Legislative elections will be held in Iran on 14 March 2008.[1] On 2007-12-14, twenty-one moderate and reformist parties formed a coalition centered around Mohammad Khatami to increase their chances in the election.[2]As of January 23, reformists say nearly 3,000 candidates, almost half of those standing, have been disqualified.[3] A February 2 report gives "about 70 percent of all reform candidates" disqualified "so far".[4] Later, it has been reported that nearly 90 percent of "independent and reformist candidates" wishing to run, including 19 sitting MP's and Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson, Ali Eshraghi, have been disqualified by the the Supervisory and Executive Election Boards.[5]

source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian...election,_2008

Iran isn't really a democracy, nor does it hold free elections if this is the case.

It's a practicing theocratic oligarchy.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

I don't think so. at least they are more democrat than england!

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

So Iran is a "practicing theocratic oligarchy" because the Ayatollah decides in the end who is going to be voted on for President.

But here in the US the major corporations, unions, and life-long politicians do the same thing (read super-delagates) and you call it democracy?

Wouldn't that make us a "practicing capitalist oligarchy"?

__________________
sputterman: "Aiding the enemy? If the truth aids the enemy then we are in the wrong war."

Actually, the Islamic Republic is a unique form of government where “Islamic” and “Republican” structures run parallel to each other. For example, while there is a president as the head of the executive branch, there is also a supreme leader as the head of state; similarly, regular courts are matched by revolutionary courts; the army by the revolutionary guards; there is an elected Majles (parliament) but also an appointed Guardian Council, which serves as the upper house of parliament; etc.
The fundamental concept of this Islamic government is modeled after Ayatollah Khomeini’s ideas the rule of the jurisprudent (velayat-e faqih). This means that the state is to be guided by a learned religious jurist who rules in the absence of the Twelfth Imam or messiah. Ayatollah Khomeini, endowed with unique popular and religious authority, headed the Islamic Republic as the first Supreme Leader up to his death in June of 1989.

Link:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DN

The Supreme Leader is not elected by the population. Therefore the people have no voice in elections. Only those who are not eliminated can run in an election. The Supreme Leader is a lifetime position. They don't have to get re-elected. This makes them above being accountable to the people of the state.

You should look up the meaning of the term before asking a question like this. The answer is no.

Why? Because anyone can run for President here. They don't even have to get the backing of any political party. No one eliminates a candidate except through the actual voting process on election day.

There is a difference between corporations, unions, and super-delegates (a Democrat invention) backing a candidate that everyone gets to vote on, and those same entities picking a candidate from outside the democratic process. To be technical, we are a representative republic... a subset of one of the styles or types of democracy.

People are free to run if they so choose here. People are given the freedom to vote for who ever they wish... even to write in a candidate that's not listed on the ballot. There is no supreme leader or government council that can eliminate candidates before they make it to an election ballot.

So, in answer to your question... no, this is not a practicing capitalist oligarchy. Not even close.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

There is no such thing as a democracy, at best a democracy is rule of the majority over the minority, elections are a gimmick in every society. Laws are always meant to protect an elite and it supporters, if somebody believes they are in a democracy they are a fool, the kind of guy that they like. Criticizing Iran why, and all the poor in America, people working two jobs to make ends meet, stop lieying to yourself somehow some moral superiority. Iranians are not white so we hate them simple.

Remember why we killed native Americans, they where uncivilized because they where not Christians, the had to die to make way for us. Blacks where uncilivilized because they where not Christian, they had to be slaves. Russians where uncivilized because they where not capitalistic. We can never be satisfied, now we have another excuse, they are not civilized because they are not some vague term a democracy, Lets admit, we just hate the world because we hate ourselves, we should just say they are not civilized because they are not white, always finding something. Iranians are not a threat to anybody, they do not have bases in every continent.

I see no difference between this and our early American 'democracy'.

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

I was going to write an answer about Iran's regime, but I'm late and I'm supposed to be at work. I found this reply interesting. I'll talk about iran regime's facts later.

__________________

I'm interested to hear what Perham has to say on the Iranian system.

As for the American system we had an independent candidate that at times was looking to win in Ross Perot. It could easily happen. And we get a number of people outside the main parties holding positions other than president. However generally changes in public opinion result in a change of who gets the nomination within the party(and what they say they're for or against).

Big business and corporations have some influence for certain, however they can only influence not control.