Long way II
Let's imagine a threshold of political intelligence. I know politics that marks this ideal cannot happen random. Each politician in Iran has a background in politics and society. And what do they go through to become a politician? do they get to wear finer suits? Do they ever reach that threshold, what I call a standard of being politically viable. The true threshold, one that is currently working, looks lower than it should be, in my opinion, to suit a statesman. Specifically PR, scientific treatment, economic feasibility and ethics are entangled in an Islamist system of government.
I want to make sure that if I ever eschew following a social-political system, based on non-Moslem ideals, it is only because I'm convinced the dominating population is orthodox Moslem. And would I confront a religious crowd to change them? No. Persian social stratum includes a politically and economically rich that survived the 1979 revolution --smaller or different than likes of Lajevardis. --I'm not sure how much political and economic power are the same. Persian citizen, reformist, average man, the rich and powerful alike are critising the state, pointing rightly that its actions are generally troublesome. Still if the system was theirs to design, do they look like to accommodate a definition of righteous ruler? Their history is a history of impediment, only to pushed forward by terror.
But in the banality a controversy is lost, if and what the reformist, the leftist, etc will deliver. It gives rise to doubt that it is any different in "essence." Haven't we all had a taste of the "form" reformist? Still polygamous, still Feqhhi, still Mohajab, still trying to fit life to what Islam characterises, in arts, culture, cinema, government, family, even food. I remember being surprised by the number of girls in the college who posed pro-hijab. Can everybody come clean of being part of the situation, and perhaps a reformist cause they supported? Not everybody is a barbarous torturer or hangman of course. But the regime isn't all together evil. For me it "is" a horrible ruling body, in every conceivable aspect. But for many it is only critisised on the surface, and this is not only because of their lack of depth in analysis! In my opinion it has tried to attend a balance so to also appeal to people. And to some extent it has fixed itself legitimate. So the citizen complaints but also abides. Is this the self-betrayal of a country?
■
I want to make sure that if I ever eschew following a social-political system, based on non-Moslem ideals, it is only because I'm convinced the dominating population is orthodox Moslem. And would I confront a religious crowd to change them? No. Persian social stratum includes a politically and economically rich that survived the 1979 revolution --smaller or different than likes of Lajevardis. --I'm not sure how much political and economic power are the same. Persian citizen, reformist, average man, the rich and powerful alike are critising the state, pointing rightly that its actions are generally troublesome. Still if the system was theirs to design, do they look like to accommodate a definition of righteous ruler? Their history is a history of impediment, only to pushed forward by terror.
But in the banality a controversy is lost, if and what the reformist, the leftist, etc will deliver. It gives rise to doubt that it is any different in "essence." Haven't we all had a taste of the "form" reformist? Still polygamous, still Feqhhi, still Mohajab, still trying to fit life to what Islam characterises, in arts, culture, cinema, government, family, even food. I remember being surprised by the number of girls in the college who posed pro-hijab. Can everybody come clean of being part of the situation, and perhaps a reformist cause they supported? Not everybody is a barbarous torturer or hangman of course. But the regime isn't all together evil. For me it "is" a horrible ruling body, in every conceivable aspect. But for many it is only critisised on the surface, and this is not only because of their lack of depth in analysis! In my opinion it has tried to attend a balance so to also appeal to people. And to some extent it has fixed itself legitimate. So the citizen complaints but also abides. Is this the self-betrayal of a country?
