Lady Sun

Good response. It is healthy to hear an opinion from someone brave, who is on the scene and directly affected by recent events in Iran.
There has been a great suppression in the US since Homeland frredom has been hatched. There are many prisoners in Cuba who were ordinary Afghan citizens.. It is a sorry time for the common wo/man...Keep up the writing.

Extremely well written, and powerful. Thank you for providing us with so much insight.

Excellent editorial...you have shown that you have the ability to view the problem from different vantage points, which is difficult for any of us to do. By endeavoring to take a broader perspective, you have stayed out of the trap of thinking along narrow lines, the natural outcome being to present biased, polarized arguments which only support that narrow view. If everyone followed your example of writing and critical thinking, there would be far less futile arguing, and more energy spent on moving forward in a positive direction.

Democracy is not the answer. A democracy is immoral because it allows the majority of people to do anything it pleases to the minority. A democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep taking a vote on what to eat for dinner. The answer is to protect the rights of the individual. Diana C. Smart http://www.flortulip.tk/

Democracy doesn't mean "not caring about the rights of the individual." Democracy aims at keeping the rights of the individual. We should believe in the collective conscience, shouldn't we?

A group or "collective," is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. The idea of "collective conscience" means that rights belong to some men, but not to others (the majority). The majority does not have the right to enslave the minority. The lives and property of minorities or dissenters can never be at stake, and cannot be subject to vote, nor may they be endangered by any majority decision. No men or group of men should hold power over others.
Diana C. Smart http://www.flortulip.tk/

Wow, just wow. I am speechless :) You responded so well , and so thoughtfully. Two thumbs up ladysun, two thumbs up.

diana,

who says democracy means "the majority having the rights to enslave the minority." democracy is both majority rule with protection of the rights of minorities--i.e. limits on what the majority is allowed to do. in other words, your two comments, read together, do not really make a coherent point.

lady sun, great response to that guy who emailed!

Over ten years ago, my good friend Farzad from Iran educated me regarding the role of the CIA and British Secret Service in the overthrow of the elected Iranian government in the 1950's. Then and now, I am outraged by what my country's government did to the people of Iran by facilitating the dictatorship of the Shah. There are many people in America who love to exalt the greatness or our democracy. Well, I personally believe that our democracy has little meaning in a worldwide context unless we are willing to practice what we preach.

I certainly hope that it will take far less than another 300 years for the Iranian people to experience their next renaissance. There must be many Iranians still living who can remember the flowering of democracy that they experienced in the 1950's. Surely their memories, if transmitted to younger generations, would accelerate the process. Also, the increasing use of the internet by young Iranians should help to deseminate knowledge and ideas that will shine some light through the shroud of ignorance and fear that allow the ruling clerics to remain in power.

BRAVO.
Nothing to add. You covered it all.

Sweet Lady Sun, your font is very small:)

What a great post today. Unfortunately lady Sun has her history a bit wrong. Yes the Renaissance took 300 years, but that was because the ideas of individual freedom and democracy had to be developed from scratch. This development period is no longer necessary today.
Furthermore, I would like Lady Sun to give me 1 example in history where democracy came about peacefully. There is none. The Americans had to fight their war of Independence. The French had to storm the Bastille. Autocratic german regimes had to be defeated twice in the 20th century. Freedom always comes about through violent revolution or outside invasion. The "change from within" you suggest is an illusion, certainly when the leaders operate from within a religious framework that is diamatrically opposed to freedom.
Interestingly, the French Revolution ate it's children much like the Iranian one. Men like Danton and Robespierre turned on the original revolutionaries, and then on each other. Only 25 years after the original French Revolution were the ideals of democracy truly implemented. It seems therefore that freedom in Iran is becoming overdue.
I had an iranian gifriend once. She had been arrested with her boyfriend while sharing a hotel room, and had been gangraped in her cell by religious police the night before being forced to marry. This happened in 2001. My patience with the mullahs has run out. Now, on top of everything, they are developing a nuclear weapon. I am sorry, but the West no longer has the luxury to wait for the iranians to get off their lazy asses. I hope an invasion of your country is imminent.

