How each model solves the same problems
Instead of “democracy versus anarchism”, compare the concrete ways collective problems get solved.
| Question | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How are decisions made? | An unelected Leader with appointment powers over courts, media and half the Guardian Council; an elected president and parliament whose candidates are vetted; the Expediency Council arbitrates. | A stratified random sample of 523 voters deliberated in moderated groups and plenaries and answered questionnaires before and after; no decisions were taken.Sortition / citizens' assembly | Collective leadership in the Politburo Standing Committee; party control of personnel through the Organization Department; local governments ran economies and piloted policies under central veto.Term limits and rotation of office | |
| How are conflicts resolved? | The Leader's arbitration among factions; the Expediency Council between parliament and the Guardian Council; revolutionary courts for political cases. | Balanced briefing materials, trained neutral moderators and competing experts structured disagreement. | Party discipline commissions, courts under party leadership, petition offices; mass protest met with repression, most lethally in June 1989. | |
| How are public goods funded? | Oil-funded subsidies, health, education and social insurance; foundations (bonyads) and IRGC firms provide services and patronage; sanctions constrain provision. | Privately funded; produced published results, media coverage and a peer-reviewed study. | Fiscal decentralisation with local land revenues; infrastructure and education expanded rapidly; health and pension coverage rebuilt in the 2000s. | |
| How is AI used? | No algorithmic governance documented; authorities use surveillance cameras and digital tools to enforce hijab rules and track protesters, and impose internet shutdowns. | No AI role. | None at system level; digital government grew late in the period. | |
| What are the main risks? | War and external strikes, a contested succession, economic crisis under sanctions, shrinking electoral participation, and lethal repression of protest. | Self-selection into attendance; artificial setting; analysis by the method's designers; no institutional uptake. | Corruption, local debt and land seizures driven by growth targets, environmental damage, factionalism, and rules on succession without independent enforcement.CLM-1089CLM-1091 |
This illustrates differences in design; it is not a universal claim about outcomes. Each cell links to mechanisms and the claims behind them.