Iran's presidential election 2009: Questioning Iranian democracy

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Although article 6 of the Iranian Constitution states that in the Islamic Republic of Iran the election of the president and representatives of the legislature must be decided by popular vote, and although President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently said that Iranian democracy is an example for the world, big street protests in Iran, caused by the demonstration against the vote counting during the presidential elections on June 12, 2009, show what many have long known: In Iran, people sovereignty is not respected because an elite has special powers over politics.

This time doubts about the counting process are so overwhelming that, in addition to the organizations that traditionally make pronouncements on human rights violations, the main European leaders asked Iranian authorities to open an inquiry into allegations of electoral fraud, and to show restraint against protesters.

That is, the world is realizing that in Iran apart from existing a strong censorship against freedom of speech, women's oppression, persecution of dissent and other human rights violations, the people's opportunity to choose their own government in free and fair elections is denied.

So Iran should enter into a process of democratic reforms, to resolve the lack of real citizens' rights and reconsider the constitutional figure of the "Leader", which is a position with greater powers than the president but that is elected through a council of "Experts." This council of "Experts", for its part, is elected by direct vote from a selected list controlled by the regime, therefore someone who is not appropriate for the oligarchy will never be eligible for the position of "Leader”.

About this plenipotentiary figure -"Leader"- described in the Iranian Constitution, citizens should consider how can it be qualify as democratic a nation where the highest authority of the state: 1) is not elected directly by citizens, 2) is above the President and 3) has constitutional powers to guide national policies, command the armed forces, police, judiciary and the official media.

Related articles:

- How acts of oppression lead to political self-destruction

- On the Obama's decision to close Guantanamo

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

How acts of oppression lead to political self-destruction

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Every time we hear of governments that commit human rights violations trying to assert its power. Most often these crimes against humanity are expressed persecuting dissidents, imprisoning political opponents, censoring the press, disabling opposition leaders, assassinating rival politicians, etc..

However, this state terrorism is condemned by a political truth: When a government commits acts of cruelty against those it governs, it discredits before national and international public opinion, which at the end can destroy even a strong dictatorship.

To see this in practice we can quote several examples: The huge number of tortured and political prisoners collected by the Venezuelan dictator Marcos Perez Jimenez, and the drastic censorship on the media under his regime, were facts without which the popular discontent, that led to his removal from power in 1958, would never have erupted.

The same can be seen elsewhere: In Pakistan, dictator Musharraf was forced to resign after the killing of the dissident leader Benazir Bhutto. The dictator Rafael Trujillo overflowed discontent and was overthrown after the brutal murder of the Mirabal sisters. Torture at the Guantanamo prison and violation of international law in the war of Iraq ended with the popularity of George W. Bush in the world.

In Venezuela Carlos Andres Perez began his political debacle after the "Caracazo", Montesinos' crimes against opponents were largely responsible for the collapse of Fujimori, Pinochet's brutal repression was indeed the element that decided the election that took him out of power, and the blatant violation of human rights in Cuba will topple castro-communism in the coming decade to never return.

To this we must add that Hugo Chavez lost a referendum -2007- and the main Venezuelan governorships -2008- after closing a TV station -RCTV- and tightening persecution against opponents. Besides, the Venezuelan government harmed its image before democratic nations by disabling dissident politicians, harassing the press and using the state media to defame opponents.

In conclusion, it is very difficult for any government to commit acts of injustice against dissenters without discrediting itself and eventually relinquishing power, because every political prisoner, every opponent killed, every journalist harassed, every slander that comes from the official media, and each politician unfairly disabled by law is automatically transformed into a factor that undermines the legitimacy of the political system.

Related articles:

- On the Obama's decision to close Guantanamo

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

- First criticism of Liberation Theology

Disadvantages of consecutive presidential reelection: Factors that favor the President-candidate

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

As a general rule, in countries where consecutive presidential reelection is allowed, the current President is likely to be reappointed for a further period -if applicable- But this does not happen by chance, this trend has a rational explanation:

To begin, the President is a special citizen, which has the direct administration of the most important national resources and, by law, the bureaucracy's loyalty.

Especially in presidential countries, employees and entrepreneurs who depend on the national government, are aware that a fanatical loyalty to the nation's president can generate huge profits, which encourage patronage and create interest groups that need the same President in power.

