reasons for the initial fascination

i did end up attending a couple of iran-related events in the aftermath of the unrest, but with the clampdown within iran (on dissidents, protests, media, etc.) the news emerging is limited and certainly less compelling for most, and the limited attention span here in the US, coverage and attention has waned somewhat. however, the stronger media outlets (NYT, NPR) that i read have done a good job of continuing their coverage.

a though during the earlier course of the election aftermath had occurred to me, and to rid myself of the scrap of paper upon which it is written, i figured i'd put it up here: the fascination with events in Iran goes beyond our simple interest in the human drama and stories that surround popular movements and uprisings. it connects us with visceral feelings of solidarity, protest, and empathy, of which there is often a paucity in the US, because while our system is orderly, it also engenders apathy.

i hope the situation in Iran continues to develop rather than stagnate or revert to a version of the status quo. i am not a westerner hoping for regime change or the overthrow of the islamic republic, but rather one who is hopeful for the emergence of a government there that respects the rules of democracy, the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to freely express their opinions and grievances, and ceases to harshly dictate standards of behavior, especially for women. seeing that list i can't say that i would expect major movement on these metrics, regardless of the outcome of the current unrest, but movement in the appropriate direction is movement nonetheless.

iran momentum

i had not mobilized myself to the street in support of the opposition in iran, as generally that is not my M.O., but had decided to do so...unfortunately the rally i was to attend tomorrow was canceled. i think this points to the gradual waning of the collective attention to this issue. not only have the authorities effectively limited dissent in iran, but other events continue in the US and elsewhere, and sadly peoples attention spans are short. it would have been good to participate in something last week, but i have at least kept myself informed on events, and at the very least have learned a great deal about iran that i may have not otherwise.

the nytimes discusses, as i'm sure others have, what are the next steps for the opposition movement. with protests suppressed, i think a general strike and some political machinations need to occur. but time will tell how things change. i pray that the voices of those opposed to repression are heard.

i've been too busy reading to say anything worthwhile (i did post a few things on facebook), but a couple thoughts:

from huffpo live-blogging (monday 6/22):

5:20 PM ET -- A word about the past two days. In ordinary times, the violence in the streets on Sunday and Monday would have been shocking. But compared to Saturday's massive outpouring, the turnout of demonstrators has been significantly smaller. There is a good reason for it.

Over the past week, the reformist rallies that have succeeded were those scheduled days in advance, with turnout aided by massive word-of-mouth promotion. Today's mourning rally for Neda, on the other hand, was announced only this morning on Karroubi's social networking sites. In the midst of a near-complete media and technological blackout, these large demonstrations need time to develop.

It's virtually impossible for anyone to gauge whether there is a petering off of intensity among demonstrators, who now know they face incredible risks if they show up in the streets. But the last two days should not be used to argue that the unrest has dampened. The reformists are organizing another major demonstration for Thursday, and a national strike is set to begin by tomorrow or Wednesday. Those will be far better guides to how Iranians are reacting to the government's campaign of repression.

and from the daily beast, via the lede, live blogging on monday as well:

On the Web site The Daily Beast, an Iranian university student explains that, in his family, the video has exposed the deep rift in the way younger Iranians look outside the state-run media for the truth, while their parents and grandparents may not. Telmah Parsa writes:

more soon as soon as i have the time.

a prelude to a post: a snap from iran, mama

something else coming on the iranian elections and their aftermath, to which i have been absolutely riveted.

but for now, this was really interesting. the words below are quoting a guns n' roses song. a stark illusion to the love/hate relationship much of the world has with America. in particular, they often hate our government, but love our culture (at least parts). i often find myself in the same boat.




credit: Saeed Kamali Dehghan, The Guardian.

democracy and a dash of common sense

so, i was reading about the power sharing government that's been formed between Hamas and Fatah. given the terms, and the lack of concessions that Hamas has made towards Israel (namely, recognizing it), denouncing violence, etc., i'm not so sure how effective it will be at quelling violence in and around Palestine. looks like we'll have to wait a little longer for some meaningful developments in the middle east.

one thing stuck out in the article:

The agreement calls for Hamas to control nine government ministries, the most of any party, followed by Fatah with six.

this got me to thinking. wouldn't it seem that some of the failures of democracy in other countries is that they still operate in ways akin to some sort of spoils system? the spoils system was how the American system operated in the 1800s, where whichever party was in power distributed civil service jobs to friends, contributors, etc. now of course we have a non-partisan civil service, except for the higher level positions which are political appointees in executive branch agencies.

the situation where certain factions, either de jure or de facto, control certain ministries/agenices, certainly seems to contribute to die hard political activism, violence, etc., because people really do stand to lose access in some cases if their party loses. and while with non-partisan ministries/agencies means that it's very difficult to get around bureaucratic obstructions, treatment by these agencies is egalitarian and we have limited corruption. having partisan ministries leads to all sorts of trouble: bribery, graft, selective policy application, use of power against political rivals, etc., with all the concomitant problems. iraq, for example, has situations where certain parties (i'm unclear whether this is de jure or de facto) control certain ministries, where these problems have become endemic.

the point can be made, and it has been made in similar situations, about how the current administrations fixation on "democracy" as a fixative for the problems in other countries is completely misguided. this issue of partisan government agencies only serves to highlight the inadequacies of this perspective.