PAHLAVI
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
آرزوهای محمدعلی شاهی
25-Jun-2012
در دوم تیرماه ۱۲۸٧ خورشیدی، قزاقان روس به فرمان محمد علی شاه قاجار، مجلس مشروطه را به توپ بستند. یک سال پس از آن، مشروطه خواهان بر تهران چیره شدند و «مجلس عالی» که موقتاً به جای مجلس شورای ملی نشسته بود، محمد علی شاه را از پادشاهی برکنار کرد و فرزند خردسالش را به جای او برتخت شاهی نشاند. اما محمدعلی قاجار و برادران خودکامه و فاسدش، از سودای بازگشت به شاهی و براندازی مشروطه دل برنکردند. دوسال پس از برکناری از پادشاهی، محمد علی میرزا به همراه برادرش، ملک منصورمیرزا شعاع السطنه، با پشتیبانی و تحریک روس ها و با جنگ افزاری انبوه، از راه ترکمان صحرا به ایران تاختند. گرگان، شاهرود و بابل به دست محمدعلی میرزا افتاد و برادرش، ابوالفتح میرزا سالارالدوله، به یاری گروهی از عشایر غرب و با پشتیبانی برخی از روحانیان شیعی، بر کرمانشاه چیره شد. بخت و تاریخ با مشروطه خواهان همراه بود و کوشش شاه خودکامه قاجار و برادرانش به جایی نرسید.
اینک که بیش از یکسد سال از آن هنگام می گذرد، شاهزاده ای دیگر، پس از چندسالی بازی با دموکراسی و سخن گفتن از این که او شهروند ساده ای بیش نیست، شرم و آزرم را یکسر به کنار نهاده است و نه تنها خویشتن را «پادشاه قانونی ایران» خوانده، که در سودای برای براندازی جمهوری اسلامی و بازگرداندن خاندان پهلوی به تخت شاهی، در ستایش از دخالت نظامی دولت های خارجی در ایران و به پیشباز رفتن ایرانیان «از مهاجمان خارجی»، زبان گشوده وچشم بر یاری «دموکراسی» هایی مانند عربستان، کویت و قطر دوخته است.
اشاره من، از جمله، به تازه ترین سخنان رضا پهلوی در گفتگو با یک روزنامه نگار آلمانی است.* کم آزار ترین بخش گفت و گوی ایشان، پیچیدن خویش در ردای یک حقوق دان و قانون شناس است و سخن گفتن از این که چون در بیستمین سالروز زندگی شان، در کشور مصر سوگند شاهی خورده اند، «بنا به قانون»، پادشاه ایران اند!
«این مراسم در بیستمین زادروز من برگزار شد. طبق قانون اساسی ما می بایستی به این سن رسیده باشم تا بتوانم شاه شوم. البته بعد می بایست در مجلس ایران [که دیگر در میان نمی بوده] هم سوگند پادشاهی یاد می کردم. بنابراین می توان گفت که "بنا به قانون" شاه ایرانم.»
بنا بر کدام قانون؟ قانون اساسی مشروطه ایران که در راهش جان فشانی ها شد و خاندان ایشان به آن جفا کردند؟ در کجای آن قانون اساسی آمده است که می توان در مراسمی در یک کشور خارجی، شاه قانونی ایران شد و هرآینه بخت و اقبال یاری نمود، «بعد می بایست در مجلس ایران هم سوگند» خورد؟ مجلسی که دیگر درمیان نبوده و نیست و در آینده هم، دست کم برپایه قوانین یکسد سال پیش، در میان نخواهد بود؟ اصل سی و نهم متمم قانون اساسی چنین است:
«هیچ پادشاهی بر تخت سلطنت نمی تواند جلوس کند مگر این که قبل از تاج گذاری، در مجلس شورای ملی حاضر شود و با حضور اعضای مجلس شورای ملی و مجلس سنا و هیئت وزراء به قرار ذیل قسم یاد نماید.»
