Balkinization: George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad: Who is the more dictatorial?

George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad: Who is the more dictatorial?

Sandy Levinson

Much of the current "debate" regarding Iran is being driven by the demonization of that country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad. He may well be an nusually unattractive persion who fully deserved the verbal assault delivered on him by Columbia President Lee Bollinger. But consider the fact that he is fact far less powerful in his country than, say, George W. Bush is in ours. In a February interview with George Stephanopolous, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice spoke as follows concerning the possibility of a reversal of policy by Iran regarding nuclear weapons:

They [i.e., Iranian leadership] need to stop and then we can come to the table and we can talk about how to move forward. But of course, if you just read the press and you see the criticism of President Ahmadi-Nejad by people inside Iran, knowledgeable and authoritative people in Iran, that the policies are isolating Iran.

Ahmadi-Nejad said that the last Security Council resolution was just a scrap of paper. Well, it turns out that other people in the Iranian leadership don't think so. They think a Chapter 7, 15-0 resolution against Iran isolates Iran from the rest of the international community. People in Iran are concerned about the fact that financial institutions are moving out of Iran and refusing to deal with Iran. They're concerned that their oil and gas fields need investment that they're probably not going to be able to get at the high end, because people are not going to take the reputational and investment risk of dealing with a country that has gotten itself into a very bad club. The Chapter 7 group is a very small number of countries and it's not a club you want to belong to.

Secretary Rice fully recognizes that President Ahmadi-Nejad, whatever his many failings, is not a dictator. Indeed, this is set out quite clearly in a web site of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which I assume cannot be dismissed as a distorted source of information on this issue:

Iran is a theocratic Islamic republic governed under a 1979 constitution that was revised in 1989, when presidential powers were expanded and the prime minister's post was abolished. Appointed -- not elected -- offices and bodies hold the real power in the government. The supreme leader, who serves as a chief of state would, is appointed for life by an Islamic religious advisory board that is called the Assembly of Experts. The supreme leader oversees the military as well as the judiciary and appoints members of the Guardians Council and the Expediency Council.... The president, who is popularly elected for a four-year term, serves as the head of government....

The Supreme Leader

The supreme leader post was created in the Islamic Republic of Iran's Constitution to be the main political and religious authority in the country. While the supreme leader is the head of the Iranian political establishment, the Iranian president fulfills many of the classic head of state roles, such as accrediting ambassadors. As the title implies, the supreme leader's authority is, de facto and de jure, supreme.

The President

Since 1979, when the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the country has been a republic. However, the real head of Iran's political system is not the president but the supreme leader. Iran's president does, however, fulfill many of the standard functions of a head of state, such as accepting the credentials of ambassadors. Since the change in the constitution that eliminated the post of prime minister and gave most of the premier's duties to the president's, the once figurehead presidential post became a position of significant influence.

There are all sorts of things that can be said in criticism of the Iranian political structure. But, with regard to the demonized President Ahmadi-Nejad, it appears obvious that both in theory and in actuality, he is clearly accountable, whatever may be his "significant influence," to “authoritative people in Iran” who ultimately constitute the genuine “Iranian leadership.” Whether or not the Supreme Islamic Council can actually fire him is beyond my knowledge, but the main point is that the key decisions are not in his hands. There is no reason to believe that he is the “decider” with regard to weapons policy in Iran or involvement in Iraq.

Contrast this to our own situation in the United States, where we have a fundamentally unaccountable Commander-in-Chief who, backed up by his equally unaccountable Vice President, threatens to unleash war on Iran without, so far as one can tell, authorization from Congress or, for that matter, serious consultation with Congress. Obviously, I am bitterly critical of George W. Bush, under whose administration we must suffer for another 451 days. But, frankly, I'm not all that thrilled by the realization that Bush's successor, even if far more acceptable to me, will be able equally to make unilateral decisions of peace and war, life and death. Perhaps there was a lot to be said for our going to war against Serbia, but is there much to be said for President Clinton's be able to do so without congressional authorization. One might, of course, believe that the 1787 Constitution was not meant to allow such de facto unapproved "declarations of war," but this "textual" argument has, for most sophisticates, has been dumped into the "dustbin of history." American presidents just do have war-making powers, and anyone we elect must be perceived as a potential unilateral warrior. Is this something to be proud of?

