A Failure to Communicate

There is a huge problem with government’s that operate on a different logical wavelength than their subjects, the problem obviously being that the government completely fails to understand the needs of the people it is supposed to be serving. Thus as you move across the spectrum from the liberal to the more authoritarian forms of rule you see this phenomenon of people serving the establishment rather than the other way round.

In a democracy the government is not supposed to preach to the people or impose laws that the majority of the people it rules, dislike. There is always due process, and laws are made by institutions like congress that are made up of representatives of the people.

Short circuiting that representation, such as in a theocracy, move’s us to a more oppressive system where laws and rules are imposed on people whether they like them or not.The logic behind this oppressive system being that if people live life in the way we believe is the right way, they will start to see the light and start to approve of our system. This is all well and good but it does give rise to a very obvious question, what if people don’t see things your way?

This ideological gap is apparent in most theocracies or partial theocracies. One excellent example of this is Iran and its battle to portray a public image that is both acceptable to the international community and also in accordance with its Islamic fundamentalist principles. It will suffice to say that Iran doesn’t always succeed in its tight rope walk to please both audiences. In a debate organized by Columbia University, President Ahmedinejad (in a very questionable manner I might add) was asked why homosexuals were persecuted in his country. His reply to the question, "we do not have homosexuals in Iran like you do in your country.” It isn’t the fact that Iran doesn’t have Homosexuals or that the president isn’t aware of them, its just that the ideological gap mentioned above is sadly apparent here.

Do the people of Iran not want there to be any homosexuals in their country? One cannot be certain about that in the absence of a poll or a referendum, but one does find it hard to believe that public opinion would require them to be treated as they are now. According to the religious hardliners in control, homosexuality is not allowed in Islam and thus it would not do to have the president of an Islamic country admit to having homosexuals in his constituency. Thus Homosexuality is treated like a crime in Iran, with people being jailed and/or executed if thought to be homosexuals. Gay Rights is just one in a plethora of issues that the public disagrees on with the government, but are silenced with accusations of opposing religious logic. But isn’t the whole purpose of having an organized government to give the people what they need? obviously not in theocracies like Iran. In such cases it is not the dog that wags the tail, but the tail that wags the dog.

SNL's reply to Ahmedinejad's official position