آقای رضا پهلوی، برپایه کدام اصل نانوشته ی دیگری در قانون اساسی مشروطه، به یکباره به این اندیشه افتاده اند که «بنا به قانون، شاه ایرانم»؟ اگر پایان یافتن پادشاهی احمدشاه به زور ماده واحده و در پناه بیم و هراس نمایندگان از واکنش حضرت اشرف رئیس الوزراء، قانونی بوده باشد، که به داوری من بوده، چرا رای میلیون ها مردم به پایان پادشاهی قانونی نیست؟
گفتم که این بی آزار و کم هزینه ترین بخش سخنان آقای رضا پهلوی است. ایشان سخنانی را درباره شاه بودن خویش گفته اند که نه پیامدی دارد و نه هزینه ای. احمدشاه و پس از او برادرش محمدحسن میرزا هم پس از آغاز پادشاهی رضاشاه وتا هنگام مرگ، خویشتن را همچنان شاه و ولیعهد قانونی ایران می خواندند. سد سال پس از انقلاب فرانسه، هنری پنجم یا کنت دو شامبورد، خویشتن را پادشاه فرانسه می خواند! ای بسا آرزوکه خاک شده.
سخنان زیانبار و نادرست، در بخش های دیگری از گفت و گوی مدعی تاج و تخت از دست رفته پهلوی نمایان می شوند:
- در این که آقای رضا پهلوی، در وجود دولت های قرون وسطایی و واپس مانده عربستان، بحرین و قطر، هم پیمانانی برای براندازی جمهوری اسلامی می یابند و شادمانی خود را از این که آن دولت ها، بیش از غربی ها، هوادار قیام مردم ایران برای دست یابی به دموکراسی و حقوق بشر اند، پنهان نمی سازند؛
- در این که آقای رضا پهلوی، ناراست گویانه چنین می نمایانند که گروه گسترده ای از مردم ایران، برای ورود «مهاجمان خارجی»، دوچشم به راه و دوگوش بر پیغام بسته اند و برای مداخله نظامی در سرزمین شان، روزشماری می کنند.
ایشان، از این هم فراتر رفته و درایت عربستان سعودی و کشورهای زیردستش را می ستایند که دریافته اند «مسئله اصلی نه برنامه اتمی که حکومت است. سعودی ها و بحرینی ها و قطری ها این را می دانند. چنین می نماید که فقط غرب فراموش کرده است.»
آیا ایشان به راستی براین باور اند که دل مشغولی شیوخ عربستان سعودی که هنوز پروانه رانندگی را هم به زنان کشور خود نمی دهند و سلطان بحرین که راهپیمایی های مردم کشور خویش را به یاری سربازان عربستان به خون کشید، دموکراسی و حقوق بشر درایران است؟ آیا ایشان برآنند که دولت هایی از این دست، هم پیمانان اپوزیسیون دموکرات ایران برای دستیابی به دموکراسی و حقوق بشر به شمار می آیند و مخالفان تبعیض و خودکامگی در ایران، باید با چنین نیروهایی هم پیمان شوند؟ چنین سخنان نادرست و به دور از خرد، شاید کمک های مالی برای آقای رضا پهلوی را درپی داشته باشد، که گویا داشته است؛ اما هیچ یک از آن دولت های یاد شده را، دلبند و وارسته دموکراسی و سکولاریسم در ایران نمی سازد. ذات نایافته از هستی بخش، کی تواند که شود هستی بخش؟
در بخش های دیگری از گفت و گوی آقای رضا پهلوی، دم خروس بیش از پیش آشکار می شود. ایشان می گویند که با نگاه به آزمون سوریه و لیبی و «اینکه غرب با توجه به گسیختگی مخالفان، طرف صحبتی نداشت»، به این داوری رسیده اند که باید شورای ملی از گروه های خارج ایجاد کرد تا «از این اجتناب کنیم... با یک صدا حرف بزنیم». این راهم به آگاهی رسانده اند که چنان شورایی از پانزده گروه هم اکنون پدیدار شده و آماده رهبری مردم ایران است. رضا پهلوی برای این که گسترده و فراگیر بودن شورای ملی براندازی را به رخ بکشد، خودستایانه و بی پروا از پیامد سخنانش، به پرسش گر می گوید که با رهبران جنبش سبز «تماس دارم» و «گرچه با موسوی شخصاً تلفنی صحبت نکرده ام، اما شبکه هایی وجود دارد که از طریق آنها گفتگو می کنیم». ایشان سپس چنین می افزایند:
«آنچه مشخص است: مادام که این حکومت برسرکار است نمی توان انتخابات آزاد برگزار کرد. از این رو در گام اول هر اقدامی را انجام می دهیم تا از دست حکومت راحت شویم. بعد مرحلۀ گذار است که در این مرحله دولت موقت ضروری خواهد بود.»