Posted 4:48 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

"unusually unattractive person who fully deserved the verbal assault delivered on him by Columbia President Lee Bollinger."
quote Sandy Levinson

Is this what this country has sunk to? You invite a President of a country to attend a Q and A at your University and you call him names, and insult him in Bollinger's so called introduction.

Has he no civility or was it more important that Bollinger saved his donations from the community for his new expansion plans?

He and his performance was a disgrace. I invited you to my "home" I do not insult and degade you.

Do you believe as a visiter to Iran would be treated that way?

Maybe that's the reason this country is were it is when these people in power act with this degree of insulting behavior and a teacher to beat. Great role model.

hal lewis

# posted by

Unknown : 5:45 PM

Hal,

Yes, I agree we should follow the Iranian model of treatment. We should have just arrested Ahmadinejad for "engaging in subversive activities."

Do us all a favor and visit Iran, perhaps they will provide you with free (and permanent)accommodations?

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 9:22 PM

Professor Levinson,

This post is grossly unfair and patently silly.

Your analysis is correct insofar as you look at the power wielded by Bush/Cheney as compared to Ahmadinejad. But that doesn't get us anywhere.

So Bush/Cheney are relatively unchecked in their war powers in your view. It is misleading and artificial to stop the Iranian analysis at Ahmadinejad. Of course Ahmadinejad is somewhat accountable. But, accountable to who? And how accountable is that person/group?

To say Ahmadinejad is less dictatorial than Bush/Cheney is a pointless and silly argument if considered in any sort of intellectually honest context.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 9:29 PM

I second the comment of humblelawstudent. First of all, if the object of your post is to criticize the American political system, I fail to see the point of your comparison to the Iranian system. Is there something about the Iranian system that you think is preferable? If so, what is it?

Second,I don't think that you have any real idea of how much power Ahmadinejad has or doesn't have in Iran. Maybe he is "clearly accountable" to others in Iran today, but this could change. After all, one could say that Stalin was "clearly accountable" to the Politburo in 1928, but it didn't stay that way. These things are hard to figure out in authoritarian regimes.

Third, equating the claim of unilateral warmaking authority with being "dictatorial" seems off the mark. I agree that Clinton's decision to attack Serbia without congressional authorization was disturbing and constitutionally problematic, but I wouldn't describe it as an assertion of dictatorial powers. And while Bush undoubtedly believes that he too has the right to start wars without congressional authorization, you may have noticed that he hasn't actually done so yet. With respect to those wars he has started with congressional authorization, he has acknowledged Congress's power to end them through the power of the purse.

The other branches have plenty of authority to check executive power. Bush's social security and immigration proposals were rejected by the Congress. The courts have rejected or limited many of his assertions of executive power. There are many other steps that Congress could take to limit Bush's power, but the congressional leadership has decided that it is not in its political interest to do so (or in some cases has lacked the needed supermajority). This may be frustrating, but it hardly amounts to giving Bush dicatorial powers.

I suspect that what really bothers you is that Bush himself seems unaware of, or at least unaffected by, the devastating political defeats he has suffered. Maybe this is because he is utterly clueless, maybe it is a clever act, but it does give him a greater ability to shape events than one would think he should have with a 25% approval rating. But it hardly makes him a dictator.

# posted by

mls : 11:05 PM

Except, of course, as you point out, Ahmadinejad, while possessing the title of president and some of the aspects of a traditional head of state is not, in fact, the most powerful figure in the Iranian government. Iran has some really interesting, robust democratic institutions, and then a parallel theocratic structure that overrides it. A more fair equivalence would be between the American President and the Iranian Supreme Leader.

# posted by

ADamiani : 6:17 AM

Sandy:

Your Bush loathing is making you post things you cannot possibly mean.

Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. The fact that Ahmadi-Nejad is the chosen mouthpiece for the dictatorship does not make Iran less than a dictatorship.

Your country is the antithesis of a dictatorship. Far from being unaccountable, our President undergoes election more often that your "democratic" Senate and is checked by both of the other branches. Outside of widely supported national security measures, Mr. Bush has not obtained anything of note in Congress since the 2003 tax rate reductions. Meanwhile, the judiciary has reversed a number of his initiatives and Mr. Bush has bowed to each final ruling.

Some dictatorship. More like the epitome of democratic gridlock.

Finally, there is absolutely no indication we are going to war with Iran. Rather than building up troops on Iran's borders, we are withdrawing troops from Iraq again and our troops in Afghanistan are on the Pakistani border.

In stark contrast, the buildup for the Iraq War lasted a year.

