IRAN AND UNITED STATES THEOCRACY
IRAN AND UNITED STATES THEOCRACY
Students Name
Course
Professor
Date
Theocracy is a complex word which combined refers to a form of government by which certain religious beliefs are aimed at by the belief in a god. Iran and the United States are two great governments that familiarize on the outside. However apart from the common significance on the surface both Iran and the United States have got apparent dissimilarities that lies in the fact that Iran is an Islamic theocracy. In this case rulers specifically undergo certain religious beliefs who claim to be directed by his or her god. Compared to the ancient days of cultural and religious beliefs it is an historical event that see these rulers as messengers of their god through straight revelation to their people and nation as whole. The United States and Iran have unlike approaches in the present globe from histories, culture, religious beliefs and economics that pose threat to both nations as they are expanding in various ways of human kind merits.
The Islamic democracy refers to an opinionated ideology that seeks to be relevant with the Muslim principles to the civic rule. Iran is an example a Muslim position in the form of Islamic republics that endeavor to institute the Sharia law and more comprehensive enclosure of Islam into the associations of the state. However the constitution creates authority in other branches, since the ultimate leader has supreme power to set out of any person or rule. Contrasting the ideological arguments for the Iranian to the ideology behind the more secular ideas of the United States declaration of independence and constitution the United States was from the formal colony meaning that the U.S government was derived from the British government.
The partition of the church and the federal state resulted to executive, judiciary and legislative divisions to the United States becoming a democratic nation globally. The basic structure of the Iranian government starts at the top with the supreme leader known as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who succeeded Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini since 1979 when Islamic Republic was found. The supreme leader’s who is also the commander-in –chief of the armed forces role was to set the tone and direction of Iran’s domestic and foreign policies. The supreme leader has the authority to select and release the supreme commander of the Islamic revolutionary Guard Corps and the leaders of the judiciary. In addition the Supreme Leader’s legislative body is more authoritative than the president’s ministers and has the power to get involved in any subject of state on the Supreme Leader’s behalf.
The president is the second highest official, however contrasting him with the Supreme leader the president’s power is often cut off by the constitution which subordinates the whole executive branch to the supreme leader resulting to the only branch that does not control the armed forces. The leader executives of both Iran and the United States are referred as presidents. Although, the president of Iran is nominated by means of the supreme majority of the well-liked vote, and uncommon occurrence, while in the United States the majority takes part in an election through the Electoral College. In cooperation executives appreciate a four year term with the alternative to show the way for one more term. As for concerns of duty and power within their relevant governments, the position as president of the United States immensely overcomes that of the president of Iran.
The President of the United States serves as the chief of approximately all facets of management for instance the chief diplomat, chief of state, commander-in-chief, chief legislator, but the Iranian President is only accountable for the inner workings of the executive organization. Apart from the president there are other eight vice presidents and a cabinet formed of twenty two ministries who serve under the president. The Iranian structure is also formed of the parliament whose body consists of 290 members. Legislative body forms legislation and confirms the country’s budget. The assembly of experts in the Iran constitution follows after the parliament. The members in turn elect the supreme leader from within their own position.
The supreme leader appoints six jurists from twelve of them that are consist of the council of guardians. They are comprised with the power to interpret the constitution and determine if the laws passed by parliament are in the line with the Sharia law. Ayatollah Khomeini created the Expediency council to provide advice to the supreme leader. These resulted to the expediency council being powerful in the governing structure in the nation. In 2002 the Iran parliament speaker said that reforming the Expediency council is in line with the people’s devotion for change, which they incurred in different elections. These call invoked the United States president in which he alleged the unelected in Iran. The laws of the Special clerical court, that takes place separately of the customary judicial structure and is liable merely to the supreme leader are as well ultimate and cannot be amend. The Iran government is largely held by the top leader who appoints the leader of the magistrate who later appoints the head of the highest court and the chief republic prosecutor.
National security and Intelligence of the Iranian government is not controlled by its executives, although the president has ostensible law over the Supreme National Security Council and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Comparing and contrasting this basic structure of the Iranian government with the American government both constitutions explain the rights of people, the roles of the supervision regime and the needs of the Iran’s constitution. Differentiating the Iranian constitution with the United States constitution, America has confirmed that it formed a valuable government to look after its community and defend their human rights. Compare to the United States constitution, Iran constitution is more in particular determined on the religious power but not in the rights and freedom of an individual. A constitutional theocracy is a theocracy, linked on a constitution, where designated officials function within the limits of the constitution rather than in a straight line in the bounds of the religion. Religion is still the major power of a legitimate theocracy as well as the management bases laws and their enforcement on a constitution.
The major difference between the United States and the constitution of Iran are for instance religious freedom, civil rights and civil liberties. Under article two of the Islamic Republic constitution states that Allah is the only one god. On the other hand the United States use the institution clause to point out that the assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religious beliefs. The Americas constitution enrolled the legislature, judiciary and the executive division to only discuss the significance of each duty of the articles. The Iran’s constitution drastically altered a lot of changes from the French Fifth constitution. These were as a result of religious control and later lacked the concern and opinion from the community.