هیچ رهبر فرهیخته و جدی، به یک خبرنگار نمی گوید که رهبران جنبش سبز در ایران هم با او در پیوند اند و از شورای ملی او که گام نخستش راحت شدن از حکومت از راه دست زدن به هر اقدامی است، پشتیبانی می کنند. از این خودستایی بی پایه و کم هزینه برای ایشان اگر بگذریم، پرسشی که هر انسان خردمندی می تواند از آقای رضا پهلوی بکند، این است که به هم پیوستن پانزده گروه خارج از کشوری که بنا است هر یک، نماینده ای به کمیته مرکزی شورای زیر رهبری ایشان بفرستد، در شرایطی که می دانیم بیشتر این گروه ها دارای پایه و هواداران بسیاری در خارج هم نیستند تا چه رسد به داخل کشور، چگونه نماینده ی جنبش دموکراسی خواهی مردم ایران خواهد بود؟ آقای رضا پهلوی، پاسخ را از راه یک بررسی بسیار علمی به پرسش گر و از آن راه به مردم ایران داده اند:
«نام مرا هرکس در ایران می شناسد. اگر من از شما خواهش کنم با موبایل خود شماره ای را در ایران بگیرید، مردم آن سوی خط من را می شناسند... من رهبری ملی هستم. می توانم نلسون ماندلایی باشم، مهاتما گاندی ای باشم»!
دست مریزاد! مردم در ایران نام ایشان را می شناسند، باور نمی کنید به هرکس که می خواهید در ایران زنگ بزنید و بپرسید که آیا آن ها فرزند شاه پیشین را می شناسند و هرآینه پاسخ آری بود، همین برای پذیرش رهبری ایشان کافی است. گستاخانه تر هم این است که آقای رضا پهلوی که تا به امروز هزینه ای متحمل نشده و از برکت داراک پدری که گزارشی از آن را کسی ندیده زندگی کرده اند، خویشتن را با قهرمانانی مانند ماندلا و گاندی مقایسه می کنند که تا پای جان و به بهای از دست دادن همه چیز، در راه سربلندی و آزادی مردم شان کوشیدند. آیا اندکی فروتنی برازنده کسی نیست که ساعتی را در زندان به سر نبرده، روزی را بیمناک از زندگی خانواده اش نبوده، پاسی را بدون داراک بسیار نگذرانده و شبی را در تبعید و دربه دری سر بربالین ننهاده است؟ اگر ایشان، اینک که هنوز به جایی نرسیده اند، دیوار ادعایشان به کیوان برسد و خویشتن را تالی گاندی و ماندلا بدانند، فردا که زبانم لال به جایی برسند چه خواهند کرد و کدام سخن خودستایانه از زبانشان جاری خواهد گردید و چگونه درباره وجود نازنین خویش داوری خواهند کرد؟ مگر مردم ایران پیامد آن خودبزرگ بینی بیمارگونه پدرشان را فراموش کرده اند که خویشتن را بزرگ ترین رهبر سیاسی و اقتصادی جهان می دانست و در آستانه آغاز انقلاب، در اندیشه یاری رسانی به گرفتاری های کشورهای بزرگ غربی بود؟
آقای رضا پهلوی اگرچه نگفته اند که شورای زیر رهبری او با کدام نیرو و از چه راهی بنا است به «هراقدامی» دست بزند «تا از دست حکومت راحت شویم»، پاسخ را در جای دیگری داده اند: برگرده نیروهای نظامی خارجی. پرسش گر آلمانی می گوید که مداخله نظامی غرب در ایران می تواند به شکست بیانجامد و جمهوری اسلامی را تقویت کند. او به جای این که پاسخ دهد که با دخالت نظامی درایران از بنیاد مخالف است (چیزی که پیشتر گفته بود)، این بار در پاسخ به این ارزیابی روزنامه نویس، حرف دل خود را می زند:
«خیلی این حرف درست نیست. بسیاری از ایرانی ها حتی برای خلاصی از حکومت طرف مهاجمان خارجی را خواهند گرفت.»
