User:Mahmoudismaeilian123/sandbox

Islam VS Democracy By Mahmoud Ismaeilian For some time now, there probably could not be a more timely book than one entitled Islam VS Democracy. In this book, Mahmoud Ismaeilian addresses the pertinent question of whether Islam in general, and the Islamic party as a political force in Iran in particular, can offer freedom, democracy and a measure of equality to people living under its laws. He also considers the mentality peculiar to Islamic governments, offers a brief history of events leading up to the current world situation, and examines the constitutional state of democracy in Iran and certain other Islamic nations.

The book begins with a look at 'the tragedy which gave birth to Islamic thinkings' and goes on to look at the replacement of one set of moral values by another, and shifts in social and individual consciousness, though this seems to be less a reason behind Islamic thinking than an influence on it. Many of Ismaeilian's ideas are philosophically interesting and valid: he asserts that 'human thought seems to lag behind the realities of the world around it', and views fundamentalist Islam through a socialist lens, claiming that is 'based on a very outdated socio-economical relationships of middle ages' - that is, a feudal-type one. By observing certain Islamic states in a distinctly political light, the author highlights the conservative aspects of fundamentalism that aim to preserve the status quo by proclaiming it as God's will: in Iran, he writes, the Islamic state 'assumes that the economically influential elements of society are meant to be blessed by the creator...and therefore any complaints by...the workers...would be considered blasphemy'. In a strongly-worded critique of Iran's records, he asks pointedly why a religion claiming to have human interests at heart has claimed so many lives, and charts the uneasy and finally unworkable relationship between fundamentalist Islam and democracy.

“The Islamic dictatorship is rough, non-conciliatory, self-indulgent and suffused with the imposition of wills.”

“Author”

Modern Islamites

For development and social progress, every member of the Islamic party should be united in his or her views. Each member of the party should obey and perform decisions that originate from the higher offices or authorities. Control of the integrity of the Islamic party means the observation of united views, which would ultimately pave the way towards preparing the members for accepting the principles of individual leadership.

So far, leaders of Islamic states have adopted only this method. Initially, a party or governments have power, and then gradually this moves towards individuals who have more influence within the party than the rest.

Diverse opinions represent the most dangerous enemy for the group. Therefore, before anything else, the group tries to establish the condition of a united view within the party. It is not a coincidence that, when Khomeini came to power, he made a request to each and every other party within the country to abandon their ideological arguments and instead to have a united expression derived by the Islamic party.

“United ideology” forms the spiritual base for the Islamic party towards individual control without which a one-man leadership would not be viable and is unimaginable.

The suppression of diverse opinions within the Islamic party has resulted in the destruction of factions within the party, which in turn has destroyed democracy within Islamic parties. This has brought about a pattern of “leadership arrangement” within the Islamic party. There are still those who may not have the mental aptitude of leadership but remain in power as ideologists. Islamic dictatorship survives not only by upholding “ideological unity” but also under the shadow of terror.

“The Islamic government contains the most subtle and savage form of exploitation.”

Author

Party governorship and democracy

While analyzing the elements of democracy, it is appropriate to discuss the governorship of democracy, or according to the Islamic leaders, the “Party Democracy.”

Until the ancient Greeks, i.e., about 2500 years ago, there were three types of democracies known to mankind:

1.	Autocracy – a one-man government that does not recognize a limit in its control of government.

2.	Aristocracy – the leadership of the rich and elite class in society.

3.	Democracy – the government of the people.

In the past, Aflatoon (Plato) and especially Aristotle said many things on these three forms of governing. It is necessary to mention that Aristotle in his time described slaves as the means of production and not as human beings or ordinary people. Looking at Aristotle’s view shows us that the term “democracy,” which is known to represent the government of the people, did not in fact include slaves but only those elite and free elements in society.

The above three forms of government, which existed for a very long time in human society, is still practiced as they were in the past, although other forms have since been created and nothing has been added to the old forms.

After the Islamic revolution in Iran, a new type of government came into effect, which was called the “party governorship.” If we are to consider the term “democracy” as analyzed by the Islamic party, we notice that in a party governorship the elements of all three forms of classic democracy, i.e., the one-man leadership of unlimited control and undisputed leadership and party leaders, along with the party governorship of the “new class,” are clearly visible.

Some argue that the governorship of the party at the start of the revolution was reliant on industrial workers.

Even if the problem is viewed from this angle, again it confirms the author’s view in relation to a limited minority leadership in society.

The first step taken by the leaders of the Islamic party of Iran on behalf of the entire population (i.e., the expropriation of the means of production in the name of society) was indeed the last independent step taken by the government. That was when the government’s influence over social affairs, one after the other, lost its significance and eventually will die away. The leadership of means and production will replace public leadership.