Diana's comments about democracy I find to be compelling and her example regarding the pair of wolves and the sheep is not only amusing but appropriate, as long as no mechanism within a democracy exists to protect the rights of sheep. Conversely, any form of government that doesn't represent the majority view to some degree is not likely to be stable or successful in the long run, because after all, the purpose of government is to carry out the wishes of those who are governed. If a minority is to dictate to the majority what is right, what is correct, what is desired, and the majority doesn't agree, how long can the minority continue to hold power over the majority. Either view is an extreme position. On the one hand you have "mob rule" to the detriment of anyone not belonging to the mob. On the other hand you have a minority opinion dictating how things are to be for the majority. I suspect there are intermediate positions between these two extremes. It seems reasonable that people could collectively design a government that satisfied their need to protect minorities, while still representing the will of the majority. Not every government would be identical in how they balance themselves between the two extreme positions, and governments might change as they encounter different circumstances. Interestingly, we cannot really consider a majority or a minority to be a homogenous group. On one issue, an individual might find themselves in the minority, and on another issue, be amoungst the majority. In addition, there can be multiple minorities, each with a differing opinion from the majority. For example, assume a religious minority controlled government is dictating what is right and wrong to the majority. Does this religious minority represent all religions, or just one? If it only represents one religion, then it is, in effect, a minority "mob rule" at the expense of the majority, as well as other minorities. This would be giving the sheep the ability to put wolves or sheep on its menu.

For a clarification of my views please visit my website, as there is not sufficient space here.

domper9,

there are plenty of examples of peaceful transitions from dictatorship to democracy (south korea, spain, portugal, greece, mali, kenya, india (i am referring to after indira gandi assumed dictatorial powers in the 1970s), taiwan, are just a few that pop immediately to mind--i am sure i could come up with more if i thought it through a little more)

but let's assume for a moment that you are right and that democracy only arises out of a violent transition.

as you noted "Only 25 years after the original French Revolution were the ideals of democracy truly implemented." isn't that exactly the model of iran today? they had their violent revolution 25 years ago, they even had their own reign of terror. the french example suggests there is no need to have a second one now.

I found Lady Sun's perspective on the developement of Iran's democracy very enlightening. I'm an American, second-year University student and my view so far of the political situation in Iran is one of a corrupt authoritarian rule, due mostly to the monopoly of your oil-based economy and the influence of religion in the government. I whole heartedly agree that democracy cannot simply be "implanted" or even imposed by the most well-meaning or well-armed outside force. Democracy does not just mean holding elections, this is a minimalist definition and a fallacy. Democracy at it's finest institutes "rule of law" (limited state power, every citizen equal before the law), "civil society" (checks and balances on the behavior of the state), right to run for office, freedom of expression, freedom of information and association, seperation of powers within the state and the representation of the public through elected officials, and basic civil and property rights to all genders and ethnicities. Without recognizing how much democracy needs protective institutions like independant courts and just laws, it will never flourish successfully.

I think if people in your counrty continue to become aware of the need for change and legitamacy and are willing to seperate religion and ethnic greivances from political and economic decisions, that more will have a positive outlook like Lady Sun and make the shift for the better.

I'm ready for the man-woman discussion now.

Great answer Lady Sun.
Transition to Democracy in Portugal was done through a revolution. Several months after the revolution in Portugal we were on the edge of a civil war. We also suffered a tremendous social and economic crisis. About One Milion people returned from our former colonies. As a consequence of a desolonization process, a civil war broke out in Angola.
Transitions to democracy in Brazil and Spain were much more peacefully.

Dear Lady Sun

I greatly respect you. Your comments are insightful and wonderful.

People have short memories. In my country, America, we like to think that our treatment of women is much better than in Islamic countries. And it is. But women here have had the right to vote for less than 90 years, and they fought for it for many years, with men opposing it on all kinds of grounds, before it finally became the law. A majority of men eventually came around and supported the women, and the law was changed. A big part of this was women talking to their husbands, fathers, brothers, etc., over and over again until they finally capitulated.

Educational and employment opportunities were limited for women in this country for many years. Gradually, through persistence and the courts, women’s access was improved.

When I was born, black people were still excluded by law from full participation in society. After much agitation, and years of struggle, the legal barriers were removed.

A while back, I read that nationally, were 66% of the college enrollment in this country in 2001 were women. Women are now the majority in medical schools, and about to become a majority in law schools. Our society will be transformed again as these women take their place in society.

The point is, life is a work in progress. Injustice and inequality will be with us forever; it is part of being human. There is no magic wand.

In the west, where there is less political oppression, people can freely speak their minds without fear of repression from the government. It is so natural a part of the landscape here, people don’t realize that in other countries, people are killed or imprisoned for speaking out. I don’t know how aggressive Grim would be about expressing himself if there was likely he would be shot or imprisoned.

As Winston Churchill once said, “If you are in hell, keep on going.”

Best wishes and good luck!

