WORLD NEWS: "Iran Arrests Reformers as Huge Protests Continue: Tehran Accuses U.S. of Seeding Dissent While Opposition Plans New Rallies; Probe Ordered Into Violent Attack on Students," by Farnaz Fassihi, Wall Street Journal, 18 June 2009.

Article is basically on the factional fighting implied by arrests of reformers (to include the more recent event of Rafsanjani's daughter being picked up), but the graphic is worthwhile.

Breakdown by text:

Appointed Supreme Leaders: appoints Head of Judiciary; appoints half of Guardian Council.

Assembly of Experts: appoints and monitors Supreme Leader.

Guardian Council: vets candidates for Assembly of Experts; vets candidates of Parliament and vetos its "bad" laws; vets candidates for President.

Head of Judiciary: nominates half of Guardian Council (apparently the other half?).

Parliament: Vets candidates nominated by Judiciary to Guardian Council.

Voters: elect President; elect Parliament; elect Assembly of Experts.

So direct elections of everybody who counts least, and those most important appointed leaders get to select each other--basically--while eliminating "bad" candidates for president and parliament.

It really is Byzantine. The Guardian Council shapes the Assembly of Experts, which picks the Supreme Leader, who picks the Head of Judiciary, and the two of them each pick half the Guardian Council, which shapes the presidency and parliament.

Our original system here in the States displayed a lot of mistrust of the mob, with only the House being a direct vote (Senate was appointed until early 20th century, and State governments picked presidential electors in majority of states until 1824). So the appointed Senate watched over the rowdy House and the largely appointed President watched over the Senate, with the appointed Supreme Court watching over it all. The "will of the people," such as it was, was somewhat buried under all that superstructure. Now, we really do elect the president and the Senate and it's only the Supreme Court that's appointed.

But with Iran, it's clear that, three decades after the revolution, there's little trust between the government and the public. The whole system seems set up to blunt popular will, despite all the lovely trappings.

Of course, you can say--as many do--the our two-party system "vets" and vetos plenty of non-mainstream candidates. It's just that our definition of mainstream is awfully damn wide, while Iran's is awfully damn tight.

Big point being: when our public really gets mad, that anger is processed electorally. But in Iran, it is--especially with this election--essentially thwarted.