[ad_1]
Iran’s next presidential election, scheduled for June 18, is fast approaching. Once again, Iranians in and out of their homes are busy debating whether they should vote — whether voting has any effect.
The Islamic Republic, which is absolutely undemocratic on the basis of its constitution, has an understandable indifference and distrust of the entire voting philosophy.
So what to do: Go vote and secretly legitimize a non-democratic country, or stay at home and expose its lack of legitimacy? That’s the problem.
The vast majority of Iranians are not completely satisfied with these two options, and more importantly, they cannot stand the power to promote them.
On the one hand, there is a ruling system that pretends to respect the right of the Iranian people to choose leaders and encourage them to vote in elections. However, it also scrutinized all candidates carefully and only allowed candidates loyal to the regime to stand for election.
All the colorful “opposition” forces standing outside the county encourage Iranians to resist fraudulent elections with the slogan “Against the Islamic Republic”, as if those who intend to vote say “Yes to the Islamic Republic”. .
These two opposing forces each have their own resources and constituencies.
The ruling regime will certainly mobilize its vast materials and propaganda mechanisms to make it look like everything in the Islamic Republic’s Lala lands, and people are enthusiastically affirming their revolutionary trust in the militant ruler.
At the same time, the opposite party is trying to promote the idea that all people ruled by the Islamic Republic are ready to revolt and let Reza Pahlavi (monarch) or Maryam Rajavi (mystic) come to power. They are surrounded by Saudis, Israelis and American reactionary politicians, such as Rudy Giuliani.
“There is a plague in both of your houses!”
Between these two deadly novels, there are the fate of about 80 million people who cannot stand any of these evil refugee camps and hope that they “suffer disaster in both of your houses!”
So, it’s almost the happy month of June. If this silent majority chooses to vote, or chooses not to vote, what does it mean?
Maybe this is not important. Perhaps it is not the regime’s fraudulent elections and their results, but something completely different that guides the political process in Iran.
Indeed, if we look back at the Green Movement in 2009, the student-led uprising in 1999, the reform movement in 1997, and even the turmoil after the Iraq-Iraq War in 1980-1988, we can easily see the attempts of the Iranian people. The attempt to achieve sovereignty does not center on the ballot box.
Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, all levels of Iranian society have been opposed to its ideological deception. This does not mean that those who oppose the regime are secular in their moral imagination, politically liberal, nor are they waiting for the US military to “liberate” Iraq or Afghanistan to liberate them. This simply means that they do not support ruling theocracy. They think they deserve better. They are like this.
Some of these people voted in the election, while others chose not to vote. However, the regular rise and rise of Iran’s vote does not mean an affirmation of the authority and legitimacy of the ruling regime. As expected in the June election, the decline in voter turnout does not indicate a desire for outside intervention.
In a country like Iran, the entire process of democratic uprising points to the emergence of national sovereignty, not the legitimacy of the country that made false claims against them. The ruling countries of Iran, Egypt, Syria and other surrounding countries have long lost any legitimate claims on behalf of the countries they systematically cruelly treated, regardless of whether they continued to conduct fraudulent elections.
National legitimacy and national sovereignty
In this case, sovereignty is the inalienable authority of the country. Here, sovereignty is not assigned to state institutions that wrongly demand ultimate authority. Here, sovereignty signifies the state’s authority over itself and the self-authorization of its own political system. Although many famous Shiite jurists strongly opposed this, the Islamic Republic asserted legal authority through radical reading of Islamic law, although Islamic law certainly has legal authority to it.
However, even if all Shiite jurists on the planet gather together and sign the absolutely undemocratic doctrine of “the supreme authority of the rule of lawists”, the claims of legitimacy still cannot be transformed into de facto legal authority. The state itself has the ability to reject this kind of authority. The Islamic Republic is based on velayat-e faqih’s non-democratic ideas and therefore lacks a very institutionalized prospect of national legitimacy.
Therefore, the entire institution of the Islamic Republic is constrained by multiple layers of security, intelligence, and military institutions. Important thinkers within Iran call it a “garrison state.” This ordinary and peaceful citizen who calls himself a “republic” cannot protest the legitimacy of the regime. Therefore, the country spreads its own emblem of legitimacy in every election, and the country uses it for completely different purposes. Whether they vote or not, turn it into a carnival-style occasion to destroy the real reason for ruling the country.
You may ask how we know this key barometer of national consciousness. The answer is simple. The country itself provides it because it is so aware of and nervous about its illegality that it regards every parliamentary or presidential election as a sign of its legitimacy.
Have you ever seen an election that requires democracy anywhere in the world, and the election is seen as a contest between opposing parties, such as the Democrats and Republicans in the United States, and the Labor and Conservative parties in the United Kingdom Competition, or the BJP and the Indian Parliament?
In the Islamic Republic, this is not the case. The success and failure of Iran’s reformers, moderates, and major factions in the elections are entirely related to the anxiety of the supreme leader and his brotherly brotherhood who boasted about the legitimacy of the country before and after each election. As long as the state can climb into its anxious legitimacy crisis, it doesn’t matter which political faction of the same ruling regime wins.
The national elections will not compete for the trust of citizens between opposing parties. They are somewhere between a country that is systematically violated and a country that is outright violent. The more national propaganda agencies sound their legitimacy horns, the more serious their legitimacy crisis will be.
Democracy in a post-democratic world
But what exactly is democracy, if a racist liar like Donald Trump, a crazy Islamist like Narendra Modi, a vulgar thug like Jal Bolsonaro, or a newcomer across Europe Is the ranking of fascist xenophobes its highest achievement?
When the United States got rid of Donald Trump’s path of terror and desperately sought hope in Biden, Iran’s ruling Shia clergy were taking the top spot with their belligerent claims of legitimacy, which made them think they had Islam. Escaped from the first day of the doctrine. The Republic bears their name. Therefore, they rule with cruel and indomitable legitimacy-just like the Sith military government in Egypt or the Assad regime in Syria.
As the ruling regime within Iran staged democratic gestures and fed them to their annoying news feeds and captured audiences, Iranians went in and out of their country, yawned, and transferred the remote control to one or another Saudi satellite station. , The Saudis provided funds for this, and equipped with clean staff. The shaved handsome guy competes with the Barbie doll-like anchor for their visual fantasies. Because there is no such a career as a democratic performing arts career.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
[ad_2]
Source link