Wow!Hi dear Ms.Lady Sun
I found this site from Amoo Hamid's Blog and I was surprised after this time to see A WONDERFUL REAL ENGLISH BLOG for the first time!Of course with interesting topics.I'll be here soon!

Very interesting and insightful. But would it be possible for you to wrap text, please? Your blog would be much more readable with lines of normal length.

Best wishes,

Pawel

Once again, another excellent piece. You are a stronger person than I, as I would have punched the idiot who called you "hairy".
But that's just me, not necesarily American reaction (so don't project). ;P

I just hope it doesn't take you country 300 years to recognize the value of ALL it's citizens.

Keep 'em coming...

lady sun u just talk bullshit.who the fuck u think u r bitch?

This is in response to domper9.

You are wrong in saying that the ideas of democracy and individual freedom had to be developed from scratch. They originate in antique greece and were rediscovered. That's what the term "Renaissance" means. It is the french word for "rebirth" - of the antique philosophy, notably.

So democracy is a very old idea, and it can get lost, needing to be rediscovered. You can't rely on keeping it once you've got it. It all but disappeared for 1000 years from the face of the earth during the middle ages. Religious bigotry was a major factor in this.

So your patience with the mullahs has run out! You don't want them to command nuclear weapons. Well, neither do I, but let me remind you that the only state that posesses nuclear weapons *and* has actually used them against civilians is the USA. That was possible despite the US being a democracy. Were the people asked beforehand (I mean the US citizens; noone ever asks the victims)? Would they have approved of it?

The moral high ground you take is undeserved, I think. Lady Sun is right on the spot, and you aren't.

I am new here. Hmmm... Many interesting and enlightening comments! And some are silly or worse, sometimes in the same entry!

Stefan, you make a great point about how "democracy" (or even just civilized government) can be lost. And I agree with you partially about the ancient Greeks, but I'll bet that even some of their ideas had even older precedents. The Europeans took those ideas and developed them further, getting much closer to concepts that could be turned into workable, sustainable governments. Then
the U.S. "Founding Fathers" took their turn -quite successfully, overall. No one can take or be given all the credit! It is a work in progress...

But, I hate to tell you -- if the American people had been polled near the end of WWII about what we should do with our new-found power (nukes) -- Let's just say that our government used extreme restraint. And great compassion
afterward, all over the world. (The Marshall plan, etc., despite heavy domestic criticism and enormous cost.)

As for the victims? I am no martyr-type (kamikaze?), but if I was in Hiroshima or Nagasaki and thought that the choice was either myself and my city being nuked, or my whole country being destroyed... I'd take the first choice...!

Lady Sun, I hope Iran's Renaissance comes a lot sooner than 300 years! More on that if I have some more time, someday. For now, just remember that without fear first, there is no courage.

I think that Diana has a mistunderstanding about democracy. If she thinks that majority rules in a democracy than explain to me why how George Bush won the presidency. I think he's been a great Presiden, however he did not win the majority vote. Only a socialist would have that sort of viewpoint. Society must come first before the individual or we would never advance as a civilization. I think society has stalled in the last 10 years because we are so concerned what everyone thinks or feels. Work for the greater good of the group. That’s what I say.

I would like to respond to the comments made by Domper6. Although history may show that democracy usuallly comes through unpeaceful revolutionary change, an examination of such events in history probably shows that there was a numerical advantage on the side of those seeking to overthrow the government. To suggest that revolution can successfully occur without support of the majority seems an unlikely possibility. I think the remark about the US invading Iran is a bit flippant...the imminent decision to do so would not likely be primarily based on the US being fedup or impatient with the Iranian leadership. More likely, such an endeavor would be after careful consideration in terms of US and Allied interests from a variety of perspectives and weighing of possible outcomes, both positive and negative. The decision to invade Iran is much more complex than deciding to call the police on your neighbors because you are fedup from them playing their music too loud.
Conversely, the US has made its interests on nuclear weapon possession and proliferation clear, and recent events in Iraq indicate the US is willing to act on those interests. Therefore, such declarations by the US should be taken seriously. In addition, it appears there is a change happening in the post-Cold war era where tolerance of "rogue" countries is diminishing, because Russia or China is no longer backing such countries. Consequently, either a "rogue" country learns how to play ball with the rest of the world, or it will face sanctions or worse. For those people living in such countries it creates an environment where they must choose to defend the "rogue" leadership, or work to overthrow it. Either choice is fraught with risk. Some will side with the "rogue" leadership out of a sense of duty to their country, or because they feel the greater good will come by fighting outside (foreign) involvement. Others may feel that the "rogue" leadership is intolerable and that any alternative is better, including outside involvement. Still others may seek internal overthrow before outsiders become involved. All choices of action are difficult, involve risk, and involve uncertain outcomes. I don't envy any individual who has to make those decisions.

