The mistake most political scientists often make in the process of studying a nation’s institutions is giving too much weight to what exists on paper, ignoring the actual distribution of power. Iran is often described as a combination democracy-theocracy. However, recent events have vindicated the reality that elections in Iran are incomparable to elections in developed democracies. For all its pseudo-democratic trappings, the Islamic Republic of Iran is essentially a cross between a theocracy and a populist oligarchy.

Although the appearance of pluralism and factionalism in these elections belies a direct comparison to rubber-stamp elections in, say, North Korea or Libya, a crude but more fitting parallel might be elections in Putin’s Russia: as democratic, or as dictated, as the man at the top wants them to be.

Iran’s aptly-titled Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the power to control all aspects of the presidential election, showed support for ostensive President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a Friday speech at University of Tehran.

His appeal to nonviolence is almost amusing: “Elections are the way to show what people want or don’t want. Not on the street pavement. Why are you going to the streets?” As the thugs of the regime wander Tehran beating up people, Khamenei turns the situation on its head and falsely accuses the dissidents of overturning democracy with violence.

In a world where “nonviolence” is almost fetishized as a category of political action, such words play well to Westerners seeking to draw moral equivalences and act as apologists for the regime. Iranian voters, of course, could easily answer what Khamenei meant as a rhetorical question: They take to the streets because the elections were rigged, egregiously so, even compared to previous ones held by the regime.

Not all street violence is created equal. Activists protesting in Times Square against the U.S. government are merely whiners, and there is no risk in what they do.

Their shouting does not amount to action, though they may pretend otherwise. People demonstrating in the streets of Iran (or China, Burma or any other oppressed nation where they risk being shot) are not whiners. It truly takes courage to protest in Iran.

Khamenei goes on to attack the politicians who have chosen to support the reform movement, including several former presidents of Iran and presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi: “Those politicians who have influence on people should be very careful about their behavior if they act in an extremist manner.”

Khamenei is, needless to say, a pot calling the kettle black, and it is disturbing to think that he probably doesn’t even realize it. In his mind, perhaps someone who supports fair elections really is “extreme.”

Mousavi himself is an unlikely figure for the dissident movement to rally around. He is, or perhaps was, a personal friend of Khamenei, and has aligned himself closely with the regime in the past.

His current behavior may be driven by a genuine desire for reform, an attempt to exploit public sentiment to increase his own power, or maybe even both simultaneously. Still, he has made a stand that carries great personal risk, and he has chosen to side with Iranians struggling for freedom. It is the same stand that the leaders of the Free World must make, in words but also in actions.

Reach columnist Russ Wung at opinion@dailyuw.com.