Shah or president?
We should reject hereditary systems of government
March 14, 2001
The Iranian
Reading the articles and letters in favor or against the restoration
of the monarchy in Iran, it seems many Iranians abroad are still flabbergasted
by what happened in 1979. A quarter of a century after the ascent of Ayatollah
Khomeini and his totalitarian theocracy, expatriates still air anti-shah
rhetoric or feel nostalgia for a father-king. Yet recent history in Iran
(and elsewhere) teaches us that there's more to a government than its appearance.
In January 1979 the all-powerful Shah left Iran with his family, dogs
and riches, abandoning his country and leaving his loyal troops and closest
aides in the hands of vengeful and backward mollas. Despite his lack of
courage and the use of others as scapegoats, I bear no grudges against
the Shah or the institution of the monarchy in general.
But as I think about the future of Iran, I find myself having no preference
for a president or king, provided that neither are hereditary (recently
North Korea and Syria have furnished examples of hereditary republics).
The history of Iranian monarchy (and for that matter other absolute
monarchies) underlines the reign of some good and capable monarchs. But
more often than not, their heirs proved incompetent and catastrophic. Reza
Shah was certainly a great king, according to our domestic standards. But
his son, after a period of good reforms, went haywire. Cyrus united Iranians
and created a great and relatively tolerant empire. But Cambyse acted erratically.
And so on .
We should, therefore, reject hereditary systems of government. But what
about an elected king? Why not. Neither Cyrus nor Reza Shah were the sons
of kings. If Reza Pahlavi possesses the ability of leading the country
and believes in democracy, let him first get rid of sycophants and then
seriously prepare to run for the position of Head of State through free
elections.
True. No fallen Iranian dynasty has ever returned to the throne. But,
to be sure, their members did not disappear from the scene. The Pahlavi
administrations were studded with numerous Qajars. Even one of Reza Shah's
wives was a Qajar princess. Many Sassanids ended up in the employ of Arab
caliphs especially during the Abbassid reign. And according to legend,
Imam Hossein married the daughter of Yazdegard.
Actually, even in a constitutional monarchy, the hereditary system often
turns out to be noxious. Look at the the members of the British royal family.
They are constantly surrounded by scandal. Nowadays, the only useful purpose
of kings and queens and their siblings seems to boil down to furnishing
fodder to tabloids, scandal sheets, and television gossip programs.
The real problem facing Iran is not choosing between monarchy or republic.
The problem is how to reject theocracy and backwardness before it is too
late. For 22 years I have been obsessed with this basic problem which I
have tackled in articles and books. I have tried to preach unity among
the opposition abroad.
I have tried to help monarchists, despite my personal feelings toward
the late Shah -- because of the way he treated my brother. (*) I have encouraged
them to start some kind of action. Indeed, contrary to what the mollas
and leftist opponents of the Shah still believe, what happened in the past
was not all bad. In fact a lot of good things were achieved.
I also tried to encourage Shah-era high-ranking civil servants to evaluate
Iran's progress during the 1960s and 1970s and assess why things went wrong.
I thought a critical look at the Shah's regime and ourselves would help
the younger generation understand what went on and what mistakes were made.
But many have equated such an exercise to "spitting upward"
(tof-e sarbaalaa). I have told them that "tof-e sarbaalaa" is
in fact valuable self-criticism. To no avail! Many refuse to look at the
past with a critical eye. Nevertheless, I have continued to write.
Meanwhile I have received some letters of encouragement. I have also
received some insulting ones, calling me things like "traitor"
and "American spy". Actually, some of the letters published in
iranian.com are intolerant, full of insults, even blood-thirsty. They remind
me of the fanaticism of the mollas (read for instance what Ayatollah Montazeri
recently revealed about his teacher's thirst for blood.). I wonder if we
will ever learn civility.
In any case, I think we should go beyond discussions about the external
form of a future government and concentrate instead on the necessity of
building democratic institutions.
* Fereydoun Hoveyda's brother, former prime minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda,
was imprisoned in the final months of the monarchy and executed after the
revolution.
Author
Fereydoun Hoveyda was Iran's ambassador to the United Nations from
1971 to 1978. To learn more about the Hoveydas, visit their web
site.
