“The Islamic government contains the most subtle and savage form of exploitation.” Author Chapter Ten 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. 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, no signs of criticism have 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.
Posted on: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:54:01 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015