Trapped in their own illusions, the Islamic leaders before the revolution claimed that a society that bases its production on the equality of producers should send its governmental machinery to its rightful place, i.e., to a museum of the distant past.

But after the Islamic party assumed power, classic views were considered to be baseless.

For 20 years, the Islamic government relied on the same military, police, and elite bureaucratic forces that at that time Khomeini intended to destroy.

From then onwards, the leadership of the Islamic party replaced the view of Khomeini regarding the dictatorship of Pahlavi.

Khomeini, who before the changes of February, was severely separating the leadership of the party from that of class, combined both after the February changes so that it resulted in a notorious leadership on a global scale, which ultimately consisted of the current elite party group in government.

Following the changes in February, Khomeini did not even commit himself to the Islamic party but pressed on with the party on which he based its foundations.

This is precisely why we are witnessing many surprising turns of phrase used by Khomeini in his description of the party leadership. He openly replaced the term “Pahlavi dictatorship” and in this way formed a new style of party leadership.

In Islamic societies, has not the leadership of the public indeed been replaced by the leadership of the party?

When there is talk about the party leadership, would it include all party members? Is the party leadership indeed the leadership of the entire party members or is it the leadership of a few elite members of the party who run the entire party?

Has not the elite party leadership ultimately resulted in the self-declared leadership of a political bureau headed by a dictator?

This is why we are witnessing various forms of self-declared leadership within Islamic states. Perhaps there are some who are searching for democracy within the Islamic states. If by democracy they mean the classic form of it, i.e., a type of system that did not consider the majority of the public as individuals, then there would be many of the classic forms of democracies in Islamic states. But if the search is for a true form of democracy that takes the interests of the entire population into account, then there is no sign of such democracy in the Islamic world.

The Islamic leaders have never considered democracy as a social goal. Islamites consider democracy as a means of transition from one social formation to the next. Whether the social system is in the form of capitalism or Islam, it is irrelevant, i.e., there is no differentiation between democracies belonging to the era of feudalism or capitalism.

In this regard, let us look at a writing by one of the Islamic leaders: “Democracy plays an important role for the working class to emancipate themselves of the capitalists. But democracy is not limited to this level and is only a process that is developed for the transfer of feudalism into capitalism and from capitalism into Islam.”

It is true that some forms of classic leadership could be visible in Islamic governments, but the party leadership has its peculiarities, which has no similarities to any other forms of governments in history.

In none of the past societies, has the party had such pivotal influence on the economy, politics, and ideology, and it has never succeeded in placing social activities under its control. In this way, the leadership of the Islamic parties within the Islamic states has no comparison with other forms of party leadership in non-Islamic states.

Within Islamic states, Islam has a pivotal role in every activity, and therefore it enjoys an unrivalled power. The leadership in Islamic states is the leadership of the party; therefore governmental power is dissolved within the party’s power. It was no coincidence that Khomeini would not, in his talks on the power of Islam, separate the party and the government. Khomeini one said on his connections:

“No government in the world has been so powerful as our Islamic government. No party in the world has been so powerful as our Islamic party.”

One of the Islamic leaders who currently lives in exile has said: “The Islamic government of Iran is a huge machine such that has never before been witnessed by mankind in any era.”

This unique and gigantic machine has acquired a dictatorial system of politics, economical absolutism, and self-indulgent ideology that has subordinated all aspects of legislative, judicial, and every other means of life under its undisputed control.

The question may arise: Now that the leading Islamic parties are in total control of Islamic states (economics, politics, ideologies), is there freedom of expression for every member within the party? Is there freedom of election within the Islamic parties?

Based on the constitution of Islamic parties within Islamic societies, the parties have allocated powers to themselves in organizing and uniting all forces of society, i.e., a voluntary unity of workers, farmers, and the educated.

Such articles in the constitution provide the impression of a true democracy existing within the body of the Islamic parties.

Within the constitution of the Islamic parties, it is clearly stated that every member of the party has the right of admission to the party meetings and its conferences and that each member of the party is free to express his views and to criticize another member of the party regardless of his position.

The Islamic leaders in connection with democracy and centralization in the party have said that democratic centralization and bureaucratic centralization must be clearly differentiated.

Has the behavior of the Islamic parties been on this basis?

From the start, have the leading Islamic parties attempted to abide by democratic measures within the parties?

The answer to these questions is undoubtedly negative. It must be said that the above Islamic parties have never, after coming to power, introduced the slightest measure of democracy for their own members. Even at the original Islamic party centers, there are no signs of democracy.

