kuvasz wrote:
And what was incorrect about Iran having more democracy than Iraq under Saddam, Egypt under Mubarak? The Sauds don't have elections of any significance, nor does Pakistan under Musharaf. Jordan and Syria are autocracies. Even post-Saddam Iraq held elections where the names of the candidates were not even on the ballots. At least Iranians could vote for candidates by name.
You get no argument from me that the 2004 elections in Iran was a step back from those in 2000 and 2003, but there is a form of democracy there that is not present in the aforementioned Arab nations. That was the direct point, viz., that there was at least some form of national democracy present in that area before Bush invaded Iraq, and if truth be told, the oppression of the Iranian mullahs from 2003 onward can be traced to their paranoia about pro-western dissidents and the US having a 250,000 man army on their eastern and western borders.
Iran's elections are in fact much more democratic than Egyptian one, which Iranians themselves are not aware of. As we can see from current elections, there is a real competition, and no one seems to win from the first round. Iran's former president gets almost 20%.
How is that be compared to Mubaraks 8x.x% of vote in "referenda" not elections.
After admitting presidential elections to the Egyptian presidential system, nothing is expected to change as well.
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