In addition the Iran’s constitution is unstable and it is not religious free as it reflects its constitution more to the Islamic Sharia law and thus not letting the community in the nation free to cultural and religious beliefs. In prior to that, the United States is more flexible to its constitution and thus resulting to it being more stable and more religious free to its people. Contrasting the civil rights between these two nations, in general the United States civil rights are not limited. The American declaration of independence and constitution criticized the Iranian regime’s record of human rights violence and abuse because the Iranian citizen cannot choose their leaders with the freedom of expression since the Guardians of Council manage the election procedures. In addition because the Iran’s Interior and Intelligence ministers have been concerned in human rights abuse the Iran’s constitution has led to worsening background for civil liberties.
Abundant restriction to the freedoms of an individual is a significant and a vulgar impact to the community as the Iran government cannot protect its people. The political parties and interest groups influence the governments of Iran and the United States revolutionary. Within the republic of the political civilization of Iran every key to governmental decision were made by the shah and his ministers. This fusion revolution resulted in the appearance of a well known political culture. The prime factor of this political rhythm is omnipresent state of mind that the institution is obliged to guarantee social justification to the citizens participating in politics. The change of the political civilization owed much to the personality of the first supreme leader. His determination was to overthrow the kingdom and replace it with a fresh culture that devoted its values from Islam.
Though the parties in the Iran nation are not much profession compare to the parties in the United States. The reason as to why these parties in Iran are not well organized is because it is bounded with inadequate leadership by religion. In Iran Mass political participation has been a purpose and character of post revolutionary. But the membership is not via political parties but through religious organization. The influence of political parties in the government of the United States had a long history during the era of federalists and anti-federalists. These political parties and interest groups in Iran betrothed in political associates rather than full fledged groups of adequate time activists. In concise, Iran parties are yet at a premature stage of growth and party diligences. This makes the Iran government still in an emerging concise of political growth. Various sectors for example schools and offices also have Islamic managements that undergo similar interests to those of the mosque deliberate institutions. In addition many secular groups exist. The Iranian and the United States government’s influence over mass media have provided freedom of the press. While, according to the Iran’s government, the influence to freely relate to the parliament is not as for the United States. The Iran’s constitution provides freedom to the press only if the press implies and agrees with the Islamic principles. These require every mass media to have a legal and valid publishing license to permit the mass media. Still, if the mass media comprises of any subject that is perceived or linked to be anti-Islamic is not permitted a publication license. There are also other newspaper published but the fact that they are considered to be appropriately Islamic they do not comprise of the essential government.
In addition any published book that is referred to as un-Islamic can be affirmed and considered as an offence of both the author and the publisher as liable to attempting to insult the Islamic morals. Prior to that all the radio stations and television broadcasting is under the control of the government. The community of Iran is pressured with the Iran’s constitution comprised with the Islamic principles known as the Sharia law. The press takes part in a vital position in the social equality of the United States. Many journalists in the United States see themselves as protectors of their nation. When the role of the press is pursued with passion it is vault to annoy the superior leaders in the government. These create tension at times between the press and politicians. In a wide range of view the community at times agrees with the press but other times they disagree and side with their elected politicians. The press is mostly blamed for many aspects of American political ventures, however at times the politicians wish to side with the press and take advantage of attempting to get their messages out to the public.
While the public relies on the mass media as a source of information comprising politics the politicians also depend on the press. On a different point of view the politicians at times favor the press with a motive of them shortening their schedules and political fights and keep them up to date. The politicians believe that the money and trust they devote to the press will pay off later in the form of re-elections and political rallies for their rule suggestion. The attempt of the government to control the media is not without consequences because the function of the media links the governors and the governed.
The evolution of press has greatly influence what United States be on familiar terms with the politics. These is because the politicians became reliant on the press and tried to benefit from them but later the press responded forcefully defending themselves as watchdogs of democracy. Comparing and contrasting the Iran government and the United States government, the Iran constitution does not protect the human rights of an individual as it includes religious belief and culture. It supports and relies mostly on the Islamic principles that hinder the Iranian each and every freedom granted to him or her. The United States being in political asperities for a long time has led it to be flexible to its constitution and therefore giving and ensuring each and every citizen protection and effective measures to human rights of an individual.
In addition the Iran government may be considered as unfit to be the ruler of a free person and of justice of humanity, unlike the United States that considers each and every right of an individual in either different state of culture, religion and political affairs. The America and Iran have different modes of ruling in the modern world. At this time the American nation is fitting reliant on the oil whereas the Iran nation is further susceptible to the fuel, natural gas and mineral deposits. These two great nations should come to a firm agreement to protect its people globally and maintain the equality of humanity.
Biography
Beisner, Robert. American Foreign Relations since 1600 a Guide to the Literature, Second Edition. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003.
Cordesman, Anthony H.. Iran’s military forces in transition conventional threats and weapons of mass destruction. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1999.
Geer, John Gray, and Wendy J. Schiller. Gateways to democracy: the essentials – an introduction to American government. Second Ed.
Mafinezam, Alidad, and Aria Mehrabi. Iran and its place among nations. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2008.
Habeeb, William Mark. Iran. Philadelphia: Mason Crest Publishers, 2004.
Hiro, Dilip. Iran under the Ayatollahs. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013.
