Democracies used to be about idealogy, and anyone could be elected to be a a representative, regardless of social economic status.

today, democracies are driven by media, money and image. Now you are reliant on massive amounts of cash to be able to campaign. The campaign mostly focusses on image, not as much on the content. And if networks don't like you, you might as well kiss that election goodbye. You could be the most qualified for the job, in the end that's not what counts. It's the wallet and the image that counts. Is this true democracy?



Some call it media democracy. However, it's far from the ideal democracy used to be. What's your take on it?

The media in the US bears a lot of responsibility. In an hour long news show there's commercials with content packed in between them. This creates concision, and the beauty of concision is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts.

It also trivializes the debate. The debate then becomes about which candidate is more likeable and who you'd rather have a beer with. Rather than a deep probing discussion about something like the Kyoto Protocols which would be impossible to talk about in 5 minute segments.

With all the flaws that exist within Iranian democracy, and there certainly are many, at the end of the day we're not faced with 2 factions of the same party disguised as 2 different parties. The issues are never about which candidate looks you in the eye when he talks. Cities and towns set up town halls where they request from the candidates to promise a list of their needs. The candidates will then visit each of these cities and tell the people which ones are realistic and which ones he can pledge to fulfill. Based on these real hard pressing issues that effect the everyday lives of people votes are cast. That's how it should be, and there's no freer country than America in the world and so there's no country with as much potential to take advantage of genuine democracy.

then america or iran? because... that america just popped in while you where talking about the iranian democracy (or am i mistaken?)

my main gripe with the american system is that there basicly are just 2 parties. Most other democratic countries have far more parties. In fact you can setup your own party if you wish and participate.

Also, there is little negotiation on what the plan is going to be. if 49% votes for one party and 51% votes for the other, it basicly means that 49% are going to be ignored for the coming 4 years. That's alot of people to ignore. You could hardly call it a minority.

I'm sorry what?

that's what i meant. Are you talking about America after that long description on Iran

No I was describing Iran. And I concluded it by saying that the United States being the most free country on earth should take advantage of it's many provisions for free speech and democracy and create a more genuine form of it, because as it stands, in practice American democracy is behind in many areas compared to countries that are far less free, like Iran. I hope that makes sense.

ah ok, got it

Yes the election scheme in America could use an update. There are alot of better democracy types avaiable.