Who would you vote for in these countries?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

my additions to the previous thread.

Japan
South Korea
Denmark
Austria
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Finland
Russia
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Belgium
Mexico
Nepal
India
South Africa
East Timor
Venezuela
Brazil

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

my answers as before:

Japan - Communists
South Korea - Democratic Labour
Denmark - Socialist People's Party
Austria - Social Democrats
Switzerland - Social Democrats
Sweden - Left
Norway - Socialist Left
Finland - Left Wing League
Russia - Communists
Luxembourg - Socialist Workers
Netherlands - Socialists
Belgium - Socialists
Mexico - PRD
Nepal - Communists
India - Left Front
South Africa - Democratic Alliance
East Timor - FRETILIN
Venezuela - Movement for the Fifth Republic
Brazil - Workers' Party

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How about the King, what are his stances? Any chance of a monarchist coup like in Iran? Note that I like the previous Iranian Prime Minister far more than the Shah, but considering what replaced him, I think the Shah is a great hero now. Of course I wouldn't supported his overthrow at the time, but I would've just made the same error as Jimmy Carter, lacking hindsight.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you mean Khataemi or whatever the guy in charge now's name is?

I see the difference as that the Shah tried to westernize and secularize Iran, allowing liquor sales and giving women the right to vote. He shouldn't have been so repressive though and shouldn't have gone after leftists and other types. That's what caused them to join in to overthrow him, only to end up with a government a million times worse as a result. I don't blame them, but today no one would argue that with hindsight the Shah should've been left alone.

Iran would probably be a democracy if that had happened too at least after he died (isn't his son still alive and still claiming to be the true ruler of Iran?)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Shah didn't treat political prisoners too well, but for the most party he only exiled or imprisoned them. When Khomeini took over he simply killed them all, including many who opposed the Shah as well and many who helped him overthrow the Shah. Then after Iraq attacked Iran they cleared mine fields by forcing children as young as 9 to walk across areas suspected to be mined, telling them all that martyrdom nonsense if they did step on a mine. Perfect example of out of the frying pan and into the fire. Carter did try to get the Shah to tone down, it just happened at the worst possible time. Likely though if Khomeini stayed out of the way the Shah or his son could be forced to democraticize the country, or a more benign group would've overthrown him. What happened was the worst case scenario.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well I think saying best case is Khomeini without the mass executions is similar to saying another best case is Saddam's invasion succeeds but then he decides to be more benign. It simply isn't a realistic possibility.

Even if a better government wasn't possible prior to 1989, it's basically a given Khomeini was worse than the Shah. Thus no revolution until 1989 and then a much more democratic and secular group taking over could be seen as best case, or the Shah's son turns out to better. Tough to say. But I can't see things much worse than what happened.