Are populists necessarily demagogues, as Doug and Shane suggest? In a classic sense, yes: "Revolutions in democracies are generally caused by the intemperance of demagogues, who either in their private capacity lay information against rich men until they compel them to combine (for a common danger unites even the bitterest enemies), or coming forward in public stir up the people against them," says Aristotle in Politics. Aristotle was anti-demagogic, i.e., anti-populist, for he was wary of (the poorer majority of) demos, favoring moderation of middling sorts, without which he thought democracy would become dangerous.
On 4/20/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/20/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ahmadinejad's presidency which has resurrected the Khomeinist themes of social justice and anti-imperialism that had been forgotten by Iran's power elite ...< the themes of social justice in Islam are hardly "Khomeinist," since they show up in Islamic parties in places like Turkey and Palestine (Hamas is Sunni, not Shi'a like Khomeini).
Social justice is supposed to be upheld in Islam (according to Muslims), and it usually is a common theme in a mass Islamist party (as opposed to jihadist cells), but anti-imperialism isn't necessarily a prominent theme. See the AKP of Turkey, for instance, and there's nothing particularly anti-imperialist about its program or rhetoric. More to the point in this case, Iran's reformists, essentially Muslim liberals, have little to say about social justice, let alone anti-imperialism. -- Yoshie
