"The Iranian presidential election of 2005, the ninth presidential election in Iranian history, took place in two rounds, first on June 17, 2005, and then as a run-off on June 24. It led to the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline mayor of Tehran, with 19.48% of the votes in the first round and 61.69% in the second. Ahmadinejad is believed to have won the second round because of his populist views, especially those regarding the poor and their economic status. The election saw a turnout of almost 60% of eligible voters, seen as a strike back by Iran at the United States' initial allegations that many in Iran would be restricted from voting."
-Source: Wikipedia
Granted, the elections themselves brought some criticism from the outside world, but they were judged as generally free and fair, and in the global context of nascent democratic movements, can be considered a success story. Enough of a success story to truthfully believe that Ahmadinejad was the choice of the people, with or without the weight of the Clerics behind him (additionally, his opponent was much better financed and much better organized). Regardless of these points, a much higher percentage turned out and voted in this election that in the US Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. Yet, according to Foreign Policy in Focus, "...President Bush insisted that the Iranian vote failed to meet 'the basic requirements of democracy' and that the 'oppressive record' of the country's rulers made the election illegitimate."
Free and widespread political debate and protest recently halted autocratic moves by the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez to implement new intelligence and counterintelligence agencies in the South American country. Hugo Chavez was reelected President of Venezuela in 2006 with 63% of the popular vote.
"Even though a fair number of international observers were present, the CNE instituted an open and public series of audits of the vote results. Each one of the 11,118 automated polling places was equipped with multiple high-tech touch-screen DRE voting machines, one to a "mesa electoral", or voting "table"... The voting machines perform in a stand-alone fashion, disconnected from any network until the polls close." Again, the elections in Venezuela were generally perceived as free and fair by international monitors.
Free and widespread political debate and protest recently halted autocratic moves by the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez to implement new intelligence and counterintelligence agencies in the South American country. Pay attention to the words free and fair, and pay attention to the fact that democracy is democracy, whether it involves players the United States likes or dislikes.
While I certainly do not condone their policies while in office, there remains a basic fact: Ahmadinejad and Chavez are the democratically elected Presidents of sovereign nations, chosen by the people.. Does the United States have the right to decide what constitutes democracy around the world, when our own system of government is in such arrears?
Do we have the right to label and brand other regimes autocratic when our own administration listens little to outside advice or the will of the people? Can our own government, one that is gridlocked with partisan bickering, empowered through deception, and controlled by corporate lobbyists, be used as a mirror on democracy and openness? Can our 2000 Presidential election, one that was not decided by the people and remains locked in debate, be used as an case to judge others by?
I use Iran and Venezuela as two simple examples; there are many more. These two states have been accused, branded, scapegoated; the basic fact remains that they are led by Presidents chosen by the will of the people. We are in no position to criticize even the most fragile or nascent democratic state when our home front is in such disrepair. There is no nobility in hypocrisy. We must lead by example, and the current example is tarnished beyond repair.