As I wrote before and somehow my comment was censored. I would like to let you know. The free way you write in your blog about politices and critizes it also from your persian blog seems you are well known in society. I would have thought that you are wirting from a free land and not from behind big black walls of forbiden land of free speech of Iran. For 1/100 of what you are writing in your blog one of my close friend was executed. Who are you? please do not say to me you are simple......There is no freedom of speech in Iran.

Very enlightening critique. But I thought that Mosaddegh had already dissolved the Iranian Parliment and it was becoming obvious that he was consolidating power? and wasn't this actually done in conjuction with the Brits? The US was acting on information from MI5? So at that point - (and this sounds bad) but isn't the US just being the muscle for failing Empire (the British Empire)? And actually hasn't most of the 20th century been the US stepping into the power vaccum left by the colapsing colonial powers? (ie Vietnam - Failed French colonialism, The middle east in general - failed British/French/German/Russian colonialsim)

Democracy - because absolute democracy IS mob rule, that's why the founding fathers (the guys that wrote the US constitution) developed a representative republic - with check and balances. The US is NOT a "democracy". The US is a Republican form of gov't. Iran seems to have at least the underpinnings of a representative gov't. It's the crazy ruling council that needs to be dumped. That's going to take time and you'll need other reformers like Khatami. But it is to bad that the Iranian leadership didn't learn anything from history - the west knows theoacracy doesn't work. This is just the Islamic equivalent to the French/Spanish inquistion.

Whatever happens, like most things, it will happen in fits and starts.

I agree with Diana's comments to a great extent. Don't think it's a one way street toward democracy. I'm becoming convinced that there are many here in the U.S. that genuinely want their version of a Christian theocracy with a religious test for all laws and rights just as you have described in Iran with an Islamic state. I find it genuinely frightening.

Dear Lady Sun:

I assessed your reply to that vulgar Iranian presenting a harsh picture of what's going on in Iran. To most extent, I agree with you. I strongly believe that our blemish of pride and dignity opposite to Westerners has done no good at all to us. Any interference of America is refuted because it's not in a position to command us to its desired way. Problems exist everywhere. Carving a fake wooden idol of Western samples depletes our younger generation of meticulous thought to solve the problems. Our interpretation of Islam surely distinguishes of that of the Guardian Council of Iran. As Dr. Soroush has always insisted, official interpretations talk and notable ones rot! I assume we all have to kick out the imp housing in our dark hearts. Iran's current circumstance is not that miserable to cry our eyes over the spilt milk by the previous Regime in Iran during 1960-70s resulting a revolution to subvert the roots of dictatorship. If that public co-operation today existed, most troubles would never thrust our throats. We ourselves are at fault. Reform is needed not those funny solutions "outsiders" are crying in their "TVs." No government gets positive features over night whereas it needs time and careful observations to go through...
And thank you very much for the link that I never knew it exists! I will put yours as soon as possible ...
wish you a prosperous future whereever you live.

helooooooooooooooo
where r uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
no updatesssssssssssss

I would like to respond to the comments of President Evil.

It may be true that Iranians, as well as other Mideast peoples may feel pressured by outside forces to have a government design which mirrors that of most Western governments (he termed it "fake wooden idol"). On the one hand this pressure can be viewed as illegitimate because it is coming from an outside source, whose interests are not directly aligned with the interests of the people within Mideast countries. Additionally, and possibly more importantly, Western pressure is viewed as an assault on the pride, the independent nature, the sovereignty, the legitimacy; the concept of Mideast people having their own seperate history, values, vision of the past, present and future, their own desires. I cannot find the words to clearly and consisely sum up this feeling that Mideast people have, but it is too important to gloss over or ignore completely. Perhaps others can state it better than I.