نیک بنگرید که در هیچ کجای این گفت و گو، رضا پهلوی و یا شاید گاندی ایرانی، نمی گوید که او مخالف دخالت نظامی درایران است. او پس از ستایش از دموکراسی های حقوق بشری عربستان، بحرین و قطر که آشکارا هوادار حمله نظامی به ایران اند، می گوید که «بسیاری از ایرانی ها حتی برای خلاصی از حکومت طرف مهاجمان خارجی را خواهند گرفت»! گستاخی را هم مرزی بایستی و بی پروایی را میزانی. ایشان به دولت های خارجی اعلام می کنند که از پیامد دخالت نظامی درایران بیمناک نباشند زیرا ایرانی ها هم با آغوش باز به استقبال نیروهای نظامی شان خواهند آمد. همان سخن نادرستی که آقای چینی، معاون رییس جمهور پیشین ایالات متحد، برای پشتیبانی از لشکر کشی به عراق می زدند. بسیاری چونان من، پیشتر هم باورداشتند که چشم انداز و امید شورای ملی آقای رضا پهلوی برای «راحت شدن از حکومت با هر اقدامی»، دخالت نظامی خارجی درایران است و تنها در پیامد چنان رویداد ویرانگری و برخرابه بمباران ایران است که «دولت موقت» ایشان پدیدار خواهد شد وبه «انتخابات آزاد» روی خواهد آورد. اینک آقای رضا پهلوی، همه تریدها را از میان برده و همه پرده ها را افکنده اند.
این گفت و گو را نمی توان خواند و به بازنویسی تاریخ از سوی آقای رضاپهلوی اشاره ای نکرد. راستی این است که چگونگی ارزیابی او از کارهای پدرش، گواه چشم انداز آینده ای است که او در سر دارد. پرسش گر، با خودداری بسیار، به رضا پهلوی یادآوری می کند که «ایران در زمان پدر شما کشور چندان دموکراتیکی نبود». رضا پهلوی به جای آن که بی پروا و بدون درنگ پاسخ دهد، او که اینک سخت هوادار حقوق بشر است، از رفتار خودکامانه پدرش و سازمان پلیسی دوران او پشتیبانی نمی کند و بیافزاید که با ارزیابی پرسش گر همسو و هم رای است، کاسه کوزه را بر سر مردم ایران می شکند و به سان همه پاسداران خودکامگی و زور، می گوید، ایران آمادگی دموکراسی را نداشته است! می گوید که چشم انداز پدرش برای ایران یک کشور دموکراتیک بوده، اما مردم هنوز شایستگی دستیابی به آن را نیافته بودند:
«پدرم براین باور بود که باید ابتدا به مردم تا حدی آموزش بدهد تا دمکراسی امکان پذیر شود. می خواست ابتدا جامعه مدنی ایجاد کند.»
سخنی از این بی پایه تر در توجیه و پاسداری از دوران گذشته نمی توان برزبان آورد. به راستی که تباهی و جور و جنایت در این سی و سه سال جمهوری اسلامی به جایی رسیده که اینک فرزند محمدرضاشاه می تواند در باره کوشش پدرش برای بنای زمینه های دموکراسی داستان سرایی کند. مگر پدر ایشان قیم گروهی یتیم و نادان بودند که برای آموزش دموکراسی و ساختن نهادهای مدنی، چفت بردهان مردم بزنند و قانون اساسی را یک سر پایمال کنند؟ پدر ایشان، هر نهاد مدنی را که سرسپرده ی فرمانروایی او نبود، از میان می برد و هرکوشنده حقوق شهروندی را خاموش می کرد. روزنامه و کتابی بدون پروانه ساواک به چاپ نمی رسید و پی آمد داشتن وخواندن رمان هایی که در سیاهه کتاب های ممنوعه بود، پیگرد و زندان به دنبال داشت. والاترین نهاد مشروطه که مجلس شورای ملی بود، تیول خصوصی دربار شد و همان دو حزب دولتی هم که نمونه رام شده و خانگی «نهادهای مدنی» بودند، به فرمان آریامهر منحل شدند و دستور داده شد که همه مردم ایران، وابستگان و سرسپردگان حزب رستاخیز گردند. این سخن درست که اینک، با تبه کاری هایی بس گسترده تر روبروییم، نباید کسانی را به این باور خنده دار و شاید هم گریه آور اندازد که پیش از جمهوری اسلامی، ایران سرزمین پرورش مردم برای آماده سازی دموکراسی و ساختن نهادهای مدنی بوده است. پادشاهی که کمترین وفاداری به قانون و حقوق شهروندی نداشت، چگونه می خواست «ابتدا به مردم تا حدی آموزش بدهد تا دمکراسی امکان پذیر شود»؟ اگر رفتار سازمان امنیت و دیگر کارهای ناشایست گذشته، گواه وفاداری پادشاه به آموزش دموکراسی و ساختن نهادهای مدنی باشد، نیک است که تندیس هیتلر زینت بخش دفتر حقوق بشر سازمان ملل متحد شود که به یاری سازمان پر مهر گشتاپو، برای آموزش دموکراسی و بنای نهاد های دموکراتیک چنان خدمات ارزنده ای را به جامعه بشری کرد. دست مریزاد آقای رضا پهلوی، از این آزمون پس دادن تان پس از سال ها زندگی در دموکراسی های غربی و آشنایی با نهادهای مدنی.
