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, are 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.
Posted on: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 16:12:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015