Bahram Moshiri

Commentator discusses struggle for democracy and freedom in Iran

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3



Part 4



Part 5



Part 6

06-Jun-2010
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by KharCommentsDate
A Christmas Sermon On Peace
8
Dec 25, 2010
Davoud Azad - Sanama
4
Dec 13, 2010
Be the Turkey
6
Nov 25, 2010
more from Khar
 
divaneh

Benross

by divaneh on

Now in the future Iran, RP or anyone else could be a good candidate for the presidency but not an indisputed king.


benross

we must not allow any

by benross on

we must not allow any unelected person to hold power

Okay now what? 


divaneh

I answer you DK

by divaneh on

DK Jaan, the answer is NO. We cannot have democracy without a national reconciliation. This is however a little complex when it comes to Monarchist as by the virtue of believing in an unelected leader (King) they rule out the hopes of all other factions to lead the country. I think after these bitter experiences we must not allow any unelected person to hold power.


divaneh

Dear Farah Rusta

by divaneh on

My choice of Sheikh and Shahneh is in line with this blog as Moshiri often uses the phrase to address the Islamists and Monarchists. Shahneh is not the same as Mohtaseb and as I explained is an enforcer of the King's rule and policies normally through torture, prison and executions.

If you find my comments debatable or untrue then please debate or repudiate as you wish. I have not claimed to be forward thinking or visionary. I have reflected on my experience of an education system that had religious studies (Islamic lies) as an indisputable subject throughout the whole curriculum. In the wider arena, in which way did the Pahlavi's regime ever tried to help the society off the religious dogma that had afflicted it for centuries. Which effort was ever made to educate people about democracy, human rights and the modern contract between the state and people? Not only they failed to provide such necessary education to move the society into the 20th century, but by banning the free press they made it impossible for the well intentioned people to fill that vacuum. To use your own logic if we had an educated society then we would not fall for a religious zealot such as Khomeini. Education is not only about medicine and engineering. It's also about social awareness.

You can call Mosadegh a demagogue if you wish but his reforms and service to this nation talks for itself. Yes, he did engage religious and socialists in his all inclusive government where he tried to rescue the constitution for which the nation had sacrificed and was being undermined by the Shah. The very constitution that Shah frantically wanted to re-enact in his last days.


benross

Third comment

by benross on

I had two comments on this thread. The first one was that he can be a good advocate for restoration of the legitimate constitution. The rest of his ideas can wait until we free Iran. The second comment was about his fundamental flaw about the way we can improve our modern values, notably tolerance and pluralism. The second comment has a clear demonstration right here in this blog, that asking people to learn to tolerate political ideas that they themselves did not evolve by this learning process, is an absurdity and has no way out.

The goal is establishing an interim government to restore security and full freedom of expression and freedom of association. Providing to people a period of time -as long as it takes- to freely reflect on both matters. Reflect on what they really want to express and what they really want to associate with.

When we look at what is going on in IC or other open mediums, we are often sidetracked by the content, assuming that the tension, animosity and stubbornness on expressing ideas are just too much. Irreconcilable. Giving the illusion that we are not 'fit' to have democracy.

But the truth of the matter is that %90 of the tensions are of no political content per se. They are because of the lack of freedom of expression. Not here. Where there supposed to be. And this lack of being free to be who we are in our own country, forces us to turn anything and everything into a political stance in this displaced medium of IC, where we actually can express freely.

Once freedom of expression is established and protected inside Iran, %90 of current discord will vanish. Not because we change our mind. But because we will no longer be forced to EXPRESS our mind in political terms.

What I'm trying to say is that the establishment of democracy in Iran is not as distanced as it looks by the look of it. But it is of outmost importance that we first provide and defend freedom of expression inside the country and give enough time to people to explore it, before we sit together to sign a social contract called 'democracy'.


Darius Kadivar

Hmm ... No One answered my Question ? ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

Bee Khial ...

LOL


Darius Kadivar

A Question to All (Republican and Monarchist)

by Darius Kadivar on

Given some of the exchanges here Clearly there will never be a definitive agreement on the question of the Coup ( or Counter Coup? ) or on what we each in our own right deem as the responsibility or guilt of the Shah or Mossadegh in the crisis that unfolded back in 1953.

As with all things in relation with history, debates will continue and I can perfectly concieve that reaching a definitive conclusion or response that would satisfy everyone is impossible to achieve.

I may never be able to convert you Republicans ( Jomhurykhah) into becoming a monarchist simply because philisophically it is at odds with what you personally believe in. On the otherhand you can never convert me or other Monarchists to become Republicans for the same opposite reasons.

