Ten things you probably didn’t know about Ahmadinejad

the other side of the story

the other side of the story

1. Foreign direct investment in Iran reached its highest level ever during Ahmadinejad‘s presidency (2005-2013). According to the latest statistics released by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD; 2013 World Investment Report), Iran managed to attract $2 billion worth of foreign direct investments in 2007, $1.90 billion in 2008, $3 billion in 2009, $3.64 billion in 2010, $4.15 billion in 2011, and $4.87 billion in 2012 (see table on page 214 of the report). “During Ahmadinejad’s presidency, some $24.4 billion of investments have been attracted, while this figure for his predecessors Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-1997) was respectively $10.452 billion and $350 million.” Source

2. Ahmadinejad never called for the destruction of Israel. He called for regime change in the Apartheid State of Israel. He stated: “… the regime that occupies Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time”. Similarly, he never denied the Holocaust, but stated that some aspects of it should be open to questioning. In particular, he questioned why it was Palestinians who were paying the price for the Holocaust rather than Germans and Austrians, who should instead have given a part of their land to their Jewish victims.

3. Ahmadinejad never participated in the siege of the American embassy in 1979. By some accounts, he was opposed to the idea of hostage taking at the embassy.

4. He comes from a working class background, and lives a simple and humble life, often refusing luxuries. He sent some of the most expensive carpets in the presidential palace to museums and had them replaced with cheaper carpets. He also refused the VIP seats on board the presidential plane.

5. After two years as Tehran mayor, Ahmadinejad was one of 65 finalists for World Mayor in 2005, selected from 550 nominees, only nine of them from Asia. He was among three strong candidates for the top-ten list, but his resignation after winning the presidential elections in 2005 made him ineligible.

6. Ahmadinejad was the first Iranian leader to manage to cut Iran’s debilitating fuel subsidies that benefited the rich more than the poor – an effort that no other politician had managed to achieve in 5 decades or so.

7. Ahmadinejad was the first Iranian president since the revolution to directly challenge the authority of the Supreme Leader, for example by resisting the Leader’s wish to interfere in the selection of Cabinet ministers. In this, Ahmadinejad was pushing for greater compliance with the Iranian Constitution by the Supreme Leader with the aim of reducing the power of the clergy, and promoting the republican side of the Islamic Republic.

8. During Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran’s position in the Middle East and in the nuclear negotiations has stabilised and steadily improved, with greater influence and a far stronger negotiating position while the rest of the region is embroiled in conflict and insecurity. Strong indicators for Iran’s more powerful position are a) USA and Israel have stopped publicly hallucinating about a military attack against Iran, and b) the P5+1 no longer demand a cessation of all nuclear enrichment activities in Iran as they did during Khatami’s era, and the so-called ‘red lines’ keep moving closer to the 100% enrichment levels. During Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran has not stepped back one single step from all her international rights. During Khatami’s presidency, Iran gave up many rights with no gain whatsoever.

9. Iran’s economic self-sufficiency has improved significantly under Ahmadinejad, and reliance on imports and even the export of crude oil has been drastically reduced. Iran is among the largest petrochemicals and steel producers in the region with far higher refining capacity today as compared with Rafsanjani and Khatami administrations. Iran’s economy is far more resilient as a direct result of the sanctions that Ahmadinejad’s administration deliberately and specifically decided to confront and defeat. This has been hard on many people, but is likely to bolster Iran’s position and economy in the long run.

10. Iran’s rate of scientific growth and achievements sky-rocketed during Ahmadinejad’s terms in office. Iran was reported as having the highest rate of scientific growth in the world in 2010. Today, the country is among global leaders in space, nuclear and military technology as well as nanotechnology and stem cell research. Iran’s indigenous military production makes the country by far the greatest conventional military power in the region. All this, while Iran spends the smallest share of its GDP on its military, as compared to the rest of the region and the West’s most warmongering nations such as USA, UK and France.


Reclaiming democracy – again

A worrying challenge is arising to the very idea of democracy from various quarters. This new trend has two main drivers, among others: First, a number of Western ‘democracies’, particularly the US with the UK and France in typically obliging tow, have given the concept a bad name. Their litany of human rights abuses and barbarity in the world today make a mockery of the concept of democracy. With ‘democrats’ like these, who would want to become democratic?!

The second driver comes from China’s alternative model that is gaining much traction among emerging nations. China’s highly successful economic development over four decades since the 1980s has caught the attention of academics and politicians alike. Rather logically, many are asking whether a benevolent dictatorship may be the preferred option for the greatest benefit for the largest number in situations where a country is trying to rise fast from a low base of economic development. This is also further supported by the fate of the so-called “Arab Spring” especially in Libya and Syria where the chaotic outcomes have been disastrous.

