The New York Times' double standard on democracy

[reality_hammer]

While whining that waging war on terrorism is anti-Democratic the New York Times has also made sure to promote radical theocracies as "democracies". This double standard on democracy should come as no surprise to anyone who realizes that the New York Times is trying to reposition itself from a city/national paper into an international news source

Comments

[politikitty]

I would agree with you that Iran is not particularly democratic. But isn't democracy one of degrees? Most European nations have very limited primary systems, and America has very few legislative issues decided by referendum. To arrive at the argument that Iran is not both theocratic and democratic, you have to concede that secularism is critical to a democratic state.

The religious party in Iran holds all the powers as political parties in other countries. At what point does religiosity act as a bar to the democratic process?

It's an interesting question.

[dlombard]

I do believe that secularism is critical to a democratic state.

[politikitty]

Where does the necessity for secularism originate?

I can understand the need in America, it is incredibly diverse:

Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.) (source: CIA factbook)

But Iran is not:

Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2% (source: CIA factbook)

Is religion, being a personal and political belief regardless of rationality, be allowed to play any role in the creation of the state?

If religion is allowed to have any role in politics, why shouldn't we expect Iran to be theocratic in nature? Should our problem with Iran be concerned only with the institutional role that religion plays, and not the political?

I'm curious because somewhere legitimacy comes into play. If a population is religious and we limit that, how are we not being oppressive? And isn't oppression kinda the opposite of democracy?

[dlombard]

The point of democracy is accountability. In a theorcracy, the ultimate authority is "God," or, anyway, the people who happen to be in charge that is telling you that you've broken God's law. There is no recourse against that--questioning God is hersey. So basically the authorities are able to pretty much avoid being accountable for the judicial process, invalidating its legitimacy.

[politikitty]

Is the point of democracy accountability? I thought it was legitimacy through representation of the views of the people

[dlombard]

Not even America is a perfect democracy, primarily because it is questionable that a so-called perfect democracy can work. We're a Democratic Republic. So, while representation of the people is important, I would say that it comes in second place to accountability. With real elections that determine who is make the call on all of those issues, be it the interpretation of what God would want or not, you have less of a problem of people just making stuff up to suit them (notice I said less, not eliminate--there can be corruption

[politikitty]

All of that is fine and good, but it doesn't actually address the idea of whether a theocracy can be considered democratic.

Accountability seems to be a completely different issue. India and Mexico are rife with corruption. Monolithic parties are only now beginning to budge after years of corruption. In a democracy, accountability occurs at the ballot box. The accountability that occured in Iran seemed to be one of anti-Western sentiment. We can't be happy about that, but that doesn't mean it's illegitimate or anti-democratic. It's just anti-Western.

Iran's population can certainly take issue with a regime. But at the ballot, even requiring approval from the clerics, there was a substantial difference between the two candidates. So the fundamentalist won, does that mean the system broke?

[luprand]

I spy a Power Coin!

[dlombard]

The Combo power coin, as it were. I don't have the Tyrannosaurus power coin by itself. ;-)

[reality_hammer]

My standard is that anyone who wants to run may run. Reasonable ballot access requirements (a fraction of a percent of registered voters to get on the ballot, etc.) are fine, but a cabal that gets to veto candidates is not. There is no real choice then.

[politikitty]

That seems like a nice idea, but I'm not certain that all democracies offer that. I'll double check, but I'm certain that a number of Western democracies allow closed party systems. It's an American standard and a very recent one at that.

Did America only become a democracy in 1973 when primaries became the standard?

[reality_hammer]

Some argue that democracy in America ended when a two-party system established itself in the wake of Washington's presidency.

As long as anyone can run for office, and anyone can vote for that/those candidates then you have a democracy. There are other forms of democracy to be sure, including our own which started out as a slave owning society where only white males/landed gentry could vote.

I think everyone agrees now that that form of democracy is substandard.

Equality under the law....

Primaries are nice, but only the Big Two have them. Everyone else still uses a nominating convention/ruling cabal meeting to pick candidates.

[reality_hammer]

I do not have a problem with religion as long as it is the people making the choice and that they have the choice to change their mind. America is, after all, nearly 100% Christian when it comes to elected officials.

Having a constitution or other overriding set of laws that provides for some separation of churches and state is a good thing, in my opinion.

[politikitty]

Certainly it is a good thing, but is it *necessary* to be considered democratic?

refer above, we are talking about minority protection for only 2 percent of the population.

Why shouldn't a democratic state be allowed to curtail what it deems immoral behavior? America does it all the time. Pot smoking, homosexual behavior, illegal immigration, polygamy.

I mean, America has more Mormons than Iran has all non-Muslims combined, and Mormons are not afforded the religious freedom to marry multiple partners.

[dlombard]

Individual states such as Texas have outlawed sodomy but Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 struck down all anti-sodomy laws in the United States, declaring that such laws violated the liberty phrase of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

[politikitty]

Wrong, all anti-sodomy laws that discriminate based on gender have been struck down.

Those in Oklahoma that criminalize all sodomy regardless of gender are still a-ok.