I Hope to one day be able to convince or convert some of you to Constitutionalism however ... If Not ... at worst ... at least I tried ... ;0)

After all Most Spaniards claim to be "Juan Carlist" as opposed to being "Monarchists" ...  

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIVeqrKoIrI&feature=player_embedded

and in Spain today the most staunchest supporters of the monarchy happen to be former Republicans who fought Franco's Fascism as well as Left Wing intellegenstia. So Who knows ? ... ;0)

After all Bakhtiar himself was a Social Democrat and also fought in Spain :

BEHOLD THE PALE HORSE: French Socialists Pay Tribute to Shapour Bakhtiar

That said I still think I am entitled to an answer as to the points I raised RESPECTFULLY in my argumented response below.

That is why I feel it is a pity that we could not see and hear the eventual questions of Audience of Mr. Moshiri in LAS VEGAS. I hope that they were not in a hurry to go back to their Black Jack and Poker tables during the intermission ...

But Joking aside my question is the following ...

Is Democracy Achievable in Iran without National Reconciliation ?

If So ... then please let me know how you aim to achieve this ?

If Not ... then how do you concieve to achieve this National Reconciliation from your own political perspective ?

I ask this because to my knowledge the Olive Branch has been extended to all Opponents of the Monarchy by the Crown Prince Reza himself, time and again ( which I personally think is actually bearing fruit slowly but surely) where as our Republican Friends to date have not made such an attempt.

Even amongst the Reformist camp ( to which Mr Moshiri clearly does not belong to) are in contradiction on this question. Take Shirin Ebadi who some see as the next ideal President of an Iranian Republic who is championed as Iran's Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and is all vocal when it comes to Israeli and Palestinian Reconciliation or any other Peace effort but Refuses to Reconcile with some of her Very Own Compatriots.

Shirine Ebadi with Hamid Dabashi and NIAC advisor Ahmad Sadri Seminar on Iran's 2009 Election :

Shirine Ebadi:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUyBGmbDiY&feature=channel

Hamid Dabashi:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFo1TR0Tq50

Ahmad Sadri:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ75kkwOA8U&feature=channel

Sitting with the Likes of an IRI Apologist and Pro Palestinian Demagogue like Dabashi ( who befriends George Galloway )  is deemed Respectable but sitting with Iran's Former Crown Prince and Advocate of Democracy and national Reconciliation like Reza Pahlavi is deemed a Crime ?

I'm all for Wishful thinking if it pleases you and helps you sleep at night. But Personally I don't think that will change much as the the miserable fact that Iranians continue to be killed, raped and tortured for their basic rights, most of which they had albeit political prior to the Revolution and which the same Shirin Ebadi is working hard to regain for her fellow compatriots under the current IRI constitution she claims is reformable.

So Fine, let's say tomorrow's Iran will be a Secular Republic. How are you aiming to achieve with or without National Reconciliation ? ...

I believe I have answered to the above question numerous times from a Monarchist perspective by suggesting a Restoration ( based on historical parrallels in European democracies but also in full transparency and Unambiguous promises when it comes to democracy and human rights) but I am interested in Your Republican viewpoint as to the same question.

As one of my favorite Secular Minded intellectuals in the Diaspora Azar Nafisi ( also former revolutionary ) said it best in her interview with Fariba Amini From Tehran to Lolita :

I have to add that I realized the flaws in our ideologies in the student movement when I returned to Iran and saw how dangerous it was to want freedom but to choose a repressive attitude to attain it. I did not think that the Islamic regime or the Shah were the only forces responsible for what happened to us. I wanted to know what right did the rest of the society play in bringing about this revolution. I still think that different groups with different views should have an honest assessment of their past mistakes, not other people’s mistakes but their own. This is not about blaming ourselves or others, but in order to understand where we were in order to know where we are going.

I look forward to Your Responses in an open atmosphere of debate and mutual respect, even if we can agree to disagree.

"A Country that Loses it's Poetic Vision is a Country that faces death" -Saul Bellow

Respectfully,

Darius KADIVAR

A Constitutional Monarchist

Paris, FRANCE

PS: I may not be able to answer back immediately because I am once again inflicted to my bed with a terrible Back Pain but will be reading the responses with great interest.

 

 

 


Farah Rusta

دیوانگی زین بیشتر ؟ زین بیشتر ، دیوانه جان

Farah Rusta


 دیوانگی زین بیشتر ؟ زین بیشتر ، دیوانه جان
با ما ، سر دیوانگی داری اگر ، دیوانه جان

First of all your choice of Shahneh vs Sheikh does not make sense. The equivalent of Shahneh in religious terms is Mohtaseb, as I am sure you should know better.

