This paper responds to individuals who appear at the Manoto Television program and Iran International Television; they advocate for Iran's federal political autonomy.
There is a form of the political system known as federalism, which is naturally a dysfunctional form of a political system. It is a "political system in which the power of the state divided between central and regional governments by a written constitution, but these governments linked in an interdependent political relationship."1 It means creating a multilayer of governments' complex bureaucracy system. Most importantly, there is an absence of patriotic attachment toward a nation. People of a region are interested in their well-being and disregard other regions. Consequently, each part inspired to have its self-autonomy and leads a country into a civil war. This paper aims to discuss the political system of federalism as a root cause of regionalism in Iran. It would be costly to have a federalist system in Iran and threaten democracy in Iran.
Since the inception of Canada, it has a rocky political climate to galvanize all the provinces together. The Province of Quebec has been contemplating separating from Canada since French people met English people in Canada. Eventually, the legacy of hatred between French and English in Canada escalated to the "Quiet Revolution" since 1944 to separate from Canada.3 In 1963, a left-wing faction formed Front de liberation du Quebec and engaged in a terrorist act against Quebec's English residence. In 1970, the above entity kidnapped James Cross, a British Trade Commissioner to Canada, and the above entity killed James Cross. Subsequently, former prime minister of Canada Pierre Trudeau called for War Measure Act to crack down on the above entity, which ended a decade of terrorism in the Province of Quebec.4 Residences of Quebec never see themselves as a Canadian, but as a French person and a "distinct society" due to their linguistic and cultural background, making French residences in Canada a distinct society. Moreover, the Province of British Columbia, Province of Alberta, Province of Saskatchewan, and Manitoba always feel that they are left outside of Canada and have been trying to separate from the rest of Canada; the above provinces developed a political terminology of "Western Alienation."4 The above regions feel left outside of Canada because the federal government development funds in the Province of Quebec to keep Quebec happy and keep the unemployment rate low and not separate from Canada. Other provinces feel financial pressure on their shoulders.5
Let's examining Iran as a federal system. Iran is composed of diverse ethnic backgrounds. The nation-state's concept would dissipate during a national crisis because everyone is attached to its region and should not be concerned with other regional issues since these regions do not share a common background.
Iran is a developing nation; it is not an industrialized nation. All regions are relying on Iran's fossil fuel for economic prosperity. Let's assume to apply the federal political system in Iran. All parts want to have petro-dollar to move their citizens out of poverty and creating jobs for their citizens. The Province of Khuzestan and the Province of Azerbaijan would be reluctant to share its oil revenue with other Iran provinces. For example, today, Alberta's Province is assertive not to share its oil revenue with other regions and become another star on the US flag.
Therefore, using the theory of the federal system and applying the theory in Canada's real politics. The federal political autonomy would lead to the disintegration of Iran.
There is another dimension in the federal system. It is not cost-effective. It would be costly to have a federalist system in Iran. It uses Canada as a federal system model to illustrate the cost of having a federal system. Currently, a federal political system requires having two parliaments to deal with governments' affairs. One would be the provincial parliament of each province; the last one would be the federal government. Each province would have intergovernmental relation departments "the network of intergovernmental structure includes separate departments or other administrative units within governments, administrative units within individual departments, intergovernmental secretariats, and a large number of intergovernmental committees."6 Most importantly, "federalism has been cited as a major reason for the weak policy capacity of governments in many policy sectors in Australia, Canada, and the United States. It has constrained these states' capacity to develop consistent and coherent sectoral policies. In these countries, national policies in most areas require intergovernmental agreement, which involves the federal and provincial or state governments in complex, extensive, and time-consuming time actions with no guarantee that these negotiations will conclude in the manner envisioned by the initiating government."7
Therefore, the federal system has a perplex bureaucracy system that prevents political actors from participating in a healthy and vibrant political life. The federal system opens the door for the elite of society and a technocrat to engage in politics. James Burnham mentioned that the elite of society and technocrats are the "ruler of society."8 The ruler of the society would act for their self-interest and undermined the welfare of a nation. Thus, the ruler of society will pose a threat to democracy. Let's apply the above theory in Canadian politics. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown failed; on October 30th, 1995, Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard called a referendum to determine Quebec's future as a nation. The referendum did not blossom a fruit in favor of separatists. Parizeau blamed the defeat on money from the opposition to prevent Quebec from becoming a nation and ethnic groups who voted in favor of Canada and not Quebec. Parizeau's ambitious plan to separate Quebec from Canada had economic consequences. It causes Canada's currency to collapse.