درپایان به جا است که به یک درافشانی دیگر هم اشاره ای بکنم. آقای رضا پهلوی می گویند که پدرشان با چنان درایتی و «بدون این که به قدرت بچسبد»، ایران را ترک کرد که «بسیاری از انقلابی های آن موقع امروز نزد من می آیند و می گویند: بهتر بود پدرت ما را بازداشت و اعدام می کرد. ما که خبر نداشتیم چه پیش خواهد آمد!» نخستین سفارش من به آقای رضا پهلوی این است که هر آینه یکی دیگر از آن انقلابی ها به سراغ ایشان آمد و با پشیمانی از این که اعلیحضرت ایشان را اعدام نکرده، مراتب نارضایتی خویش را به آگاهی رساند، آن دیوانه زنجیری را به نزدیک ترین بیمارستان روانی راهنمایی کنند که جهان از گزند چنین پریشان احوالانی آسوده گردد. شاید هم اگر صداقتی در این سخنان ایشان باشد، نیک است که نام آن انقلابی های پشیمان از اعدام نشدن را آشکار سازند تا دیگران نیز از نزدیکی با چنین بیمارانی، دوری جویند.
اما، از شوخی گذشته، راستی تلخی در این سخن آقای رضا پهلوی نهفته است. ایشان سربسته می گویند که پدرشان بهتر می بود شماری بیشتر از «انقلابی های آن موقع» را اعدام می کردند تا شاید انقلابی در نمی گرفت و ایشان به جای آن که دل به سودای شاهی بر سبیل محمدعلی میرزایی بسته باشند، اینک برتخت نادری نشسته و شاه شاهانی دیگر می بودند. من خوانشی دیگر از سخن ایشان نتوانم کرد. این راهم بیافزایم که داوطلبانه ترک کردن کشور از سوی محمدرضاشاه، شاید افسانه ای باشد که خویشان و بستگان آقای رضاپهلوی به او گفته و او باور کرده باشد. محمد رضا شاه از ایران رفت، زیرا میلیون ها مردم به خیابان ها ریخته و رفتن او را می خواستند و دو دیگر این که نمایندگان دولت ایالات متحد، مانند ژنرال هایزر که بلندپایگان ارتش و نیروهای امنیتی ایران در کف با کفایتشان بودند، آمدند و به شاه دستور دادند که ایران را ترک کند. هیچ کار داوطلبانه ای در میان نبود.
هرآینه شاه، هنگامی که از میزان بیماری خویش آگاهی یافته بود که می دانیم سالیانی پیش از انقلاب است، پادشاهی را به سود پسرش رها می کرد و به راستی داوطلبانه کناره می گرفت و هرآینه، دولت مردان و آزاد زنان رژیم پادشاهی، پیش از آن که کار به تنگناهای ماه های پایانی برسد، «صدای انقلاب» و نا رضایتی مردم را از فساد و خودکامگی شنیده بودند، عوام فریبانی مانند آیت الله خمینی و دیگر رهبران انقلاب اسلامی نمی توانستند جامه از تن مردم هشیار بربایند و چه بسا که اینک، هنوز هم نظام شاهی بر ایران چیره بود و آقای رضا پهلوی را نیازی نمی بود که در سودای شاهی، چشم امید بندان به ارتش آزادیبخش ناتو، اسراییل و عربستان باشند.