However, this is not the only way one can view pressure from the West. It seems that regardless of how you approach the problem of creating a representative government, there is a finite number of solutions...I don't think this number changes significantly with where you live geographically. It is true that there may be some different cultural nuances, but again I stress the limited options that people have before them. Human history has experimented with many forms of government, and very few forms have survived the historical filtration process. At the most basic level, all people can probably agree on the things they need and want from their government, and the possible structures of government that seem to be able to provide for these needs and wants are limited. Short of some new completely revolutionary theory of government, we have a small subset of options in front of us. It does not seem rational to reject this subset merely because their apparent source is from the West for two reasons: first, the roots of democracy did not come from Europe or America. Second, it appears that no viable alternative form of government is being offered as a replacement. Perhaps there are some who still hold out for Communism, but the nations with the longest record of experimenting with Communism are moving away from it, rather than towards it. To summarize, although I can intellectually understand the rage that a Mideast person feels when feeling pressure to change towards what is termed a "Western style" government, I think it is irrational to use this emotion alone to judge whether this is a good idea or not. Additionally, much of the power that the status quo gains and retains is because they can harness these emotions. In fact, they define the situation as "bending to Western pressure", or the "fighting Western Imperialism", rather than recognizing that thinking people anywhere can independently choose a better form of government, without terming that better form as being "a fake idol of the West". I believe that an independent, rational process of deciding what form of government you desire is neither "bending to the West" nor allowing others to use your emotions to shackle you into supporting a tyrannical regime which history as already filtered out as being an unviable means of protecting individual liberty and freedom. Sorry this is so long.

Lady Sun

What is holding iran back ?is it this arab religion of islam.

I don't see anything wrong with the Guardian Council except for its currently defined role in the government. It could be argued that the GC represents a large important bloc of voters who are attracted to a political force that emphasizes the role of Islam, a force that opposes Western influence, a force that upholds conservative thinking. Most countries have similar groups to the GC. In America, we have conservative groups and think tanks which stress unilateralist foreign policy, we have groups which stress upholding Christian values. It is normal, necessary, and right for such groups to exist as long as they represent some portion of the electorate. I have no problem with the GC writing edicts and opinion pieces, funding political ad campaigns, participating in public forums and conferences discussing issues from their point of view, participating in debates on the radio and television. But the GC doesn't limit itself in this manner. This creates several problems, but I will focus on two, which are closely related. The current role the GC plays in government is that it can dictate the degree to which opposing political forces can operate. This is not right, because just as the GC represents a portion of the Iranian electorate, there exist other groups which represent other portions of the electorate. If we agree that a government should represent the people, and the people are diverse, then how can one group represent all the diverse people. Of course it can't, and therefore one group should never have such power. The second point has to do with checks and balances. This concept was recognized long ago when monarchies were transitioning toward more representative governments. It was commonplace to retain the monarchy while creating some form of congress or parliament to offset the role of the monarchy. Even though we don't call them kings any longer, the role of president or prime minister is not that much different from the role of a king. What makes this situation work is that the king's power is shared and offset by the power held by a congress and parliament. In some countries, even the judicial role is separated enough so that it can act somewhat independently as well. The current form of the GC does not allow for such checks and balances. Nor does it allow for opposing or different political forces to have representation.

To the degree that the GC changes its role, allows other political forces to express their views, allows other political entities to share power with the GC will give the people confidence and hope in their government.

Some people think that the only way to confront wrong is with brute force, but the gentle dripping of water over time can wear away a giant boulder. I think you show very well that just because you don't act forcefully doesn't mean you are docile.

mike

islam is not the problem. on the contrary, if they really followed the rules of islam there would be no problems. the problem is just a corrupt government, which most governments tend to be.
in islam people are supposed to vote, (islam was what gave women their rights and allowed them to vote btw, this was 1400 yrs ago), they are supposed to voice their opinion, they are supposed to have public consultations of any form. thats how it's supposed to be. so to answer your question: no, islam is not the problem. (and fyi it's not really an arab religion even though it started in 'arabia'. it's for everyone, arabs only make up 20% of the muslim population of the world)

We are never truly sure of our beliefs.

Why hasn't the blog been updated in so long? Should we be worried?

This is my concern also. Lady Sun let us please hear the beautiful sound of your voice
Tom Wilson, Leonia, New Jersey, USA

Lady Sun, we hope you are ok! Has anyone heard anything from her?
Paul, Kentucky, USA

I can't find her Persian weblog! And at least from work, I can't get to her other web site www.khorshidkhanoom.com
can anyone else get to that site?

I just got on her Farsi blog (khorshidkhanoom.com). Her latest posting was on April 1st. I am not sure why she has not been posting on her english site, but it could be because of new year holidays (March 20-April 2nd) in Iran, and maybe ladysun is on vacation. Hope you are doing fine khorshidkhanoom. Happy Newrouz.

Just looked at her persian blog. There is a post from April 14th. to bad I can't read it...

I think she's coming to the U.S.

I'm sssssssso sorry for not writing here for a long time. I'll be back soon. (Nothing bad has happened.) Bahareh is right, I'll be in US in 2 weeks. I have lots of stories from Iran to write about. Thanks for all of your interesting comments.