Khomeini once called such democracies “incompetent democracies,” “subjective,” “parasitic,” “subtle,” “superficial,” etc. This, one-sided approach to the problem is incorrect and is obviously biased. No doubt capitalist democracies are to some extent limited. For this reason, these democracies are open to criticism. But the same democracies that are severely criticized by Khomeini have also in the past provided the means with which to protect him and his Islamic party, which subsequently gained strength and expanded. Can it be claimed that Khomeini and his associates in their immigration to Europe in the midst of the twentieth century were supported and assisted by the same so-called incompetent, subtle and subjective democracies? All this went on under the shadow of such “incompetent” democracies, and through which the European and American workforce laid the foundations for great successes in the enhancement of their standards of life. During World War II, the role of fascism in Europe not only failed to reduce the value of democracy, but indeed, it caused it to grow stronger. The question is whether or not the Islamic leaders have so far been capable of creating the same “incompetent” democracy under their slogans of socialist democracy? If we could recognize the style of government in Iran, which is declared by Islamic leaders as following the model of socialist democracy, then it would be a much easier task to distinguish the deep contradictions of their socialist democracy from a democratic system. Today, what is left of what once were laws and democratic measures applied to Islamic societies are purely their names and empty shells.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 22:12:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015