Paranoia will destroya.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:25 AM

Bart,

"Finally, there is absolutely no indication we are going to war with Iran."

How do you explain the $88 million Bush wants us to spend on the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, or MOP.

That is a lot of money to borrow from Japan and China for nothing.

# posted by

Russell : 10:15 AM

I have to assume that the posts above are willfully obtuse. Let's review the context here.

There has been a great deal of discussion about possible war with Iran. Some of that comes from those favoring it: neo-cons who supported the war in Iraq have bluntly called for military action in Iran. Members of the Administration have used what appear to be code words signalling that they favor such an attack. The Administration has, for the first time ever, declared official state agencies of Iran to be terrorist organizations. Congress has passed a resolution which has been criticized as implicitly setting the stage for war with Iran.

Now let's talk about why there is such chatter. The reasons are incoherent, as Anonymous Liberal has pointed out here, but one of them is the character of Iran's President. The claim is that (a) he's mentally unstable or says insane things, or something similar; and (b) that we therefore cannot allow "him" to obtain control over Iran's nuclear weapons (which it doesn't have).

Given this context, it seems hardly irrelevant to compare the relative ability of the Iranian and American Presidents to take their respective countries to war. Most Americans probably lack any real knowledge of the authority of an Iranian President; they may well assume that it's equal to or greater than ours. The fact that it's less is, in the context of the above "debate", an important fact and one well worth publicizing.

Two of the criticisms above are particularly mis-directed. First, the post does NOT equate the ability to take a country to war with "dictatorial powers". What it does do is compare Ahmadinejad's overall power to that of a dictator and correctly report that he is not one. Second, the post nowhere refers to Bush as a dictator. The "rebuttal" of that non-argument is simply straw.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:58 AM

I have no particular to desire to defend Lee Bollinger's decision to make the introduction that he did. I thought that the use of the word "may" was suitably fudgey. In any event, it's certainly not the issue I wished to raise.

I also have no desire to defend the current Iranian regime, which is awful in lots of respects. My point is simply that the regime can in no serious way be reduced to decisions made by the egregious President of that country. (Perhaps they can be reduced to decisions made by other egregious people, of course). In contrast, to a remarkable degree, foreign policy and military decisions in the US can be reduced to the decisions made by our own President.

I'd note, incidentally, that we are not above romanticizing the degree of presidential fiat in our system. Thus the famous story about Lincoln putting some issue to a vote in his Cabinet and announcing (something like), "the vote is X against and the President for. The President wins." We'd better have a president with the character and wisdom of Lincoln if we have such a system.

Would people feel more comfortable if we replaced "dictatorial" with "autonomous and free from ordinary political accountability"?

I'm not sure why the comparison between Bush and Ahmadinejad is "pointless and silly." He is being presented as the latest Hitlerian figure who must be stopped. But if, as a matter of fact, he has relatively little power (far less than that of the US president), then one might ask if the hysteria being generated by the US (and accommodated by Bollinger) justifies the kind of threats being tosssed around by Bush, Cheney, and the new neo-conservative favorite, Giuliani. Is Iran really a more dangerous nation than, say, Pakistan?

I don't deny that Congress has all sorts of ability to check the executive in the domestic realm. My concerns are exclusively foreign and military policy, where the practical ability of Congress is at its minimum.

Bart may be correct! I.e., it's true that I loathe Bush and, more to the point, fear what he may decide to do without congressional authorization. We are very far from being a theocratic dictatorship, but I genuinely do wonder how much it is true that Bush views himself as an agent of God who is therefore licensed to do whatever he wishes, with regard to Iraq and Iran, secure in his belief that he is on a holy mission. Is one "paranoiac" in having such fears? (I would be much relieved if I thought that the answer were an unequivocal yes.)

In any event, I am grateful to all of you for your responses.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 11:58 AM

Though I'm with Sandy Levinson in spirit, I have to disagree about Congress. Neither Congressional Dems or the center and left in America have figured out that power is muscle, and muscle atrophies if you don't use it. What with low vote turnout(s) and with Congress allowing its power to be disabled by cliches like "support our boys overseas" and "real patriots," we probably have the White House we deserve. We continue to buy the media which feeds executive power. Easily distracted, we haven't focused on the key issue in front of us. Not Iraq, not Iran, not abortion or gay marriage, but the power grab by an administration that's been planning this for decades and which hasn't been backstopped by Congress, no matter the current majority. We've got more Supremes now on the other side, making things more difficult. And, as Glenn Greenwald points out today, we have a huge and increasingly politicized military establishment. Time for us to use our muscle or lose it.