The second driver is the easier one to deal with in a defence of democracy. China has never had democracy, and there is little reason to believe that its growing wealth will not push it toward democracy. Tiananmen protests in 1989 indicated this, as does Hong Kong’s relative autonomy (far more than it ever had under British rule), and the various labour disputes that have challenged the Chinese state’s power. For as long as economic prosperity continues to rise so fast for the general population in China, there may not be too much of a challenge to a one-party state, similar to the situation in Saudi Arabia, for example. But as soon as this slows down, China will probably have to reform. In any case, rising wealth will necessarily create competing nodes of power, and these will either have to learn to compete in a democratic fashion, or they will fight each other. For now, the focus of China is on greater economic parity for the inland and western parts of the country, as the coastal populations have so far taken the lion’s share of profits. This also represents a form of greater democracy, albeit on an economic level for now.

However, the manner is which today’s warmongering ‘democracies’ like USA trample on the inalienable rights of people and nations all over the world while ‘communist’ countries like China and Vietnam concentrate on respect for sovereignty and economic relations with other nations instead, encourages a more positive outlook on ‘benevolent dictatorship‘ throughout the world. Conversely, China’s economic success has many in the West scared for their own future in so far as this is seen as ‘dependent’ on the West’s hegemony over the world economy. Some are beginning to question the merits of democracy in the face of a Chinese challenge.

This is compounded by deep corruption in the West’s financial sector, and control over the policy space, mass media and main political parties by major corporations. A lack of accountability by political leaders in these countries has led to a situation where a growing portion of their citizenry has lost faith in their countries’ ‘democratic’ systems, as seen for example by diminishing rates of popular participation in these countries’ elections.

Within this section of the West’s population, some are even losing faith in the ability or competence of their fellow citizens in making the ‘right’ choices in elections. While traditionally it was the extreme right that showed a propensity to support authoritarianism in the West, today some progressive minded people are also ‘hoping’ for a benevolent dictator to save countries like USA from themselves. And some ‘academics’ are writing ‘scientific’ articles in support of this.

But the irony of the situation is that the policy mistakes made in a country like USA over the past few decades have been in the service of interest groups, and in direct opposition to the will of the people. Public opinion in USA, UK and France has consistently been against foreign wars, austerity measures, or the deterioration of social services. The general public has wanted decent incomes for all, corporate power reduced, corrupt bankers and politicians held accountable, and better and more equitable relations with other nations and cultures. Most people support clean energy and less pollution as well as healthcare and education sector reforms that benefit the poor, the elderly and other vulnerable groups.

So it is too little democracy rather than too much of it that has led to disastrous Western policies. It is precisely in the fact that politicians are corrupt and non-responsive to the wishes of the electorate that we can find the reasons for the current debacle. Should there be more democracy in the West, many of the ills of today would be cured. A more people-centred system of governance in these countries would automatically reduce the power of corporations over the media, banks, academia and public policy.

And herein lies the reasons behind such unexpected ‘campaigning’ against ‘big government’. Portraying ‘government’ as the ‘enemy’ of the ‘people’ certainly ensures that the potential power that average citizens could exercise over their own fates can never be realized. Instilling an irrational fear of a foreign ‘enemy’ or ‘terrorist’ also helps the cause of corporate fascism.

So a question arises on the cause of this weakness in Western ‘democracy’. And the answer to this seemingly complex question may be quite simple: The problem is in ‘representation’ itself. Representative democracy is not real democracy. It rather is a form of shirking responsibility, by pushing the difficult decisions onto the shoulders of elected representatives who cannot possibly be expected to take care of the needs of so many constituents.

By placing our trust in elected representatives and allowing them to take decisions on our behalves for the next 4 or 5 years, we are in effect saying that we do not care enough to take charge over matters that affect our lives on a daily basis. We even allow them to declare war on our behalves. By bowing to the power of ‘leaders’ we admit our will to be led by others, even to the limit of life and death decisions. This encourages corruption and throws the elected politicians to the wolves – the 1% who do have the resources and the power to practically own ‘our’ representatives. People who would not hesitate to steal our savings in banks, and to declare war on the world for the sake of greed alone.

Put differently: if all major national and local policies had to be voted on by the general population of a country, no interest group or lobby could have as much control over the wealth or policies of a nation. A president could never start a war on another nation willy-nilly. Extra-judicial killings would be impossible. Corrupt bankers could not get away with murder. Corporations could not rape and pillage the world. People would be earning decent incomes, and they would have free access to healthcare and education, especially in a country as rich as USA.

People would actually see good results from good government by the people and for the people in a system of Direct Democracy.