Thursday, May 30, 2002
Thursday, May 30, 2002 |
| International | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By Kesava Menon
Iran is of course a Shia theocratic republic. This broad context is not likely to change soon unless there is a cataclysmic convulsion. This is because even those who are currently pressing for change do not reject the notion that a source of religious and moral guidance should continue to exist. On this issue the basic divide between the reformers and conservatives hinges on what may be described as the secondary issues of the methods of choosing the person who will provide the guidance and the nature of the power he should wield. Conservatives believe that only a body of religious experts can select the Supreme Religious Leader and that once he is chosen his word is final on law and policies. The reformers want that the Leader to be elected and that he should influence governments through his moral authority but that his words should not have the force of law. The cataclysmic convulsion could occur if the conservatives continue to suppress the Iranian public's strong desire for change. Political developments in Iran are far from reaching the stage where the question of changing the Leader's status is in the forefront of discussion though it is among the many issues that are being debated. What currently causes the most frustration among the vast majority of Iranians who have consistently supported the reformers is the conservatives' refusal to concede on relatively minor reforms. But even in this respect Shia-majority Iran is different from the despotic regimes that rule the Sunni-majority states of the Arab world. In Iran all the issues are at least articulated and made the subject of debate while in the Sunni Arab world the rulers allow their subjects to raise very limited number of issues. Iranian reformers have been tried and jailed for airing controversial views. But in almost every case the "dissidents'' have been tried in proper judicial proceedings and have had the opportunity to present their point of view. They have thus been able to use the weapons of logic and argument and though their rate of success might not be hugely different from that of their counterparts in the Sunni world the fact that their point of view is laid out in public sustains the hope that change can be wrought. In the Sunni despotisms the use of military courts and secret trials or imprisonment without trial is far more prevalent. In Iran the struggle for change takes place largely within the context of a Shia world but in Lebanon and Bahrain the situation is of course different. The Lebanese Hizbollah have not cast aside their guerilla persona and they will continue with their military activities for at least as long as Israel holds the Sheba farms area. But within the context of Lebanon's internal politics the Hizbollah has emerged as arguably the most cohesive and organised political force. Unlike the personality-dominated parties that represent the Sunni, Maronite, Druze and other denominations the Hizbollah functions according to policies and through a properly organised structure. Knowledgeable analysts also believe that the Hizbollah has learnt the right lessons from the Iranian experience, understood that it operates in a context different from Iran's and has therefore evolved in a manner very different from Iran's theocratic forces.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|