It can in fact be said that democratic plans within the parties are never executed. At times, when at certain centers there are certain democratically founded disputes, these are only meant for the purpose of publicity.

Furthermore, elections within the Islamic parties are purely demonstrative and undemocratic.

At times, in local constituencies, certain discussions arise on a candidate’s eligibility, but this is only cosmetic. What really happens is that the full list of the candidates is read out, and without any investigative procedure, the candidates, who are already selected and handpicked, will find their way uncontested through the election system.

Most elected members will not even go through the introduction process and are elected with or without the majority party consensus. Although there are local party constituencies, their task is not to monitor democratic electoral procedures; they are there purely for quantitative measures and not for any qualitative purposes. Party constituencies exist objectively; the true decisions are taken by higher party machinery. The member’s individual views are not taken into account.

The constituencies belonging to the Islamic leadership take orders from political organizations throughout their terms of office.

In practice, when an influential person takes charge of a constituency, he takes no notice of lower-class members. The Islamic leaders are well aware of this situation.

Party domination over all of society, the government’s co-ordination with the party, and the right of expressing views only for those in the party hierarchy are all signs of Islamic bureaucracy after the taking up of power. The right of criticism by an ordinary member of the party of a higher authority within the Islamic party is only a cosmetic gesture.

Some time ago in an Islamic country, an article was circulated secretly stating that “the ordinary members of the party in reality have no right of intervention in solving political problems. No information is passed on to the regular party constituencies. No political issue is discussed at the party constitutions, and if there are some signs of political argument, these would be in the form of directives sent to the constituencies from the offices above.

According to the party constitution, a policy ought to be discussed within the party ranks, but in reality none ever goes through such channels, and instead they gradually fade away within the process. It is indeed the indifferent mentality of the party members to the political issue in hand that allows the party officials not to involve such members in active decision-making.”

The writer of the above article continued: “It cannot be claimed that the leadership of the party in each Islamic state is not conscious of the importance of the activities of the party members. Some directives with regard to the development of party democracy are, at times, produced. But these directives will not be given the necessary attention, and therefore, they do not only produce zero outcomes but often cause a further lack of confidence within the party structure.

So far, there has been no mention of the member’s rights to criticize their own superiors. Not only at the level of mainstream media but also at the local level, have no signs of criticism been heard uttered.

At times, if there is some slight mention of critique, it is produced from the top levels in connection with the differences of opinions about individuals.”

People in Islamic countries are of the opinion that social developments and their progress should be scientifically based and that security should not be controlled by a minority elite but through a free general election and on the public vote. They are of the view that the leaders should possess characteristics such as wisdom, aptitude, and sincerity and be honest towards the people.

Thus, to allow for continuous and efficient management by leadership, the people should elect a leader with the best qualifications. Obviously, a matter of such importance could not be left simply to fate.

Even during Khomeini’s time, such a situation did not arise in Iran. Neither in Islamic states nor within Islamic parties has so far a correct method of electing leaders been established; in other words, the principal claim of socialism that states that each person acts according to his aptitude and each person according to his contribution is not being put into practice and has not yet been seen.

The comings and goings of leaders in the Islamic world is spontaneous, and there is no one to question them. Has anyone asked a question about the fate of Iranian writers, and has anyone heard an answer? Has anyone uncovered the reason for the imprisonment of writers by Khomeini’s henchmen? Has anyone gained awareness of all these incidents within the Islamic states?

Are the Islamic leaders, especially the current leadership of the Islamic party of Iran, people with sufficient knowledge and aptitude for such a post? Within Islamic countries, the reason for such situations is mainly the traditional lack of democracy. This is why Khomeini’s dictatorship lasted so long. Khomeini’s dictatorship has had negative influences in the socio-political and spiritual fields throughout the Islamic world. This influence is still ongoing. During Khomeini’s time, the party was in total subordination. Hardly any conferences were formed. But even after Khomeini there were hardly any changes.

A party committee was often formed but produced no result. Half an hour before the meetings, the agenda was handed to delegates, and finally a united party was concluded for the benefit of those above.

The basic decisions were predetermined at private meetings, The time for heroism on the part of the Islamic party is over. The days of the appearance of great leaders have passed.

Our era is the era of experiences. A new class has emerged, and this class is now in power and enjoys a comfortable life. But it has no new ideas to present to the public. The only thing left for this class of leaders is to defend themselves and their position.,and the member’s duty was only to confirm them at the conference.

