and the Iran-US mutual distrust are damagingto Iran and to a lesser extent to the US. Most Iranians wish to have a normalrelation with the US, based on economic and cultural co-operation and mutualrespect. If the US wished to help the Iranian democracy, it could lift thedamaging sanctions, and even make a historic and symbolic gesture of apologisingto Iranians for the well-documented US-led coup detat of 1953, which wasfollowed by decades of repression imposed by the US-installed regime of theShah. The US knows that its threats will only lead to an increase in tension andanxiety, further distort US-Iran relations and damage Iran's democraticdevelopment. Iranians need time and space to develop their economy and theirdemocracy and based on their own model.

Saeed Vaseghi is a University Professor and lives in London. He can bereached at: SaeedVaseghi@aol.com