# posted by

prairiew : 2:18 PM

Couldn't somebody do more then use radio free europe for information? The post is as silly and uninformed as the comments. I'm embarrassed for all of you.
And by the way the Assembly of Experts can remove the supreme leader at any time, but it has never happened.

# posted by

D. Ghirlandaio : 7:07 PM

And by the way the Assembly of Experts can remove the supreme leader at any time, but it has never happened.

Never?? Not in the whole 28 years of the Iranian republic? Wow.

# posted by

Mark Field : 8:50 PM

And of course, the Congress has the right to remove the President by impeachment, but never has.

Not in 220 years.

I guess that more than one Supreme Leader feels safe that his removal is off the table.

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 12:22 AM

MLS:

And while Bush undoubtedly believes that he too has the right to start wars without congressional authorization, you may have noticed that he hasn't actually done so yet.

It's certainly arguable whether he did so WRT Iraq. The AUMF there was arguably limited and conditional:

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Iraq resolution.

With respect to those wars he has started with congressional authorization, he has acknowledged Congress's power to end them through the power of the purse.

As long as he's had enough Republicans in Congress to keep that from actually happening. Should they actually shut off funding (and I win the Megabucks lottery; oh happy day!), you might see a different argument. But undecided is whether Congress has the power to stop a war by other means. I say yes ... but it's not looking like any resolution of this question is imminent. I think the notion that Congress may only provide funds or withdraw them (for any purpose, not just wars) to be simplistic, and not at all in accord with over two centuries of establushed law. Congress, while it unarguably has the power of the purse, indisputably has far more powers than just the purse (see, e.g., all of Title 18 of the U.S. Code).

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 4:57 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

Iran is a theocratic dictatorship.

You misspelled "republic". Which is more than it was when the Shah was (our) dictator.

... The fact that Ahmadi-Nejad is the chosen mouthpiece for the dictatorship does not make Iran less than a dictatorship.

Ahmadi-Nejad was elected. He ran against a more centrist candidate. Dubya was pushing for the other candidate. Thanks, but that may well have helped Ahmadi-Nejad win the elections.

Some might say that Dubya was "chosen" by his buddies in 2000, FWIW....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:02 PM

Arne- you seriously want to argue about whether the AUMF (that stands for Authorization to Use Military Force) authorized the use of military force? The resolution provides

"AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

Now it is "arguable" that when Congress gave the President this authority it expected/hoped that he would make more serious efforts to avoid war than he actually did (though, truth be told, the Administration gave Congress little reason to have such an expectation). But to say that it didn't authorize him to use military force seems just silly.

As for what Bush may do or say in the future about Congress's authority to end the war, I dont know. I am just pointing out what he has said so far.

# posted by

mls : 8:54 PM

MLS:

[quoting the Iraq AUMF (which I also quoted)]:

"AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

Now it is "arguable" that when Congress gave the President this authority it expected/hoped that he would make more serious efforts to avoid war than he actually did (though, truth be told, the Administration gave Congress little reason to have such an expectation). But to say that it didn't authorize him to use military force seems just silly.

Glad you say it's "arguable". Because that's what I said. But the resolution doesn't authorise the Deciderator-in-Chief to attack Iraq. It authorises him to "defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq". But that's hardly a declaration of "war", which is what you'd originally claimed. Whether Congress can delegate even that decision "as [the preznit] determines to be necessary and appropriate" is not even clear; the plenary power to declare war is a non-delegable one.

You said: "Now it is "arguable" that when Congress gave the President this authority it expected/hoped that he would make more serious efforts to avoid war than he actually did (though, truth be told, the Administration gave Congress little reason to have such an expectation)." But many people expected that Dubya would work with the U.N. (and the vote was in part supposed to give Dubya some backing in going to the U.N.; that was one of the reasons that Dubya was asking for it), and it was thought, reasonably by many, that Dubya would seek U.N. approval for any subsequent action based on U.N. resolutions. Dubya lied about even that; he said he was going to go get a vote just to get people on record (and assuming that only the cheese-eating surrender monkeys or maybe the pinko commies or both would veto any further action and he could pretend he was just doing the U.N.'s work despite the obstruction of these Terra-ist-loving countries). But when it because apparent that even with arm-twisting, no one wanted his war (the head-count was 5-8 against), he said a big Eff Yoo to the U.N., rescinded his pledge to seek a vote that would have embarrassed him and shown him ofr the trigger-happy chickenhawk he is, and went in anyway. I don't think it an absurd argument at all that this is not what many in Congress intended, and in fact it was contrary to what many in Congress expressed even at the time.

