On 7/29/06, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> One thing that formerly and actually existing socialist societies
> never overcame is attachment to iconic leaders
I think that is a reflection of the fact that every socialist regime so
far has been a regime under seige.
OK, but does it have to be the same darn leader _for decades_? Does
it have to become a _family business_? From Kim Il-sung to Kim
Jong-il, from Fidel Castro to Raúl Castro? I don't think so.
The Iranian Revolution managed to make transitions, both in the
offices of the Supreme Leader* and the President (elected for a
four-year term, with the limit of two terms), through elections. The
Supreme Leader is elected (for life) by the Assembly of Experts, which
is in turn directly elected by public vote (for eight-year terms),
though the Guardian Council* vets its candidates.
* "Six members of the [Guardian] Council are clerics selected by the
Supreme Leader, who serves as Iran's Head of State. The other six
members are lawyers proposed by Iran's head of judicial branch
(selected in turn by the Supreme Leader), and voted in by the Majlis.
Members are elected for six years on a phased basis, so that half the
membership changes every three years" (at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council>).
Why is it that limited democracy that Iran allows gives more room for
public participation in the selection of leaders than the experience
of any actually or formerly existing socialist nation?
I believe that the Iranians explicitly thought about how they want to
choose their leaders, allowing for both continuity and openness to new
talents, and have reformed the processes of doing so regularly, while
socialists have generally skirted that question, hiding behind a
social fiction that leaders and masses are equal.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
