Thursday, 12 January 2006 - 3:38 PM GMT

Of course another knock-on effect of the decision to invade Iraq, is that the Iranians elect a hardliner who is regarded as the person best able to defend Iranian interests against the US.

About two years ago I warned you that countries deemed part of the 'axis of evil' would look at what had happened in Iraq, see how Saddam's decision to disarm led to the regime being demolished, and would act accordingly. In Iran's case, it looks like they have decided that developing WMD is their best form of defence. And when they look at what's happened across the border, who can blame them.

Incidentally, do you really believe that Abdul Halim Khaddam has undergone a Damascene conversion? Bit odd, considering he was the cornerstone of the Syrian regime for donkeys years. Perhaps self-interest and his desire to return to centre-stage may have something to do with it.

Friday, 13 January 2006 - 5:57 AM GMT

Hardly anyone voted in the latest Iranian election. Only candidates approved by the Supreme Council can stand. It's not a real democracy at all.

Come to the Vic and talk to some Iranians.

As for Syria, I'm not being naive here. I'm sure that self-interest is at work. But that doesn't undermine my argument. In fact, it probably supports it.

DY

Friday, 13 January 2006 - 2:05 PM GMT

Hang on a second. Sixty per cent of the country voted, which is a higher turnout than the US manages for its own presidential elections. Also, in the light of the ongoing corruptions scandals besetting Congress, I'd be interested to hear what your definition of a 'real' democracy might be. Money talks perhaps?

I'm not gloating here. I think it's profoundly depressing that the Iranians opted for such a candidate. However, given what happened in Iraq, I can see why they voted for the hardliner.

If Iran hadn't been in the line of fire (so to speak) I think it reasonable to assume that the country would have eventually undergone the liberalising process which you seem to think can only be imposed by force.

Friday, 13 January 2006 - 3:09 PM GMT

Oops. I've got the turnout figure totally wrong. I think I confused the urban turnout for the national figure. I recall hearing that the cities, especially Tehran, had much lower turnouts than the rural areas. And the Supreme Council is actually the "Guardian Council".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council

But the point about it not being a real democracy still stands, because the Guardian Council approves the candidates. Also everything I've read about the 2005 election says that the voters were concerned with poverty issues, rather than events in Iraq.

I don't know a lot about the scandals in Congress. I do know that money counts for far more than it should in US politics. I like the way that in Britain the television companies basically give the three main parties free airtime through the Party Political Broadcasts. By saving the parties money in this way, the need for finance is reduced.

Personally I would like to see the influence of money reduced in US politics, but I'm not sure that it's an issue that vexes US voters all that much. As you seem to know more about it than I, perhaps you can explain it better. I've found this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp

which reports on the McCain-Feingold bill signed by President Bush in 2002. It seems well intentioned, but it's suggested that loopholes in the legislation make it ineffective.

Care to comment, Jamie?

DY

Monday, 16 January 2006 - 12:28 PM GMT

No, I think you're right. The loopholes will render the bill pretty ineffective. The problem with reform is that it's not really something either party wants as both benefit from huge donations from a variety of sources.

What it does achieve though - and the same applies in the UK to an extent - is that it ensures the system remains a duopoly. Only someone with huge personal wealth such as Ross Perot can mount any kind of challenge and even then it's always going to be a sideshow.

The problem with Congress and lobbyists is that an entire industry has evolved. For every congressman there are an estimated 50 lobbyists and the two groups are now mutually dependent to the extent that politicians are now approaching lobbyists for (financial) favours rather than the other way around.

Ultimately, though, the latest scandal will simply further erode confidence in the democratic institutions at a time when disillusionment with the political system is already pretty entrenched. It's important that countries who espouse democratic values, actually practise what they preach.