I don't think you can fairly say that Congress, in its deliberations, actually voted for war with Iraq. And if they didn't, then they didn't authorise war.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:05 AM

Arne- you are confusing two issues. The first is whether the AUMF authorized Bush to use military force. Some people wanted the resolution to have conditions that had to be met before Bush could use military force. But the Administration demanded an unconditional authorization, and that is what the AUMF gave it. Now you could say there is a condition that Bush make the "necessary and appropriate" determination, but that condition is entirely within Bush's control and thus meaningless as an external limitation on his actions. And in any event he made the required determination, so the condition, if you want to call it that, was met.

BTW, if you don't think that the language that you and I quoted constitutes an unconditional authorization, what would it take in your mind to constitute such an authorization? Something like "the President is authorized to use military force against Iraq whenever he feels like it"?

The second issue is whether in giving the President this authorization, the Congress, or many members of the Congress, hoped or expected that he would use it more judiciously than he did. That is the issue I referred to as "arguable." (And, incidentally, I never said that Congress had "declared" war).

So while many people hoped or expected that Bush would seek another UN resolution, the AUMF does not require him to obtain or even ask for such a resolution as a condition of the authorization. It easily could have done so. In fact, I am fairly certain that this was one of the proposals that was not adopted at the time the AUMF was passed.

If the AUMF could plausibly be interpreted as not giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq, don't you think that there would have been a lot of congressional opponents of the war saying so at the time? Do you have evidence of such statements?

This is what Nancy Pelosi said on March 7, 2003 to the Council on Foreign Relations:

"In the House of Representatives 60 percent of the Democrats voted against the resolution to give the president any and all authority to proceed without a UN resolution to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. So the Democrats there have been on record. Senator Daschle and I spoke out again yesterday I think it’s reported in the press…here today…and certainly in Washington that the president had not made his case. But the Democrats are not a monolith on this issue as you know. Sixty percent in the House…which was a big vote because people didn’t ever think we would get that big a vote against going into Iraq. In the Senate this was a different outcome. But I think even people who voted for or against going…giving the president that authority…wanted the president to go to the UN and to get a resolution. We hear from our own members that they would like to see more visible demonstration of opposition to the war from the Democrats. But that again is…the war…we had the vote…I don’t know…I didn’t see the president’s remarks as I was traveling…this…the vote…the war will happen. Now if the Democrats had spoken out…and I’ll say this…if the Democrats had spoken out more clearly in a unified vote five months ago in opposition to the resolution…if the people had gone onto the street five months ago in these numbers…in our country and throughout the world…I think we might have been in a different place today.

But the fact that we didn’t…and because we were very split at that time on it…I think that the president is too far down the road and I don’t think he’s turning back. And that’s why I spoke in my remarks to the rebuilding of Iraq as a reality that we’re going to have to face. I don’t see any way that the president…although he said he has not made a decision…I don’t see any way that the president changes the course of action that we are on unless Saddam Hussein abdicates or is somehow or other removed from power.

Absent that, I think it’s a matter of two weeks. It’s a terrible tragedy. For those of us who oppose the war to have not been able to stop it is a disappointment to ourselves. But the fact is…is at that time when it would have made a difference the Democrats were very split on the resolution. All of our candidates for president…except for…well, of those who had a vote…supported going in. Senator Graham did not…he’s the ranking Democrat…well, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He voted no. But our voices were not strong enough at the outcome of that vote. And I think that again…a shame that all of this didn’t happen five months ago. Again, I can’t really tell you that we would not go to war at this time if that had happened. But I think we would have had a better chance of not having had this build-up in the Persian Gulf that there’s no way the president’s going to turn away from."

Now if Pelosi thought that the President lacked the authority to go to war, don't you think that she would have said so? So while she makes your point, ie, that many members of Congress, even some who voted for the authorization, wanted Bush to get a UN resolution, she also clearly recognizes that Bush nonetheless has the congressional authorization that he needs to launch the war.

# posted by

mls : 10:41 PM

Percy wouldn't notice a joke if it danced naked in front of him wearing one of Dobby's hats.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

# posted by

Unknown : 5:31 PM