Well, there have been plenty of 'kingdoms' throughout the ages, and in general, if the people didn't like the king they'd organise to get him killed off. Perhaps that's what drives some rulers to try and do the right thing? Of course, things have changed a bit these days. There's much better protection for leaders now we've all mostly moved out of grass huts.

DanaC, if you can cite two or more examples of that ever having occurred through anything other than a complete deceiving of the electorate I shall be very surprised.

I postulate that the Weimar German electorate was deceived in 1933.

Iran had a popular revolution and installed Theocracy.

Well yea, but they want to believe it is something else. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is barely a theocracy anymore.

From what I've heard they didn't really have much of a choice but to go to theocracy. There were two powers at the time, the Shah and the clerics. Most people didn't necessarily agree with the clerics but it was better than the Shah at the time.

I will give you that, they may have been a better choice than the Shah at the time. But don't be fooled into thinking that "most people" wanted the clerics to be in charge either, agree or not. The take over was a move by the more radical elements at the time and I don't believe that most people in Iran are happy with a Islamic regime. In fact I would go so far as to say (IMHO) that most would prefer a western style democracy. (And I am not advocating that any overt action be taken to assist such a move.)

I am basically on the same page as you. There is really no way to prove it but for as educated as Iran is and wants to be, resistance against the clerics may happen, especially if they keep making an ass out of themselves.

As Iran becomes more educated, I would expect them to start to head towards democracy whether or not they pick up western culture in the process.

I don't know about that. They are already quite educated in many areas. I just think that the power of the radical religious elements in the Middle East are to strong and weld a huge influence over the common man. People like to say the US is no different, I don't buy that.

Maybe. I've heard a lot of the people that support Ahmadinejad and the Islamic regime are the uneducated poor but I don't know the proportions and how much education has a play in that.

Merc, I agree, I think they've ended up with a raw deal. But then again, democratically elected leaders in the US and the UK can take power with way less than a majority supporting them.

True. But we {you and I} really do not want to have a majority anything telling us what we can and cannot do, eh?

It is believed Ahmadinejad is the choice of the clerics. Once American issues a threat - the axis of evil speech - any opposition to Ahmadinejad completely evaporated. The Iranian reform movement was strong and growing until 2001. Even the reform leaders such as Rafsanjani and Khatami backed away from reform and supported Ahmadinejad.

Meanwhile, don't assume Ahmadinejad is the power in Iran. Real power lies with the clerics - same as Cheney runs the George Jr administration. Ahmadinejad is only a front man. Any reform that would have removed power from the clerics and put power in the presidency completely died when Iran was threatened with unilateral invasion by another nation.

Well, inasmuch as the government can and does 'tell us what to do', I would rather that be based on a majority than a minority...