Iran – Afghanistan: Sharia vs. Democracy |
Two neighboring systems, one totalitarian logic
Two theocratic models born of political Islam that have little regard for Western morality or human rights.
Many endlessly invoke morality and diplomacy — those familiar tools meant to address a world in turmoil. They speak of respect for international law, of the role of the United Nations, of crimes against humanity. Yet one question remains: why has nothing been done for decades to confront regimes that openly trample human rights and carry out mass repression?
How can some still defend a state that ignores individual freedoms, calls for the destruction of another state — Israel — massacres its own citizens by the tens of thousands, or forbids young girls from attending school?
One thing is certain: these two regimes share more than geography. They embody a common political structure — one that subordinates society to an absolute religious order, rejects pluralism, and concentrates power in the hands of a closed ruling elite.
Religion as a tool of power
In both Iran and Afghanistan, religion is not merely a cultural reference; it is the very foundation of political authority.
In Iran, power is held by a clerical hierarchy dominated by the Supreme Leader and enforced by institutions such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The law is shaped by a strict interpretation of Sharia, used as an instrument of control over society.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban impose a rigid application of Hanafi jurisprudence, where religious edicts override any notion of civil law. Women are excluded from education, public life is tightly controlled, and dissent is systematically suppressed.
In both cases, religion serves as a justification for absolute authority — not as a matter of faith, but as a mechanism of domination.
A rejection of democratic principles
Democracy rests on fundamental pillars: separation of powers, individual freedoms, political pluralism, and the rule of law.
These principles are absent in both regimes.
Elections, when they exist, are tightly controlled. Opposition is neutralized. Freedom of expression is restricted. Justice is subordinated to ideology.
The result is a system where legitimacy does not come from the people, but from a claimed divine authority.
Violence as a method of governance
Maintaining power comes at a cost — often paid in blood.
In Iran, repeated waves of protest have been met with brutal repression. Demonstrators are imprisoned, tortured, or executed. The state has shown its willingness to use lethal force to preserve its authority.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban rule through fear. Public punishments, arbitrary detentions, and systemic oppression are part of daily life.
Violence is not incidental; it is structural. It ensures the survival of the regime.
An oligarchic system of control
Both systems generate a closed ruling class that benefits directly from the concentration of power.
In Iran, economic sectors are controlled by networks linked to the Revolutionary Guards and religious foundations. Wealth and influence are concentrated in the hands of a small elite.
In Afghanistan, power is distributed among Taliban leadership circles, where loyalty and ideological conformity determine access to resources.
In both cases, governance serves the ruling structure — not the population.
Beyond borders: an expansionist vision
Particularly in Iran, the regime’s ambitions extend beyond its own territory.
Through proxy groups and regional influence, Tehran seeks to expand its strategic reach across the Middle East. This policy is not hidden; it is openly stated by its leaders.
The declared objective of eliminating Israel further illustrates the ideological and geopolitical dimension of this strategy.
A persistent global contradiction
For decades, these regimes have remained in place, despite repeated condemnations.
The international community invokes principles — human rights, international law — yet struggles to act decisively when confronted with such systems.
This contradiction raises a fundamental question: are these principles universal, or are they applied selectively according to political interests?
Iran and Afghanistan are not identical in structure or history. Yet they converge on a fundamental point: the establishment of political systems where religion is used to justify absolute power, where individual freedoms are denied, and where dissent is met with force.
They represent not only an alternative model of governance, but a direct challenge to the principles that underpin democratic societies.
Last but not least, how is it still possible that some in the Western hemisphere keep supporting such countries, which deny individual liberties, against the so-called international law?