Ayatollah Khomeini and Gamal Abdul-Nasser Comparison

Ayatollah Khomeini and Gamal Abdul-Nasser equivalenceIntroductionAyatollah Khomeini and Gamal Abdul-Nasser charter both compete an strategic usance in the historical activities of the 20th century in the warmness East. This is beca using up their attractorship was mutationary, and they vie a character reference in changing the various governments that existed in Egypt, and Iran. It is important to under association that the regimes in Iran and Egypt were monarchies, at the clock time, and the two leaders led their chase in overthrowing these regimes. The revolutions in Iran and Egypt occurred under different contexts, or social cover chargegrounds. For example, the revolution in Iran occurred when the unpolished was enjoying economical and political prosperity. However, this assertion is contested. This is because at the time of the revolution, Iran was experiencing un-employment rate of approximately 30%1. Unemployment is adept of the indicators of poor development and economic growth. Based on this fact, the assertion that Iran was politic all toldy and economically st suit competent is false, and does non hold whatever(prenominal) ground.On the early(a) hand, the revolution in Egypt occurred when the country was experiencing a series of poor political and economic governance. Despite the differences in these revolutions, and the two leaders, Gamal Abdul Nasser and Ayatollah Khomeini sh atomic number 18d a lot of similarities as well as differences in their leadership structure and system2. One major proportion is that the two leaders were attractive, and they sought to eliminate every form of opposition to their leadership. For instance, Nasser enjoin a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that was opposing his leadership, small-arm Ayatollah Khomeini sought to kill any(prenominal)(prenominal) political supporters of the Shah. This paper takes a stand that both Ayatollah Khomeini and Gamal Abdul-Nasser were charismatic lead ers, who influenced their societies and people, despite their dictatorial systems of governance.Differences and Similarities between Abdel Nasser and Ayatollah KhomeiniGamal Abdul Nasser was the second Egyptian president, and he began his presidency in the year 1956, to the time he died, which was in 1970. He played an instrumental role in the overthrow of the Egyptian monarch in the year 1952, and as a result, he was rewarded with a post, as a deputy prime minister3. This is an indication that Gamal Abdul Nasser was an important leader to the revolutionaries, and he was held in high esteem. Furthermore, the power and authority that Gamal Abdul Nasser had is depicted when he managed to arrest chairman Muhammad Naguib, and place him under suffer arrest. This is an authority that a deputy prime minister can non possess, and this is because the chairman is the head of the state and government. prexy Muhammad Naguib was a president by name, but he did non have real authority4.In t he year 1956, a public referendum was able to confess him the presidency, and the adoption of the Egyptian constitution. Ayatollah Khomeini on the other hand, does not have any military background, but he was a religious scholar. He employ godliness to control his people, and consolidate power, after the revolution. One of the leadership elans of Abdul Nasser and Ayatollah Khomeini was authoritarianism5. chairwoman Nasser wanted complete loyalty from his subjects, and he did not condone any form of opposition. This is depicted in the manner in which he handled hot seat Naguib, and this is because they had different ideological beliefs. Nasser was able to depose chair Naguib, and he logical an onslaught on thousands of people who were opposed to him. Nasser was able to take proceeds of an attempted assassination on him, to crack down on any political opposition that he faced. This is depicted when he was able to sack up and arrest any supporter of chairperson Naguib, who wa s in the army or the civil service.This is despite these people playing no role in his attempted assassination, or even having no links with the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, President Naguib was placed under house arrest, and no trial was held to find out whether he had a role in this attempted assassination or not. This is an indication, that the government did not have any proof that the President played a role in the assassination of Gamal Nasser, however, it was a mechanism of ensuring that the opponents of Gamal were removed, so that he could transcend to power easily. The authoritarian nature of Nasser is further seen when he is trying to restrict the freedom of expression and information.Nasser was able to impose a series of controls on the media and press of the country. This is by issuing a revisal that any publication had to acquire the approval of the governing ships company, which was referred to as the case Union. The major aim of these censures was to prevent t he publication of any information that could compromise the character of Abdel Nasser and his leadership. This is a major characteristic of authoritarian regimes. Almost all authoritarian regimes normally prevent a free flow of information. This is as the case of Iran, under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini. On assumption of leadership, the Ayatollah Khomeini was able to perplex any information that the media was providing6. He did not tolerate any reflection or opposition to his rule. Furthermore, he used the media to create a genius cult that revolved around him.The media therefore played an instrumental role in raising the profiles of Ayatollah Khomeini and President Nasser. This is because they regulated information, for purposes of depicting precisely the formulations that were well-to-do to them. Regulation of the media is an important characteristic of states which are not democratic. In fact, Ayatollah Khomeini did not hide the fact that he hated democracy. Khomein i referred to democracy as corruption, and an aspect that can destroy a country. Therefore, Ayatollah Khomeini denoted that anybody who was seeking to promote democracy would be oppressed and hanged7. This is an indication that democracy was not a favorable style of governance for Khomeini. Furthermore, he used religion to justify his style of governance. Khomeini argues that religion does not support any form of democracy, and