In reality, the federalist political system would threaten democracy; the provincial party systems are not necessarily identical to their federal counterparts. Provincially, as federally, the classic two-party design is found consistently only in the Atlantic provinces, where third parties rarely win more than 5 percent of the vote. Federal and provincial parties of the same name generally have separate elites, organizations, and financial support. Only in the Atlantic provinces are national/regional party ties somewhat integrated. For this s reason, a federal party cannot assume ideological congruence or policy support from its provincial counterparts.9 Therefore, an elected member of a parliament is not truly reflecting the conventional wisdom of society and would allow the elite of the community to dominate public policy, which would lead to a lack of representation of minority groups in a democrat nation.
Iran would not be immune from the above scenario. The federal political system is a dysfunctional political system that does not allow a country to be united. Particularly during the financial crisis or when a nation is going through the economic cycle, each province focus on its regional issues and would not share their wealth with other provinces.
Iran needs to have a strong central government implementing the "guardian rule" on treasury issues, which means it would save money, pay the deficit, create jobs to reduce the unemployment rate, and lower the inflation rate. Having a complex bureaucratic system would exhaust all of Iran's national revenue, and this federal system would be too costly to manage all affairs of a nation. Eventually, the public would demand a downsizing government, which was the case in 1995 in the Province of Ontario.
Let's explore other aspects of how the federal system is a threat to democracy. It would further marginalize minority groups in a province and not allow minority groups to become political actors and participate in political life. On November 22nd, 2008, Crown Reza Pahlavi Heir to Throne of Iran, mentioned during an interview that when His Imperial Majesty Mohammad Reza Pahlavi governed Iran, there was no issue of ethnicity or religious issues. It was the current regime has begun to label citizen of Iran with ethnicity and religious background.
Finalizing all the above thoughts in a few sentences, the current regime in Iran uses ethnicity and religious background as an instrument to divide and conquer Iranians and not allow them to become one united force against the theocratic regime in Iran. Henceforth, it would be in the best interest of all Iranians not to let the enemy's deceptive public policy of divide and conquer to separate them. Let's become unified against the Ahriman in Tehran.
Copyright © 2020 Peyman ADL DOUSTI HAGH
All Rights Reserved
1Kenneth Kernaghan, David Siegel. Public Administration. Fourth Edition. Toronto: International Thomson Publishing. 1999. PG 462
2Kenneth Kernaghan, David Siegel. Public Administration. Fourth Edition. Toronto: International Thomson Publishing. 1999. PG 464
3Brooks, Stephen. Canadian Democracy: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. TO, ON: Oxford University Press. 1994. PG 135
4Brooks, Stephen. Canadian Democracy: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. TO, ON: Oxford University Press. 1994. PG 135
5Brooks, Stephen. Canadian Democracy: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. TO, ON: Oxford University Press. 1994. PG 135
6Kenneth Kernaghan, David Siegel. Public Administration. Fourth Edition. Toronto: International Thomson Publishing. 1999. PG 470
7Howlett, Michael, M.Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Second Edition. Canada: Oxford University Press 2003. PG 62
8Kenneth Kernaghan, David Siegel. Public Administration. Fourth Edition. Toronto: International Thomson Publishing. 1999. PG 31
9Jackson J. Robert & Doreen Jackson. Politics in Canada. 4th Edition. TO, ON: Prentice-Hall Canada. PG 381
No comments:
Post a Comment