But I am beginning to think that your choice of username is not entirely a literary choice but a literally one!  Among your accusation list, most of them debatabe if not outright untrue, there was one item that surely can't be true: "poor education"! If the Pahlavi education system has managed to produce such a progressive thinker and forward looking visionary that you (claim you) are, then I think one should give credit where the credit is due. Don't you think?

Curiously I tend to agree with you on one point. I think 50 years of Pahlavis autocracy is not comparable with 2 years of Mosaddeq's demogoguery. the former plucked a nation out of the throes of a clergy dominated system wherease the latter showed us, unsuccessfully though, how to make a coalition with them!

FR


divaneh

Dear Kaveh Parsa

by divaneh on

I agree with you that the superficiality is in the logic. The logic of the argument that IRI is the result of the Pahlavi's dictatorship is based on the Pahlavi's denial of political freedom an democracy, heavy hand on the true nationalists and out-of-line intellectuals, ban and censorship of the press, reliance on religious figures for legitimacy, assisting and aiding religious backwardness financially and through poor education, co-operating with foreign powers to remove the elected prime minister and kill his aids and nationalists,... I can carry on but that will suffice. All these resulted in an angry nation that wanted freedom and fell in the trap of religion. 

Now would be interesting to see the logic that Pahlavi dictatorship was caused by Mosadegh premiership. Not to forget that Mosadegh did not supersede the Pahlavis.

To address your other point, yes green movement is the result of the IRI dictatorship but it is too early to judge its outcome. 

Shahneh = King’s enforcer, a man who enforce the king's rule in a city or area by force

 


Kooshan

I consider bahram moshiri

by Kooshan on

I consider bahram moshiri as:

Dayeratolma'aref

Uloome

Mokhtalefeye

Bikhodi

 

or DUMB; He seems to only grab paacheye Ahkhoons! 

Although his body language and tongue fat is excessively masterful and makes his point to be effective in deception!

 

I have no idea for how long we have to believe in BALCK & WHITE! Why can't we Iranians see the other colors or at least THE GRAY!!!!!!!!!!

 

There is a trace of decency and corruption in everyone. Let's be fair or we will be in the same spot in few years as Akhoods were some 30 years ago!


default

Divaneh

by Kaveh Parsa on

you say

"How superficial is it to compare the 50 years of Pahlavi dictatorship with few years of the Mosadegh premiership and conclude that if IRI is a result of Pahlavi's dictatorship then that in turn is caused by Mosadegh"

I did not compare Pahlavi Dictatorship with Mossadegh premiership. My intention was to question the logic that says, the previous regime is responsible for the birth of the new regime.

taking that logic further, should we give the credit to the islamic republic, if the Green movement emerges victorious? Are you that simple or assume the readers to be simple? 

Nothing is black & white or that simple. The superficiality is in the logic.

btw what is a shahneh? :)

KP


divaneh

Sheikh and Shahneh attack

by divaneh on

As expected Bahram Moshiri is attacked by the supporters of Sheikh and Shahneh.

Supporters of Sheikh:

When will you ever learn the truth about Islam and the role of religion in promoting and forcing backwardness? When will you be honest with yourself and confess that crime for the sake of god is still crime and victims are victims. We see the Islam in action, don't tell us this is not Islam. Don't tell us it would be nice if Ayatollahs didn't lie. The whole religion is nothing but a big lie.

Supporters of Shahneh:

Time for you to be honest to yourself too. When you make unfair comments about Mosadegh, what are you trying to say? That the coup and the removal of the elected prime minister through operation Ajax based on a plan masterminded by British was deserved or a good thing for Iran? How superficial is it to compare the 50 years of Pahlavi dictatorship with few years of the Mosadegh premiership and conclude that if IRI is a result of Pahlavi's dictatorship then that in turn is caused by Mosadegh. Are you that simple or assume the readers to be simple? Wake up.

 


خلفای راشدین

Brother JJ, besmehi va ta' aalaa!!

by خلفای راشدین on

Allah will bless you inshaa Allah, for the expedited removal of this blasphemous blog from your first page, and replacing it with a more suitable video about abgoosht from our sisters, and brothers of HEZBOLLAH at Press TV.

What else can I say? What else can I do?

 


default

Babak K & Khar

by Kaveh Parsa on

 

You say:

.....Pahlavi Estebdad gave birth to Islamic Estebdad.....

and Khar Says

....Islamic Republic of Iran is a true offspring of Estebdad Shahanshahi.....

Does this mean that "Estebdad shahanshahi" is the the true offspring of Dr Mossadegh & Jebheh Melli?