therefore god has commanded for its abolition, and subjection of anybody supporting or practicing democracy. Religion plays an important role in shape the beliefs and values of people.Khomeini realized this notion, and he therefore used religion to profit and protect his leadership. By citing the Quran, and using religious contexts such(prenominal) as the fatwa, Ayatollah Khomeini was able to consolidate his leadership. Fatwa was a religious term that indicated a death reprove to anybody who did not follow the provisions of Islam. Ayatollah Khomeini as w ell did not accept any opposition, and he executed all his opponents, and the supporters of the Shah. Executions were the order of the day, during his leadership. By the time Khomeini was dying, he had executed approximately 30,000 people. Furthermore, Khomeini was able to oppress and ban political groups such as The Muslims Republican companionship, and the National Democratic Front. This is because these groups were advocating for democratic reforms, and good governance. These are policies that Khomeini did not want to pursue. Nasser on the other hand did not study in executions, or killing of his political opponents.All that he did was to extradite or imprison his political opponents. A good example is President Naguib, whom he imprisoned, after which, he forced him to exile. Furthermore, unlike Khomeini, Nasser did not use religion to promote undemocratic behaviors. This is because he played a role in drafting the 1956 Egyptian constitution which did not recognize a multi- fe llowship system of governance. This constitution recognized Egypt as single party state, with the party under consideration called the National Union. This party dominated Egyptian politics, and secret code was permitted to vie for any political office, outside this party8. This is a characteristic of a state that is not democratic. Countries such as China, and the Soviet Union only allowed political competition within a one party system. any(prenominal) competition outside the party was restricted, and not allowed. A one party system is normally used to advance the interests and aspirations of the people controlling the party.This is the occasion Abdel Nasser was able to influence the constitution so that it could create a one party system of governance. Furthermore, he was in control of the party, and hence he was assured of its leadership, if the constitution was passed through a popular initiative. Furthermore, in 1965, Abdel Nasser was able to use the courts in barring his p olitical competitors from running for office. Through this action, President Nasser did not have any political competitors, and it ensured that he easily assailed to office. Ayatollah Khomeini also played a role in influencing the legal system of Iran. fritter for example in the 1998 execution of political prisoners in Iran9. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a command to all judicial courts to judge every political prisoner, and execute anybody who did not repent on their anti-regime activities.It is important to understand that despite the authoritarian and undemocratic leadership of these two leaders, they were highly influential and liked by their people. For example, after Abdel Nasser lost the six day war, and he resigned, he was forced back into office through a large and numerous protests. On the other hand, after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, his was well mourned, by millions and millions of people. This is mainly because their leadership was ultra in nature, and they breakd a series of changes and reforms in their countries. This includes constitutional changes and reforms.ConclusionIn conclusion, the leadership style of President Nasser and Ayatollah Khomeini are similar and different in many aspects. One similarity is that both of them were revolutionaries. President Nasser sought to introduce a new constitution in Egypt, which was secular in nature. On the other hand, Ayatollah Khomeini introduced a new constitution in Iran, which was religious in nature, and it identified a Supreme Leader, who was supposed to be an Ayatollah. Another similarity is that both leaders were undemocratic, and did not tolerate any opposition to their leadership. They did not allow freedom of expression, by closing or regulating any content that appeared on the media.In fact, Ayatollah Khomeini is accused of closing any media house that criticized his government. On the other hand, President Nasser used his National Union Party to regulate any content that appeared on th e media. The two were also charismatic leaders, and they were able to gain a lot of support from the citizens of their country. This is despite their heavy and undemocratic rule. The major difference in their rule is the use of the military. both of them were able to fare the support of the military in advancing their agenda. However, President Nasser had a military background, and he used his military background to get the support of the army. Ayatollah Khomeini on the other hand used religion to get the support of the military and the people.BibliographyBerlatsky, Noah. The Persian Revolution. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2012.Goodarzi, Jubin M. Syria and Iran Diplomatic bail and Power politics in the warmness East.New ed. London I.B. Tauris, 2009.McNamara, Robert. Britain, Nasser and the Balance of Power in the Middle East, 1952-1967from the Egyptian Revolution to the Six-Day War. London Frank Cass, 2003.Owen, Roger. State, Power, and Politics in the Making of the innovative Middle East. second ed.London Routledge, 2000.1 Jubin Goodarzi, Syria and Iran Diplomatic Alliance and Power Politics in the Middle East(New ed. London I.B. Tauris, 2009), 62.2 Noah Berlatsky, The Iranian Revolution, (Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2012), 313 Goodarzi, Syria and Iran Diplomatic Alliance and Power Politics in the Middle East, 724 Roger Owen, State, Power, and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East, 2nd ed.(London Routledge, 2000), 235 Berlatsky, The Iranian Revolution,446 Owen, State, Power, and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East, 277 Berlatsky, The Iranian Revolution,518 Robert McNamara, Britain, Nasser and the Balance of Power in the Middle East, 1952-1967from the Egyptian Revolution to the Six-Day War (London Frank Cass, 2003), 369 Berlatsky, The Iranian Revolution,39