On 7/30/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/30/06, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Notice that Ahmadinejad is the first lay man who got elected
> President. He isn't an imam.
you could say the same kind of thing about the first Mexican PRI
president who wasn't part of the "first generation" of revolutionary
leaders. But he existed within the system of the PRI.
Well, Iran's officially a theocracy, and the election of the first lay
man in a theocracy is a more momentous change than the mere
generational change. After all, the Iranian people could have picked
a cleric Ahmadinejad's age but didn't.
one of the first generation was Lázaro Cárdenas. He was very
progressive compared to later presidents (and earlier ones). But he
didn't abolish the PRI system. As I understand it, in some (many?)
ways he helped cement the PRI dictatorship in Mexico.
Maybe Ahmadinejad is the Iranian Lázaro Cárdenas?
If you want a Mexican analogy, Ahmadinejad is more like Obrador,
another former PRI member, who is also said to be religious.
in most cases, the rise of such reformers from within reflect the
existing class tensions and other societal antagonisms, along with the
conflict between the existing political-social system and changing
economic conditions.
Yes. Iran's clerical and capitalist power elites, too, have been
instituting neoliberal reforms and would love to privatize more. This
is a danger, but also an opportunity, for that creates class
conflicts, politicizes the masses, makes room for new leaders
(Ahmadinejad and those who come after his term[s]), and so forth.
It's up to the Iranian masses to turn the danger into an opportunity
to end clerical rule and establish democracy (secular or religious,
that's up to them), while defending the economic gains of the
revolution, without re-subordinating Iran to the multinational empire.
A tough task, but they can conceivably pull it off.
> I'm not saying that Iran is a multi-party democracy. I'm saying that
> Iran has made room for public participation in factional conflicts
> representing quite distinct economic and other programs within the one
> party that rules -- the USSR, etc. never got that far.
Gorbachev allowed a lot of public participation.
Too little, too late.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
