Majlis, the Iranian parliament, approved controversial changes to the country’s election laws, requiring potential candidates for president to have ministerial experience while also having references from 300 “political and religious figures.” The Guardian Council would then choose “eligible” candidates to run for the presidency.
The new rules are seen as an attempt to stop the candidacy of Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, Ahmadinejad’s confident, before the Guardian Council can even consider his candidacy.
Ahmadinejad criticized the new regulations, calling them anti-constitutional.
“To say that someone cannot become a candidate unless they are approved by a number of political and religious figures, and his political views are approved by the former or his piety by the latter, goes against the constitution.”
Ahmadinejad added the new regulations are akin to appointing a president without the need for an election.
Iran's next presidential election is slated for June 2013. Ahmadinejad will not be eligible to run because he has served two consecutive terms. But he is expected to support Mashaie for president.
It used to be that Iranian presidential candidates had no independence from the unelected supreme leader once elected, had to be screened by a Government body for their loyalty to the regime, then run for election that may or not be free. Somehow the parliament though that that was not enough to ensure that their candidates get elected. Go figure!
After the November elections, some Republicans were heard exclaiming how "legitimate rape" comments from certain candidates of their party had really had a negative impact, and how such stances should disqualify any potential candidate from running. Who knows, like Iran perhaps in the future their party will have certain disqualifications that prevent them from running.
But as it is now, only candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties are allowed on nationally televised debates, and any person critical of Israel forfeits any realistic chance of running for public office or holding a public job at a television news service.
Does anyone else pray that Mark has to move and live in Iran?
He really doesn't deserve the rights and privileges of an American.
In analyzing the Iranian political scene, never forget two words: Supreme Leader. A leader-for-life, with absolute powers above all other institutions, around whom all things political evolve, including this Majlis vote: This ‘legislation’ aims to add another hurdle for Mashaie, or someone like him, if he wanted to seek the presidency. You know why? Because it is feared that he might think independently and not always as a lackey of the Supreme Leader. This is the reality that is the Islamic Republic.
MARK, IS A VOICE OF REASON!
Now for a long time we have had people pulling in the same direction in this blog.I ADMIRE MARK'S BALANCED COMMENTS,HIS REASONING AND INSIGHTS gives a fresh aura of flavor here-MAY THE ALMIGHTY GIVE HIM A LONG LIFE TO WITNESS IRAN BECOMING A TECHNOLOGICAL ISLAMIC POWER ILLUMINATING UNTO THE WORLD TOLERANT ISLAM!!.
Even though I don't agree with mark's views, I do support his freedom to say what he wants.
This country (the USA) is great because of our tolerance of what makes our blood boil.
Lets hope one day Iran too can be as tolerant and we can have an American critic of iran exercise the same freedoms from his or her home in Tehran.
-- But as it is now, only candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties are allowed on nationally televised debates --
but of course this isn't necessarily true, and it isn't even factually correct ...and has nothing to do with US law.
television debates aren't any official part of electoral process... and, of course, in the US, unlike Iran, tv stations aren't controlled by the government.
Post a Comment