Democracy? Umb, Not Quite

It's important to remember that having an election does not make a country democratic. It's a necessary part, of course, but it's not the be-all-end-all. Let's take Iran, for instance.

You can't run for office there without getting prior approval from the unelected mullahs. Hey, someone's gotta keep the revolution pure by not allowing another revolution. This is a key strategy in that it gives the illusion of the power of the vote.

From a policy perspective, there's hardly a nickel's worth of difference between Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Rather, throwing out the incumbent would have been a symbolic victory for reformers standing up to power. Take away people's hope and street protests are what you get.

I love how those responsible for the election have said, "Yeah, there were some irregularities, but not enough to change the outcome." Really? Coming from a body that declared a winner BEFORE looking into potential vote fraud this is hardly reassuring. But, in the end, it doesn't matter. Outside of the show vote, Iran has very little democracy or respect for individual rights (especially women's rights). Unless the Mullah's are overthrown, this isn't going to change, regardless of what kinds of votes they hold.

Whether Obama should inject us into this is another question. I'm a firm believer that we should stand up for democracy first before other foreign policy considerations. In the short term it may make things awkward or difficult. However, in the long run we will never go to war with a country whose democratic drive we supported. It doesn't really matter which of the two Iranian candidates wins in terms of our interests in the region. They have the same objectives (though express them differently) and it's the Mullah's who are really in charge. We should strongly support anyone who fights that tyrannical power.