Hacker News Reader

Comment by dant | Hacker News Reader

I don't think the argument is that "you're bad anyway". Regardless of who you are, how you got into that situation and whether the protesters have a point, with a protest movement that big and motivated your options are same: crush the protests, re-run the election or form a unity government. If you choose to crush the protest then you give up the "government by consent of the people" type contract that you have with society. I think it's that fact that will drive western opinion more than the actual legitimacy of the result.

View on HN

exactly. It matters little anyways because it seems that Ahmadinejad and Yazdi were just going to prepare a coup anyways -- http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-279948

Choice words from this Yazdi figure: "Islam cannot accept that a group of people congregate and decide to initiate laws for themselves" (Ettela'at, 1 Oct. 1993) (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Taghi_Mesbah_Yazdi#Quo... )

At this point I can't sincerely pick any side as the good guys. On one hand, I'm already sick of cookie-cutter "color revolutions" where "nonviolent" protestors oh-so-conveniently invite the support of Western nuclear superpowers to topple regimes unfavorable to the latter. On the other hand, I'm already sick of the only offered alternative, the emerging "multipolar world" fraternity of Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez et al.

I kind of envy you Westerners. You have a simple moral principle that tells you which side to pick, a never-failing axiom: democracy is always best. But the recent history of my country (Russia) has given me a huge and readily observable data point against your axiom. So I can't honestly share your faith, even though I'd like to.

Using Russia as an example against the value of democracy is a bit absurd.

So what's your point? That the people who want a say in how they're governed shouldn't express a view because the people who don't like to have a say are sick of hearing it?

I assume you're referring to the second sentence of my comment.

The idea of protesting against bad governments, all the way to armed rebellion, is perfectly okay with me. But I intensely dislike the idea of appealing to a foreign power to settle an internal dispute, especially if the appeal gets prompted by same foreign power. The classical conception of sovereignty, now sadly defunct, had an apt name for this technique: treason. Today it's called "color revolution".

So protest is right if people go to kill their government by themselves?

And when they can't do it by themselves and call for help, this is treason even when they didn't wanted the government that rules them in the first place?

Now that's black and whit simplistic view of world.

Is the concept of treason even relevant when you live in a your country and somebody rules it without your (and other people living there) agreement?

I mean - I live in Poland, after WW2 Soviet Union ruled here (ok, not directly but by proxy:), is treason of such proxy government really treason? For me it's heroism, because people in Poland didn't wanted that government in the first place.

Also - for me peaceful revolution is better than blood bath revolution any time.

From here, it seems like Russia hasn't quite gotten how democracy works yet. Which is fine--maybe democracy doesn't work for Russia. But Iran's a more promising case.

I hope you'll agree that there's another moral principle at play here: don't shoot peaceful people to death in the streets. I couldn't care less about elections when a government stoops to that.

I am a Westerner and I have no such moral principle.

it isn't that easy, pure democracy can be just as evil. What is best is for the government to derive their consent from the people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com