Are Communist and Islamic "Democracies" Similar??

Although I do support some of the policies of the government of Cuba for example, I can't help but compare their governing structure to that of Iran. In Iran the religious leaders have the final say in all matters and can override a law. In Cuba they have a one party rule. People do vote for their candidate of choice but they run in nonpartisan races. The Cuban Communist Party is the final check on governmental power as far as I can understand. Now the policy of the two nations are definitely polar opposites but am I wrong in thinking that their system of government is similar in that ultimately the ruling power has the ability to override the will of the people?

Self-perpetuating oligarchy is still self-perpetuating oligarchy, regardless of whether it's controlled by "party cadres" and called a "people's republic" or "nationalist republic," or controlled by mullah and ayatollahs and called an "Islamic republic, " or controlled by Good Ol' Boys, fundynutjobs and oil barons and called a "democratic republic."
It doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on that pig....it still stinks if you've got to kiss it.

My feeling on Cuba is that they have achieved some great things, however, if the people truly love socialized medicine I am sure in a multi-party democracy they would back the party that supports it. If the people truly want socialism why do they need to be ruled by a single party?

Therefore, the only people who should rule are those who come from the party.

The problem with the notion is that one-party rule regardless of situation always leads to tyranny. There has been no internal mechanism invented in a one-party system to prevent the party from becoming a totalitarian regime. The question is "who should rule"?

This is why anarcho-socialists split off and became known as Anarchists. They don't believe the state is the avenue to take. They believe popular organization of the masses and education are the best tools to utilize to transition people over to socialism. The second effect of this is that people who transition over do so voluntarily as opposed to "involuntary collectivism" under Stalinist regimes.

Everybody else adopts more pragmatic approaches that blends some elements of the former with the latter. Anarchism and Communism have been at odds since the days when Karl Marx struggled with Mikhail Bakunin over how to achieve socialism.

In Islamic theocracies, it doesn't seem that hard for a Muslim male to get his hands on military-style firepower.

I've been a cuba watcher since I was in Gitmo with my ship in 1960. The people were friendly to the sailer's and marines at that time. It will only have a chance to change when Castro dies. It's a shame what they did to Gitmo, it was a great place back then.

In my view, a nation doesn't qualify as a democracy, that suppresses freedom of expression and speech. Iran bans "blasphemy," and imprisons those who argue against its theocracy. Cuba not only jails dissidents, but also bans access to the internet. It is precisely these kinds of controls that limit the ability to attract people to dissenting parties and viewpoints.

in that Cuba is a dictatorship and Iran is a religious oligarchy. It's government by despot versus government by committee of despots.

Neither place can be called particularly democratic, although the people are consulted on window dressing issues. The will of the people is not binding upon the Mullahs, dictator, Party. However, since they're not consulted on the important issues, the power structure generally respects their choice.

Totalitarian systems are dismally the same in many regards, most notably the restrictions on expression, assembly, and the behavior of women. In some ways, Iran is actually more free than Cuba is, especially in the area of film. However, the basic government structure and the philosophy behind totalitarian systems can be wildly different.

The outcome for the average person is generally the same.

Though you state you support some of the polices of the Cuban government, there is no real policy enacted in Cuba with Fidels approval, so in effect there is no "government" in the sense they have a choice about policy.

I also find it amazing when I ask people what is so great about Cuba, they always say the "100% literacy rate"

So what? Big freaking deal. So it's O.K. for people to live under a dictatorship because they all can read???

Not only 100% literacy, but also no-one starving if hunger, decease or lack of shelter.

So it's ok for people to live in a free market economy while many in that system die of hunger, decease, or lack of shelter?

Besides, Cuba is not a dictatorship.

The way your comparison is formulated makes me think you have an underlying point. I'm just not sure what it is.

On the surface you appear to be pondering the ultimate wrongness of single party rule spoiling the good works wrought by the people at the ballot box with a possible veto. But your question isn't "is this acceptable" or "is this enough like a perfect democracy to merit the name" or something like that. Instead it's kind of pro-forma.

You cannot be wrong in thinking they're similar because of the ruling party's power to "override the will of the people" since, as you say, the Iranian ruling party has "final say" and can "override a law" and in Cuba, the ruling party has its "final check".

Out of all the one-party states in this world, why do you compare two countries that have each endured decades as the US government's officially designated Objects of Scorn? You say they are polar opposites (and then find something positive in Cuba only ...hmmm) but they seem very similar to me.