KP


Rastgoo

In response to Oktaby

by Rastgoo on

Touz chez.  You're making intelligent argumnets.  First of all I like to assert that I am not a religious man and I barely believe in God.  However, you are being excessively myopic in your views of Islam and Democracy.  You have fallen for the neo-con/Israeli anti-Islam propaganda.  Islam has been a liberating religion because it can mobilize the masses effecitively.  Listen to Khomeini's speeches before the revolution and for the most part he spoke of Azadi.  This has nothing to do with the fact that he lied.  My point is that it can and has mobilize(d) the masses and if used correctly it can be magnificent.  If it were not for the Islamists the iranian people would not have participated in such large numbers in the constitutional revolution, oil nationalization and the 1979 revolution.  It truth also pains me, but the fact is that Islam is far stronger in our country than any other idea (monarchy, communist, socialist, nationalist....). 


comrade

More reasonable and honest than others

by comrade on

Despite political differences, I will not dismiss "Moshiri" and his views altogether. Needless to say his take on monarchy, is painfully on the money.

He sounds like, and seems to be a man of reason who encourages "communications among different political factions". That means honesty. And that's enough for me. 


Babak K.

Dear Abarmard I must tell

by Babak K. on

Dear Abarmard

I must tell you that I disagree with your reponse to Bahram Moshiri's speech.  I wish I had time to go over you reponse but I will just discuss few of your points.

you wrote : " If Western regimes won't allow Iran to even have Turkish system, you expect them to allow Iran to be a democracy?, well in one line you make a claim and further reclaim your claim.  Where you get this idea from and how you come up with this conclusion?  We are living in a different world now and "the imprialistic powers" are facing a bitter realities and there is a very little they can do about it.  A democratic Iran is a reality that these powers will accept because doing otherwise will prove costly.  If our nation wishes a democraticd Iran, then no power can stop it. 

You wrote: " Finally, if the West agrees for Iran to have a system similar to Iraq, they would have to put their military posts all along Iranians soil, which again won't resonate with our nation.  Well, where these claims and conclusions come from? 

You wrote: " His entire analysis about the people and Shah/ relation with politics of Iran is flawed. too many mistakes to point them out... ".  Abarmard, I found nothing flawed about his analysis.  Pahalvi dynasty is the founder of Islamic regime in Iran, and nobody else.  Pahlavi Estebdad gave birth to Islamic Estebdad and it seems to me you can not accept it.  Zsar of Rassia was the founder of the USSR and nobody else.  If Zsar has respected the objectives of 1905 Raussian revolution then Balshavics could not come to pwoer so easily.  If Pahlavi regime had a tinniest respect for Iranian constitution then Khomeini had no chance to come to power.  If shah's speech "I hear the voice of your revolution ..." was given three years earlier then today Iran was democratic and you and me were not arguing over this Mostabed bastard or that Mostabed bastard.

babak K.

 


Khar

Ahura jaan

by Khar on

You nailed it and its very true. 


Khar

I think Mr. Moshiri has touched a raw nerve here :-)

by Khar on

Couples of comments here have called Mr. Moshiri "dishonest and simple minded", without really knowing the man. Folks dishonesty and simple mindedness is to cling to the past at any cost (be it Monarchy or Islamic) and not knowing anything about Iran’s history. Based on our own Farhang Estebdadi which given to us as a gift from Iran’s Monarchs and Mullahs (a gift which keeps on giving) we are keen on dumbing down ourselves and the Iranian society and destroy anything and everything progressive, as we did in the past and now. It’s easy to look at Iran and its history from a small window and see whatever we want or like to see, but that is not the reality or the truth folks! Instead of ripping apart someone who is not thinking like you and label them everything under the sun (not even knowing the person) look at yourself and ask the big question: What have we done lately?

Facts to ponder: 

* In the last 140 years all the regimes which rulled Iran were repressive and Estebdadi in nature and form.

* Islamic Republic of Iran is a true offspring of Estebdad Shahanshahi which brought down Dr. Mossageghs national government on that summer day in 1953. Shah signed a pack with the devil (Mullahs) and went against all progressive Iranian social groups and institutions end the result was; the devil (Mullahs) devoured the shah too.

Seek the truth and it  shall set you free!


Abarmard

I only watched some of it, too simple minded

by Abarmard on

The social growth in different parts of the world had different speed. However in the Middle East the lack of progress appeared because of foreign political domination. You could make a comment that people deserve what they get, however this is not an answer for realities and certainly goes against this individual's argument. "God is my Shepperd" is what Western nations believe as their bible teaches them. They were able to gradually move away from Religious systems and create more of a Republic and somewhat democracy.

