Iran May be More Democratic than the US

Last Wednesday Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat for an interview with Nicholas Kristof in New York. In that interview the Iranian president affirmed that the United States is not more democratic than Iran. Wait. Before your eyes disappear into your head, let us pay close attention to what this means. It will come in handy in our upcoming presidential election. Democracy, it turns out, is dangerous!

Democracy means government according to the will of the majority, period.

In 1979 the people of Iran rose against their oppressive, US-backed government. What they chose, from academics to street vendors, was a government based on the religion of Islam. This, they argued, ensured that fairness, respect and anti-corruption would become the foundation for their new government.

While an argument can be made about how the Iranian revolution was wrested from the hands of the moderates by the hardliners, the point here is that even the moderates were in favor of a government based on this religion. And the will of the majority was indeed implemented, period.

Fast-forward three decades and what we see is that the will of the Iranian majority is still in effect. Granted, the Green Movement demonstrated that not everyone is happy with the Iranian system, but this movement also demonstrated that a mechanism for dissent is absent. Challenges to the system must come from outside of the system, making them illegal.

What distinguishes the United States from Iran is liberalism, not democracy. Liberalism is the principle that protects the freedom of the individual against the majority.

Originally an economic term, today it is employed economically and socially. Henry Paulson, for example, may be considered an economic liberal, meaning that earning money, then keeping or spending it, should be endeavors undertaken without government- read majority- interference. Whether Paulson is a social liberal is not so clear. Lady Gaga, on the other hand, may be considered a social liberal, meaning that everyone has the right to be her own person without adhering to a government- read majority- standard. Whether Lady Gaga is an economic liberal is not so clear either.

As Americans, we live in a liberal democracy. It should not escape us that liberalism and democracy are in constant tension. And they should be. There is something to be said for collective strength and there is something to be said for the value of the individual to society. But too much democracy and we are left with the tyranny of the majority. Too much liberalism, on the other hand, and society breaks down.

As we consider the candidates for the next presidential election, we should keep this in mind: a society based on liberalism and democracy will see a constant antagonism between both principles reflected in government. A consensus will not be reached for as long as the political system endures. But this is nothing to worry about. We should worry when the arguing ends.

Iran may indeed be more democratic than the United States, but this is not necessarily something to celebrate.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.