From a column by Yuval Porat in the WSJ:
Iran was placed on a continuum measuring the tendency of societies world-wide to foster liberal democracy. Remarkably, in comparison to 47 countries surveyed in the World Values Survey, Iranian society’s potential for liberal democracy was found to be higher than that of 23 others—including Arab countries such as Egypt, Morocco and Jordan, and Asian countries such as South Korea, India and Thailand. In comparison to 29 countries surveyed In the European Social Survey, Iran was found to have higher tendencies toward liberal democracy than Russia, Ukraine, Slovakia and Romania.
We also discovered an abnormally large gap between the societal potential for liberal democracy in Iran and the actual level of democracy in the country. In most countries there is a high correlation between the two. When such a gap exists, there is a strong tendency for the country’s level of democracy to adjust in accordance with the society’s potential.
I’m not a great believer in “social science” surveys, but this gives some corroboration to those of us who wanted to believe in the Green Movement.
Call me skeptical.
Exactly what is meant by ‘liberal democracy’? Would they welcome Jews and Christians in their country? Will women who don’t want to wear the hijab be accepted?
Iranians may have a tendency toward liberal democracy but I’ll believe it when I see it. The results of the ‘Arab spring’ leave little room for optimism. Theocracy and liberal democracy cannot coexist.
You raise many good questions and the real answers will probably not be known until Iran does have a real “liberal’ democracy (or any real democracy).
But on the issue of Jews and Christians: Although the government has persicuted both groups (they both exist there), there seems to be very little support for it among the general populace. There are no “random mobs” who try to destroy Churches or Synagogues. Muslims and Christians protest together against the government. Currently though there can be no visible Synagogues (and Churches?). It is unknown what would happen when there is more religious freedoms and if that would create new friction. It is quite possible that Islam would take a dramatic decline as there seems to be many who although Muslim are not so “radical” (western music like rock, punk, and rap are popular and a fair amount of western styles in clothing, ect).
On the wearing of the Hijab: Currently the use of the Hijab is rather unpopular. Again it is the government through the use of “morality police” that has kept its use up, but there are many who defy it and seems to be very little popular support for it (even older Iranians only suggest it, not enforce it).
Iran could be very different than the Arab countries due to its lack of tribalism and past western inclusion. The big question is how can the West help the Iranian people move to a true democracy without being tarred as outside meddling or trying to create a “puppet regime”. The US not trying in even a symbolic or “moral” support of the Green Revolution was a shameful act and a missed opportunity.
Israeli commentators have to live this fantasy: if not, then their situation, strategy and tactics are hopeless.
The concept is old, probably by Rousseau’s time: people are good, the leaders are bad so the people are innocent and want only the right things. Then the tumbrils roll along.
The same can be seen in Marx, fine with me. Even if it were all true, what makes anyone think that it would prevent the government from doing as it pleases?