Cuba and Iran are both famous props for American politicians showing off how deeply offended they are by these vile "dictatorships" whose vileness is proven by how isolated they are. Both are perennially predicted to be on the verge of being overthrown by their oppressed populations yearning for the consumer goods their hated rulers can't provide because they're so terrible at doing anything right.

Of course, few countries have been targets of such long-lasting, unyielding embargoes, so many covert operations, and such persistent refusal to establish diplomatic ties as Cuba and Iran.

Yet, despite the desire of the US government to bring down the governments of Cuba and Iran, the US has refrained from attacking both -- after half-assed military actions ended in abject failure early on in the history of each of these Most Hated Nations.

That history started -- and here is the most important similarity -- when the oppressed and impoverished people rose up and ousted the exceedingly corrupt and brutal regimes that had mistreated each of their nations for the benefit of the United States, which had installed and propped up these regimes in the first place.

In both cases, too, the continued existence of successful revolutions that had cost so the US's ruling class so much of their precious money was perceived as intolerable -- so intolerable they were quickly billed as Mortal Threats.

I wonder, too, how your examples of sub-standard government differ from what we have. Don't we also have a ruling party that fosters the illusion of choice and self-rule but maintains a system that makes it all but impossible to alter the status quo? And hasn't it become ever more obvious what sort of "final check" is wielded by a shockingly small group of people? They don't even have the decency to operate behind the scenes anymore!

I am deeply ashamed of the fact that we are now ruled by an unelected tyrant who blatantly demonstrates his contempt for his "subjects." Already he has plunged us into *his* unending religious war and destroyed much of our government while looting our wealth for the benefit of his family and friends: ruling class -- the same people, it turns out, who oppressed the people of Cuba and Iran at one time.

So I'm not sure I want to cluck my tongue at the imperfect governments in Iran and Cuba, which I'm afraid is one interpretation of your question.

because they are the most well known and cotroversial right now. I agree we also have a 2 party oligarchy, however I think we have slightly more freedom then these nations. The reason I brought it up is because I constantly see people on DU praising Cuba for being Democratic, yet I see no reason why we should call them that. No more reason thatn to call Iran democratic. I don't want to see the US attack either nation, my point is just that the people get the window dressing of voting but their opinion really holds no water in either nation.

There's no arguing around Stalinist-style socialism. It's not democratic socialism no matter how good the public education or health care system is in that country. A democratic socialist is more likely to be found in Bolivia or Venezuela or Spain than Cuba.

And...... your post is so well formulated.......wow. With only 5 posts I must assume you have been posting these elsewhere.

Do you tutor? Do you get paid?

Socialists can be just as corrupted by power as religious "leaders" or corporate oligarchies with a one capitalist/nationalist party that runs this country under a shallow veneer of "democracy".

at the core of the problem is concentration of power.
An elected president heading a small group of (non-elected) decision makers also is quite a lot of concentration of power. In that respect there's actually less concentration of power in Cuba.

Which is why I can't figure out why individual freedom gets such a bad rap, no matter where you go. I guess being a control freak is hard-wired into the neurocircuitry of the human primate.

"no matter where you go" as in -everywhere-?

Ever been to West Europe?

And on all "sides" of the political spectrum.

I'm just grumblin', man.

That's quite a significant difference.

Btw Castro's position as president is - in spite of what the title of "president" suggests - purely ceremonial, a non-electable position with very little power, sortof like the position of the 'Queen of England'.

and, as you mention upthread, literacy.

I think the embargo should have been ended a long time ago.

However, I wouldn't argue that the people there are politically free to elect (or criticize) their leaders. It's not a Democracy.

Not for the position of president because in Cuba that's a ceremonial title.
But they do have a national council of sorts that serves as a parliament/congress, and its members are elected.

Then again the US has elections to, and it can be argued it is not a democracy.

And I don't think their election system can be compared to ours- if ours didn't at least contain the potential of offering people a choice, the GOP wouldn't need to go to all the trouble they do to steal elections, now, would they?

But I'm really not interested in having a debate on Cuba. We had those threads about 3-4 months ago, I think- and all this got fairly well covered then.

no place is paradise. Cubans can choose between candidates - there is at least the potential for them to choose between more than just two positions.
If you don't want to debate this further, fine with me.