Moreover, no other person like the President enjoys a massive media exposure without spending a penny, and often participates in events that are broadcast throughout the nation. Two things that can eventually turn a nobody into a celebrity of politics.

And these are advantages that a president-candidate enjoys even without intention, because interest groups and publishers are always trying to reach the President by their own. But experience has shown that presidents seeking reelection purposely use these favorable conditions and most of them blatantly abuse of their power to take advantage.

Related articles:

- Disadvantages of consecutive presidential reelection: U.S. Example

- Is indefinite reelection the best option for Venezuela?

- Barack Obama’s economic background is his Achilles' Heel

Disadvantages of consecutive presidential reelection: U.S. Example

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Since Franklin D. Roosevelt -1933 - until now, any new U.S. President who has exercised his right to run for one consecutive reelection, always has reached a second term, with the sole exceptions of Jimmy Carter and George Bush senior.

If we convert this into a statistic, any U.S. president who is in his first term, has a 83% chance of being reelected for a second presidential mandate.

We might think that these candidates were efficient Presidents and, therefore, they were awarded with a second term. But it would be inconsistent to assume that so many different presidents, with different personalities, with different problems and in different times, have been so prominent successively to produce this high probability of being reelected in the United States.

In consequence, what these numbers show is that, in the United States, it is a tremendous advantage to be President and candidate at the same time. And this break the equal conditions that should exist in free elections, because who holds the nation's presidency has at his disposal special resources not available for their electoral opponents.

And this happens in a country like United States, where institutions work better than in most nations on the planet, and where consecutive presidential reelection is limited to only once.

Imagine then the Presidents-candidates' advantages in less developed countries and when consecutive presidential reelection has no limits.

Related articles:

- Is indefinite reelection the best option for Venezuela?

- Barack Obama’s economic background is his Achilles' Heel

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

Five points against the Peak & License Plate Scheme

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

The “peak and a license plate” is a plan designed to reduce traffic in large cities, that consists fundamentally in limiting the number of vehicles in use during the peak hours according to the vehicle registration plate. This traffic program has been tested in cities such as Bogota, Sao Paolo, Mexico City, Santiago, Manila and Athens. But according to our view, the peak and license plate plan have five controversial points:

First, the peak and license plate plan is a complicated policy that causes unease in the population and consumes a lot of resources to achieve little results. It is inefficient to dispose a governmental team to supervise vehicles during the peak hours to reach negligible reductions in traffic volume.

Secondly, it is a discriminatory policy that, in practice, imposes sacrifices on the middle class only. The peak and license plate plan does not affect the rich or senior bureaucrats, since wealthy people can buy other cars with different registration plates to avoid the measure, and high government representatives can obtain special licenses to circulate without restrictions.

Thirdly, the peak and license plate plan is a short-term solution that contradicts the expansionary trend of big cities. The results of the peak and license plate plan are doomed to fade in the long run, unless more restrictions are imposed, but this would provoke more discomfort.

Fourthly, the peak and license plate pretend full crowd management, and assumes that people can easily dispose of other transportation options. Two unrealistic ideas.

And fifth, although the peak and license plate plan has been tested in the cities mentioned above, it has not aroused the interest, nor has been implemented in the metropolises of the world's most developed countries, which is suspect.

Other articles:

- First criticism of Liberation Theology

- U.S. 2008 financial crisis: Origin & ideological implications

- Is Obama preparing a hard-line diplomacy with Clinton?

Russia’s invasion of Georgia showed the leftists' double standards

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

When the government of George W. Bush waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the international Left went into hysteria, outraged by what they said was a violation of the self-determination right and an abuse of power by the Yankees.

But when the Russian government decided to illegally invade the defenseless nation of Georgia, bringing in its wake a wave of killings and human rights violations, the international Left looked elsewhere and said nothing.

Rather, their radical representatives, those like Hugo Chavez who dream of the return of the tyrannical Soviet Union, were devoted to insulting the Georgian people, prompting the Russians to use their military power to conquer Georgia and all the former soviet republics.

This exposes the double standards with which the leftists deceive their followers. What the Socialists criticize is worse when they have the power.

Russia has left Georgia, due to protests raised by the civilized world, but we wonder when will the double standards disappear from the leftism?

Related articles:

- Obama's victory will give a blow to the Latin leftism

- Is Barack Obama a socialist?

- U.S. 2008 financial crisis: Origin & ideological implications