It is very childish to compare what Sa'di had said 900 years ago?? What was Earth like then? These kinds of logic only goes for those who see themselves as unique and can't see a pattern of change along with solutions that other nations have reached.

To comment about his beginning speech, man has learned social rules and developed culture based on experiences and time. Yes humanity started with primitive ideas, but then worked around to generate a more complex system. If he means to say that in Iran we don't understand democracy because we are primitive, his logic lack maturity. You are not borne with ideas but learn them. We did not have the opportunity to grow similar to Western societies but a quick look at many countries will show you that Iranian people were not too far off several hundred years ago. 

he is very wrong about "Western Governments" want democratic regimes in place as they are not Imperialistic in nature anymore! Nothing could be further to truth.

You have to see what it is that those nations require of you. What it is that you can give and limits that are drawn for you. In short Western regimes will not tolerate a system similar to Turkey in Iran. Not possible. Iran will be too powerful for them. Hence his analysis lacks reality. Wishful thinking at best. If Western regimes won't allow Iran to even have Turkish system, you expect them to allow Iran to be a democracy?

The challenge of Iranian nation is to find a way to reach their desired state without too much concerns about the Western demands. It takes away the real direction, as Iranian history is a clear indication, from people's way. Those (this guy) who ignores history, ignores Iranian society, culture, and geo-political realities. Sounds easy and acceptable, yes, truthful and realistic, absolutely not.

I would argue that Iranian people, far ahead of their government, have reached a higher democratic state (of mind) than anytime in the history of Iran.Experience is the greatest path to reach our destination. 

Finally, if the West agrees for Iran to have a system similar to Iraq, they would have to put their military posts all along Iranians soil, which again won't resonate with our nation.

P.S. His entire analysis about the people and Shah/ relation with politics of Iran is flawed. too many mistakes to point them out...


Farah Rusta

Moshiri is a dishonest man

by Farah Rusta on

In fact, anyone who supports the illegitimacy of Mosaddeq's unconstitutional take over of power in the dying months of his premiership cannot be an honest person, at least in this regard.

Darius Kadivar has brillianly articulated this argument in his comment.

"Democracy and Democratic Thought is a pattern of thought that can only take root if we as a nation Collectively understand the notion of the CONTRACT upon which a State and it's democratic institutions function."

 Mosaddeq understood this CONTRACT very well - as long as it served his power mania - but he was prepared to tear it into pieces when it went against his egotistical ambitions. He was the architect of his own downfall.

FR


Darius Kadivar

Interesting and Refreshing ... But Falls Short on many arguments

by Darius Kadivar on

I salute Mr. Moshiris knowledge and insightful comments. I would have wished to see the Q&A's of his audience though ...

I do have some questions and reservations regarding some of his assessments though particularly in regard to the parrallels he draws between Religion and the Monarchy as being the two Pillars of dictatorship and oppression in Iran.

I think once again the events of 1953 blur our judgment on the reasons that led to the revolution of 1979.

This has become the Favorite argument by all those who try to find an excuse for their POOR CHOICE of '79 they deeply regret to say it was all the Shah's fault.

True the Shah had a responsability in his own downfall. There is no point of arguing about the mistakes and errors if the premise is that the monarchy was a Pillar of Estebdad ( oppression) in the first place. In otherwords we had nothing to expect from a Monarch's personal political views for that is the very purpose of the Constitutional Revolution: TO DOMESTICATE THE MONARCHY and NOT the OTHERWAY ROUND ...

Again the so called Coup ( or Counter Coup ?) as an argument to justify OUR OWN failure ( notably of the Intelligenstia) to win over the masses has become the Favorite excuse when we refuse to dig further into this debate.

Mehdi Bazargan and the controversial legacy of Iran's Islamic intellectual movement

Again the real question we need to ask ourselves is what is a Constitution and what is it's purpose ?

THAT in itself is the First Step into understanding the Democratic process as well as How and Why it worked in Europe ...

Europe went through the process of the Rennaissance:

GOOD READ: All You Need to Know About The Enlightment Philosophers

HISTORY FORUM: The Age of Enlightment in France and Europe.

which had far reaching influences on the Iranian Constitutional Movement:

HISTORY FORUM: Nader Naderpour on Iran's Constitutional Revolution and European Rennaissance (1996)

But UNFORTUNATELY there is a common denominator amongst ALL Iranian historians to date particularly since 1979 (aided in that by many Western historians/journalists ( Stephen Kinzer, William Shawcross, John Simpson, to name a few ... non of whom truly understand or understood the Iranian psyche) who have written extensively on the Revolution of '79) is to analyse the revolution of '79 and the Monarchy as an Institution in IRan through the distorted lens of the So called Coup of '53.