This lack of democracy can be witnessed only within Islamic parties. If there was a democracy in Islamic parties, their members could have found themselves in a position of being able to criticize their corrupt rulers. In the presence of democracy within the Islamic parties, the members could have found opportunities for dismissing these unsuitable leaders from their post or to instate new ones to office. But this right is denied to the members, and therefore the Islamic parties have turned into a powerful machine. Such rules that are placed way above the people are not designed to be questioned or changed by lower bodies. This is the reason that the public have lost their confidence in them, and they will never again be trusted by the public. Their only function is to calm down the public and silence the party members.

A powerful united organization is formed as a result of blind discipline observed across the party.

Could it be that the time of ultra-Islamites is over? It is imagined that a new type of Islam has replaced the old. During the first decade of the Islamic revolution of Iran, the ultra-Islamites enjoyed the unconditional support of the majority of the population. But today, the power base is formed if the young have lost all their Islamic principles.

Ultra-Islamites of Iran are not only in full agreement with Khomeini’s atrocities against humanities that resulted in death and the elimination of millions of innocent people of Iran; they go even further by lauding the bloodthirsty Khomeini as “the champion of justice,” “a social scientist,” “a great ruler,” “a great Islamic theoretician,” “a distinguished fighter for the working classes” and, worst of all, “a humanitarian.”

The principle aim of ultra-Islamites is nothing more than gaining a solid party discipline and a powerful government. This principle, whatever it may be called, is aimed to revitalize the regime of terror and fear, increase censorship and introduce the most outdated social sciences, literature and arts, to bring about a centralized bureaucracy in every aspect of society.

Ultra-Islamites are in favor of ending the relationship of the Western world with all Islamic states and to resume the cold war against the West. They regard any progressive thinking within the “Islamic movement” as a turn towards the right.

With little attention to the changes in our contemporary world, the ultra-Islamites with their ideological arguments ignite the fire of hatred and animosity by encouraging the youth of Asia and Africa into the class struggle.

The fact that ultra-Islamites have no influence within advanced industrial states and only manage to influence those in the Third World countries is clear evidence of the above claim.

Ultra-Islamites who suggest a non-peaceful means of struggle against capitalism resort to force, strength, national differences, cultural and other means of fighting.

The more peaceful the government of ultra-Islamites, the more aggressive their methods will become.

To eliminate their ideological opponents, the ultra-Islamites would resort to ever harsher means. The higher degrees of their governmental power relate to the tougher degree of their approach against their opponents. These characteristics of the ultra-Islamites in Iran are still in force.

Ultra-Islamites should not be overestimated, but neither should they be underestimated.

The majority of rulers in Islamic states are operating according to the ideology of ultra-Islamites. The ideology of ultra-Islamites is mostly active at the top offices of the corresponding Islamic governments, their parties, the heads of armies, unions and youth organizations, and is very evident in literature, art, social sciences, etc.

Within the Islamic leadership, there are others who declare themselves to be the opponents of ultra-Islamites. Their philosophical and ideological stand is deeply subjective. Although they are in large numbers within the governmental offices and call themselves liberal-minded, they have strong inclinations towards the ultra-Islamites.

In some Islamic states, the manner of political prosecutions is such that the liberals ultimately fall into line with the same trend as that of the ultra-Islamites. This creates more public outrage.

Most people within Islamic countries are sure about the eventual victory of ultra-Islamites, and therefore they say: “The flood of events is to take everything on its path.” The ultra-Islamites may, in Islamic states, seem strange to the views of some educated people, but there is nothing strange about them, because the ultra-Islamites are still in full grip of power. The liberal elements have not yet risen against the ultra-Islamites, because of their fear of isolation, and are thus in pact with the ultra-Islamites.

, still the party, government and governmental machinery, industry, agriculture and financial sector are in full Therefore control of the ultra-Islamites; in this way, the ultra-Islamites are still in power in many Islamic states.

Freedom thinkers in Islamic societies must not be underestimated, although this element have not yet shown their true opposition to the government. However, they are in large numbers, and the public are in their favor and will support them.

It is true that ultra-Islamites would not abandon their power for the interests of freedom thinkers, but they themselves are not in complete control of the government.

Nevertheless, the liberals would eventually play into the hands of the ultra-Islamites, which in reality will reduce the impact of ultra-Islamites across all sectors of society, and this is another sign of the existence of freedom thinkers.

It is not easy to predict the future of Islamic states, but the growth of freedom thinkers is the product of material necessities. These groups are undoubtedly a progressive movement and may ultimately bring the regimes down under their control. The question may arise, what will happen next and where would the Islamic states end up? Would they be replaced by another dictatorship?

Precise answers to these questions are very difficult to establish, but what is more certain is that the struggle between the ultra-Islamites and freedom thinkers has already begun.