When Iranian clerics select who may run for office, they can’t be said to have a democratic state.
I agree, but there could be limits. To a certain degree, the Mullahs can claim to be applying a constitutional test to candidates. In very limited ways we have that here (age, place of birth, but not ideology) prior to election, but we definitely do have Constitutional limits placed on actions after the election. If the Mullahs let anyone run for office, but then strictly applied their constitutional laws to any policy, it might not make much difference. If your constitution has a high hurdle to modify it, voting out theocracy might be problematic at best.
I know there was a very serious concern that Algeria might become a theocracy and then cancel any future elections. Is this why you ask?
The US applauded that one at the time, but then failed to heed the warning wrt Iraq. Why?
To me, these are separate issues from having an Islamic state.
Why is how you view that important? My question was whether you would accept their views on the subject.
I also can’t accept the execution of Muslim apostates, with is a part of Koranic law.
Yes, thats the problem. But the same issue can exist for many people on different levels. If one is opposed to the death penalty period, then the USA is not a good country (or China!) either. Should outsiders have a say in that? |