Abbas Milani and Mashaulah Adjoudani I think have been the only ones to try and take a more objective and unpassionate view in this regard in recent years giving us a more serious assessments on the dillemas and challenges of Iranian society at the time :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bIo2UnG9VY&feature...

In Otherwords They argue that the COUP may NOT have been a GOOD THING but that it Was LEGAL ... Do You People Understand the difference ? ...

Mossadegh Created the TRAP for himself by Not understanding ( or rather not acknowledging) the mechanisms of the Constitution of the Land which he claimed to Respect and upon which he and his followers to date derive their Legitimacy.

If he was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED and NAMED BY THE SHAH, then it means that the Constitution was DEMOCRATIC !

So What Went Wrong ? That is What Historians like Moshiri ( and he is not alone) fail to answer.

The Reason I think is that they confuse TWO SEPERATE ISSUES AS ONE: Democracy and Nationalism.

The Nationalisation of Oil was a Nationalist Demand and requirement against Western Dominated Exploitation of our natural Ressources. It was Legitimate as for ANY Nation to demand the right to control such a major sector of it's economy and the Shah of Iran shared that assessment with Mossadeg ( be it in private) But that has NOTHING to do with Our Democratic Demands of seeing Our Constitution prevail and be respected.

Mossadegh was a Patriot but a Poor Politician ...

He failed to see the fragility of Iran's civil and political society and refused the status quo of the Constitution by Breaching it. Demanding the departure of the Head of State and abolishing the Parliament were the result of once again of what has failed most of our Iranian Political elite to date and that is EGO ( Political or personal) in seeing ourselves as the Providential Hero.

Mossadegh became a CELEBRITY overnight after winning Iran's case at LA HAGUE ... That gave him the impression that he was ABOVE the HEAD OF STATE ( The Shah) and that the Support of the Population naturally enthusiastic by this major victory gave him ALL the Legitimacy to act as he wished to act.

Yet Democracy is NOT just about having a MAJORITY or being high in Opinion Polls ...

Democracy and Democratic Thought is a pattern of thought that can only take root if we as a nation Collectively understand the notion of the CONTRACT upon which a State and it's democratic institutions function.

We HAD a CONSTITUTION but DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT !

Nor how it was to protect OUR Individual Rights.

The British DID thanks to the Bill of RIghts which inspired the Glorious Revolution to which Moshiri refers ( But he failed to even Mention that was due to A RESTORATION of the Monarchy):

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'

So Moshiris Arguments in rejecting the Monarchy ( which he nevertheless admires for it's unique role in shaping our national identity and cultural/literary emancipation- notably the Shahnameh) fall short because he then jumps too quickly on the French Revolution as a Focal Point of Reference to comfort what seems to be his Prefences for a "Secular Republic" ... Respectable in it's own Right but which fails to convince me in his development.

That is where I feel that Most IRanian Historians FAIL TO BE OBJECTIVE due to Political biais NOT Historical Research.

It is NOT Enough to say DEMOCRACY IS GOOD !

Or Even as He wrongly Quotes Americans as saying "Democracy is the Worst of All systems but the Best we have"

The Above Sentance is In Fact Attributed to the Great CHURCHILL himself ( Who opposed Mossadegh by the way like he opposed Ghandi in his times) ...

Also VOLTAIRE WAS A CONSTITUTIONALIST MONARCHIST who admired the British Parliamentary System to the French Absolute Monarchy.

His ideas unlike Jean Jacques Rousseau were deeply rooted in this admiration and he was to actually serve as advisor to other Enlighted Kings and Queens of Europe who wished to achieve the British Model for their own nation such as Catherine The Great of Russia or the King of Prussia, Frederick the Great( even if it did not stop him from being jailed or banned by the Establishments of the time):

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GPi3eFU_7A&feature...

Voltaire for instance would have most probably Opposed the abolishment of the Monarchy in France had he lived at the time and the execution of the King and Queen.

