The aftermath of Iran's presidential election -- deemed by many as corrupt and prearranged -- is raising some interesting questions. A cursory glance at the situation would leave one with the impression that Iranians protesting the outcome want a Western-style democracy.
This judgment, while desirable from a Western perspective, is premature. As with many things about Iran the facts are elusive.
Iran's supreme leader (Ali Khamenei) was quick to note that the protesters -- who believe that their candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, defeated the supreme leader's favorite, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- are not disputing the country's political system. He assured us that all 40 million of Iran's voters buy into the theocracy that rules the country and approves all presidential candidates before they make the ballot.
As Kremlin watching taught us during the Cold War, the elites in a less-than-democratic country are usually the first to try to reassure the world that their authority is unchallenged. Seen as a knee-jerk reaction to events, perhaps there is genuine worry among Iran's rulers -- and evidence -- that a movement for a truly free Iran is at hand.
But there also may be some truth in Khamenei's remarks. Many Iranians are pious Muslims who may prefer an Islamic republic over what they might see as the corrupting influences of a liberal Western-style democracy.
It's true that Iran is a youthful country with an average median age of 27 (the U.S. average is about 35), and the young often favor sweeping change. But, given the country's religious convictions -- 89 percent of the population is reportedly Shia Muslim (the same as the leadership) -- the extent of the desired change is uncertain.
U.S. policymakers surely would prefer a functioning pro-Western democracy in Iran, though they are probably correct for staying out of the mess. Memories of past U.S. machinations that impacted the country's history for six decades are too fresh there.
Meanwhile, the countdown to a nuclear Iran continues. Unfortunately, that can't be so easily overlooked.
*****
Proposed state funding cuts have been much in the news this week, given Gov. Ted Strickland's proposals to balance Ohio's budget. A balanced budget must be in place by July 1, and the task is no small undertaking because, like many governments, the state has seen revenues shrink.
Strickland can't be faulted for talking about deep cuts as state government is required to have a balanced budget. Which, viewed as a mechanism for internalizing government efficiency, is a common sense requirement. The tacit meaning of this is that when times are tough everyone already understands sacrifices must be made.
Still, state lawmakers have an unenviable task this year. With Medicaid spending such a big budget item and considered by many to be a virtually untouchable entitlement, something else will have to be cut disproportionately.
Libraries, some of which rely heavily on state dollars, may be an example of this.
But, given the connection between succesful democracies and libraries, -- which could be considered extensions of public education -- it would be shameful if any had to close because of the state budget crunch.
(Todd Helberg is city editor and editorial page editor of The Crescent-News.)