New answers tagged

3

Iran is a fascinating study. The answer is "no", but it is a question which deserves more than a binary answer. Western powers for various reasons of self-interest, recent history and regional alliances seek to suppress Iran, so the impression of Iran is biased. The Western implementation of democracy is an evolving compromise between elites and ...


1

While the ways of policing the country might be different, there is not too much difference to be seen between the streets of Teheran and the streets of Amsterdam. Cars are driving on a western-based infrastructure, trains are rolling, an underground railway transports passengers, yes indeed an entire western-based transportation system helps the people. ...


2

So I don't have empirical evidence that is systematic. But I do work for such a person. In our organization, at least, we take the correspondence that comes in (email is best, and we strive to respond to each one we get, even if not individually or personally; we get thousands a month, and we have five people for whom it is part of their job to directly deal ...


3

In any geography textbook Iran is classified as a Theocracy. It is a state where the religion is more important than the secularity in the executive/legislative, administrative and judiciary systems. They are actually a democracy, they have elections, but the thing is that the Ayatollah, the religious leader, have more power than the democratically elected ...


5

There are many analysts who call Iran a dictatorship while many others call it democratic. So when going by experts' opinions it's almost to each their own! By Western definitions the answer is a clear no. But the current constitution was drafted by the parliament and approved by the citizens with overwhelming support during a referendum. The power wasn't ...


6

A "managed democracy" is not democracy. At all. It may maintain an image of a democracy (e.g. run elections) in order to get some kind of international recognition as being more or less democratic, but it completely lacks any of the proposed benefits of a democracy. Like, say, government acceptable for a significant part of the population.


51

It's difficult to answer this in a comprehensive fashion, but generally I think the answer is (a qualified) 'no'. E.g. Freedom House: The Islamic Republic of Iran holds elections regularly, but they fall short of democratic standards due in part to the influence of the hard-line Guardian Council, an unelected body that disqualifies all candidates it deems ...


14

Usually legislative bodies will have some sort of orientation handbook or process for newly elected members. In your example of New Hampshire this is actually written into legislation - Title 1 Chapter 17C of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes establishes a committee on legislator orientation with a responsibility: To prepare, print and distribute a ...


0

Every democratic system — paradoxically, perhaps — benefits from what Plato would have called a philosopher class that has an effective veto power over legislation. The ostensible strength of a Democratic system is that it allows citizens to have a marked voice in their own governance, which tends to produce governance in line with the citizens' interests. ...


0

The main argument for judges being appointed rather than elected is that they should decide based on what the law says is right, not based on what the majority thinks is right. Judicial decisions based on the momentary whims of a majority would treat the same cases differently, depending on what forces are in the majority at a given time. This would clearly ...


7

It can be effective, but often is not. An occasion where it was, that happened to me. Back in the early 2000s, I found an interesting little book on Amazon.co.uk, a study by the RAND Corporation of the UK's capabilities and infrastructure for building nuclear-powered submarines. It made a convincing case that if the sole shipyard capable of building them had ...


Top 50 recent answers are included