Chateubriand also was a Constitutional Monarchists and the entire Struggle in France throughout the 19th century was one between the Constitutional Monarchists and the Republicans to mend their scars and differences, the division of which served the Napoleonic ambitions and the succession of COUPS and COUNTER COUPS in France of all Wannabe Napoleons like General Boulanger and other opportunists until France finally settled after much pain and suffering due to the Revolution of 1789 to accepting the Republican Ideal as definitive. They nevertheless went through a Reign of Terror, An Empire that waged War with all of European Nations ( some like Great Britain which was already a democracy - Read Dickens Tale of the Two Cities) two Restorations, first Louis XVIII after Napoleon's First Exile, then after Napoleon's return from Elba and his 100 days before being defeatd at Waterloo. After him he was succeeded by Charles X under which the famous Revolution of 1848 ( Read Les Miserables of Victor Hugo) took place and which was followed by a period of Regency under Louis Philippe The First ( an Orlean Pretender to the Throne).

All these Internal Conflicts and colliding Ambitions led to Napoleon III ( whose Cousin was the late Emperor) to take Power once again through a Coup.

COUP OVER COUP could resume the history of France throughout the 19th century in France following the revolution. It basically took a century to reach some form of Stability and a definitive Parliamentary Democracy which the British had already acquired since 1688 ( the premises having been the Magna Carta much earlier).

Do We Wish to go through a Similar Pattern as France when the possibilities of a British Parliamentary Model and historical parrallels seem more appropriate to Our Historical experience ? ...

I think contrary to Mr. Moshiri that most Iranians would choose a Restoration based on the Constitutional Revolutions Ideals of the Monarchy as in Great Britain following Cromwell's Religious Republic ( which was EXACTLY like Iran, Where Cromwell was a Lord Protector aka Velayateh Fagih so to speak):

HISTORY FORUM:Monarchy - Revolution -Republic -Restoration with David Starkey (6 Parts)

And NOT the Republican Model which has failed them for 30 years even if we wish not to call it one ...

I do share Mr. Moshiris arguments in regard to Secularism as being the founding Brick of a Democratic Society :

HISTORY FORUM: Ahmad Kasravi's Life, Assassination and Intellectual Legacy 64 years On ...

and his assessments on the so- called reformists religion intelligenstia represented by the likes of Soroush, Ganji, Kadivar ( not me, nor related to my family ) who has the favors of Shirin Ebadi who according to Moshiri are totally misled in their distorted views on democracy:

HISTORY FORUM: Mashallah Ajoudani on Intellectuals and the Revolution

But after nearly 100 years of Struggle for that right:

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY: First Public Gathering of the Iranian Majlis (1906)

as a nation but more importantly as an Intelligenstia ( or whoever wishes to relate to this denomination which I respect as opposed to some ANN TELLECTUALS) we fail to be Not Only Objective BUT FLEXIBLE !

That lack of FLexibility due to Our Collective Stubborness rather than individual wisdom is what has Failed us Time and Again.

It seems that Other nations and people MADE A BETTER CHOICE Notably Britain:

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'

Or Belgium ( the Constitution of which was used to draft the 1906 Iranian Constitution of the time):

RESTORATION: Belgium King Baudouin takes Oath Amidst Republican Animosity (31st July ,1950)

And which the Current Heir to the Peacock Throne ( if No Qajar Pretender to date claims it) Crown Prince Reza pledges to Respect:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFjjjGwEDkQ

I do hail Mr. Moshiris Efforts to start this debate which is not only healthy but of Major Importance if we ever wish to achieve our democratic Ideals in our lifetime.

That will Only be Possible if we Replace WISHFUL THINKING By PRACTICAL THINKING which to date has Failed Us So Much ...

Bakhtiar's Intellectual and Political Legacy is that BluePrint for Change and we would be wise to look at it as a Realistic and commendable Option:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNBFTWXz5_Q

 

Mr. Moshiri We can agree to disagree but we do have one common goal and it is good to see Mr. Moshiri's loyalty to at least our beautiful SUN AND LION Flag.

Beh Omideh Peeroozy, Azady va Democracy.

My Humble Opinion,

DK

Recommended Blogs:

RESTORATION: Elected Monarchs of Malaysia

RESTORATION: The British Royal Family at Work (PBS : 7 Parts)

RESTORATION: Prince Charles, The Meddling Prince (5 Parts)

RESTORATION: Greek Constitutional Monarchy Toppled by Military Coup (April 21st, 1967)

RESTORATION: King Simeon II of Bulgaria, The Republican Prince

Royal History Forums:

HISTORY FORUM: How Truly Democratic is The British Monarchy ?

HISTORY FORUM:The Monarchy with David Starkey (Cambridge University)


humanbeing

curious

by humanbeing on

looking at the comments, i got curious, but don't yet understand farsi well enough to follow. i'll google him to see if there is a transcript or resume of his ideas in another language.

sane leadership is a blessing, almost a miracle these days.

good luck guys.


