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

[dbroussa]

It is like saying that the USSR was a democracy because they people had elections (of course there was only one candidate), but hey they were elections and no one was barred from voting (IIRC they were required to vote).

Iraq was a democracy as well. Saddam got 100% of the votes cast in the last Presidential election in late 02 or eary 03.

The key is are they a liberal democracy, and that is a much tougher standard then just a democracy.

[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.

New member checking in

[anonymous]

Hey,

First time poster, long time lurker... Finally got around to registering and thought I'd say hi.

Re: New member checking in

[reality_hammer]

Welcome aboard!