Arthimis

Bahram Moshiri= True

by Arthimis on

Bahram Moshiri= True Iranian

Free Iran and True Iranians.


hazratee

Good points.

by hazratee on

Khar jan thanks for posting. There must be more parts.


Majid

خدایا.........شکر!

Majid


 

 

کسی میتونه پیدا کنه که آن حضرت « صلواةُ الله علیه و آله» چند تا غَزوه و چند تا سُریه در طول آن بیست و سه سال مبارک براه انداختند؟

توضیح: غَزوِه جنگهائی ست که حضرتشان مستقیماً در آنها شرکت داشتند  و سُریِه جنگهائی ست که حضرتشان خود گوشهء عافیت گزیده و دست عمله و اَکَره خود را برای تجاوز به نوامیس مردم باز گذاشتند!  و همهء اینها در طول ٢٣ سال!!

باز خدا رو شکر که این بابا «پیامبر صلح» بود ! فکر کنین اگه «پیامبر جنگ و سنگسار و چشم در آوردن و دست و پا قطع کردن و تجاوز به اطفال ٩ ساله و ...........» بود چه دهنی ازَمون سرویس کرده بود!


Ahura

A Voice of Reason

by Ahura on

Mr. Bahram Moshiri has been one of the few voices of reason and hope in Iranian Expatriate society. He is right on almost all the things he says, and one must ponder on his sound and well expressed ideas. Not being as hopeful on Iranians’ ability to replace the engrained and nurtured autocratic culture with democratic ways in the near future, I like to prove him right by trying it on myself. This has been an evolving process in the past three decades.

The formidable task is changing the nurtured despotic IRI mindset of millions of believers in Iran, after the inevitable fall of IRI theocracy.    

 


oktaby

Rastgoo, name one place on the face of this planet that has been

by oktaby on

'liberated' by islam; in any way, shape, or form and actually evolved into anything resembling civilized or modern. Name one islamic country that is a democracy or anything close to it unless it has distinct separation of mosque and state. In Iran clergy supported the Mashrooteh for a slew of reasons and their own interests, not to liberate the society.

The events you list starting with Renaissance were all essentially trying to free man from religion or its power base. Read the works you list again because not a single instance can be related to liberation by religion. Any religion. That is not possible because religion limits and enslaves the mind by the virtue of what it is. Much more so than any ism.

"The foundations of much of the the liberation ideology was laid by the pan-islamist Jamal eddin Afghani".  Now read your sentence a few times and see if you can find how many things are wrong with it. I'm assuming you are familiar with jamaledin's ideas since you make such pronouncement. 

You believe islamism of some sort and that is fine. There may have been a few decent islamists here and there as an exception and that is fair.  But trying to equate islam of any kind with liberation flies in the face of documented history and islam's own documentation (ghoran, and islamic sunna & shiism).

"Do not just close your mind and your eyes" just because you believe something so strongly that it has closed your eyes and mind. 

OKtaby


benross

Democracy

by benross on

I wouldn't formulate the way he does. Democracy is the least of our concerns. Democracy is a social contract. The issue is the people who gather to sign-up for this contract. They can not do that knowingly, unless there is total freedom of expression at large scale WITHOUT ANY POLITICAL FRACTION.

You can not argue that here is this group and that group, we must learn to tolerate them and to have a dialogue with them. This argument is fundamentally flawed because it suggests we must learn to tolerate an assumed group, meaning that that group is already formed without this learning process.

So in a sense, the mere existence of these fractured political groups is an obstacle to this learning process. 


Rastgoo

I disagree

by Rastgoo on

with his assertion that Islam was a barrier.  He is a very elegant and learned speaker.  However, he falls for the often convenient ruse of placing blame on Islam for all of our ills.  This argument does not hold up to a rigorous analysis.  Why is Russia non-Democratic?  Why is China non-Democratic?  These are two of the strongest non-democratic countries in the world and they are not Muslim majority countries.  The Iranian constitutional revolution was largely aided by the support of the clergy such as Malekomotekalemin and Ayatollah Tabatabai.  The foundations of much of the the liberation ideology was laid by the pan-islamist Jamal eddin Afghani.  The clergy were open minded enough to allow the execution of one of their own (Fazlolah Nouri).  Khomeini's totalitarian notion of Valayat Faghih is the new twist that was introduced by the Iranian revolution.  One cannot condemn an entire religion based on the doings of one man and his relatively small following (my own estimate is 15% max).  If you want to know why the "west" became Democratic and Iran did not, read about the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the English Civil war, the American revolution, the French revolution, the renaissance and reformation....Do not just close your mind and your eyes and denounce a religion that can very well be liberating and potentially transform Iran and rescue it from the rule of faghih.