محمد امینی
آدينه ۲ تير ۱٣۹۱ - ۲۲ ژوئن ۲۰۱۲
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Hands ON or hands OFF?
by deev on Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:51 PM PDTیک سوال از دوستان سلطنتطلب - اگر در نظام مشروطه جایگاه پادشاه سمبلیک و تشریفاتیست و او نباید در امور سیاسی کشور دخالت کند چرا جناب پهلوی در عرصه سیاست میکوشند و اگر قرار است پادشاه در سیاست دخالت کند چرا دم از قانون اساسی مشروطه میزنند؟
بقول مولوی: راه ناهموارو زیرش دامها / قحط معنی در میان نامها
Ashk DovomSun Jul 01, 2012 10:54 AM PDT
Simple but deeply meaningful questions indeed! Your judgements are all of a piece. Those questions were as deeply meaningful as the rest of your arguments about the restoration of monarchy in Iran.
The resume padding!
by Arj on Sun Jul 01, 2012 04:23 PM PDTWhat is wrong with people? What do they want from this guy?!
He's an unemployed person with a hefty trust fund who has not worked a single day in more than half a century (his entire life!) and is desperately seeking employment! Has any of us not lied on their resume? So what if he'd be defending democracy one day, and his father's and granpa's legacy another, based on the target audience and out of necessity?
So what if he oscillates between a pro-democracy activist and an absolute monarch? He himself has said numerous times that he takes whatever job people throw at him. It's never too late for a guy to work his way up the social ladder!!! He's not getting any younger, you know...!
Now isn't it clear why the IRI loves Aminis and their likes
by anglophile on Sun Jul 01, 2012 06:07 AM PDTIn her response to Darius Kadivar's simple but deeply meaningful questions Ms Amini says:
"Democracy cannot be achieved without teamwork but again to our dismay, Iranians cannot get together, put aside their ideological and political differences for a greater goal or rarely."
and ends her equivocation by:
" If I am ready to undermine my friend or colleague in order to get ahead and even lie and cheat, then we are not ready! "
Compare Ms Amini's words of "wisdom" with the very article her brother Mohammad has written here and her full sisterly support for brother.
As long as Aminis, Jebeh Mellis, Nehzat Azadi and their likes exist as the so-called opposition to the Islamic regime, the regime needs not spend a penny on driving a wedge into the ranks of the opposition. Aminis do the job for them for free.
Questions that are not questions at all, but...
by Ashk Dovom on Sun Jul 01, 2012 03:03 AM PDTIf I was Ms Fariba Amini and someone would have asked me these type of questions, I would have found them extremely churlish and insulting. Questions that are not questions at all, but are clearly meant to be patronising. I should however take my hat off to Ms Amini for gracefully responding. Her calm and composed response had the effect that the sharpest words, had she used them, would not have been able to produce, if only her interlocutor had enough sense to realise it!!!
Thank You Fariba Jan
by Darius Kadivar on Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:04 AM PDTI hope to be back on this thread in a near future.
Probably with other questions and feedbacks to your observations.
In the meantime Thank you for your cooperation.
Have a Nice Weekend !
DK
answers
by Fariba Amini on Sat Jun 30, 2012 08:03 AM PDT1) Did the Pahlavis Invent the very notion of 'dictatorship' in Iran let alone in the entire region ?
NO
2) Did the Pahlavi's introduce Islam to Iran let alone to the entire region ?
NO
3) Despite an educated elite, was Iran at large, a deeply religious and
traditional country, or not, at the time of the events of 1953 ?
YES
4) Can democracy be achieved without Team Work ?
NO
We have had, to our dismay, except for a very short period, dictatorships in our modern history.
The Shah was educated in the same country, at least for part of it, as Mossadegh. But his notion of modernization differed from him. Modernization if not combined with democratic values will not succeed especially in a deeply religious society. Building mosques was not the answer, even Farah Diba warned the Shah many times-see Alam's memoirs. Whereas he allowed personal freedom, he did not allow political freedom- the notion of civil society, different parties participating in the process, a free press, student participation in public gatherings even if opposed to the regime, were non-existant. As I said before, reading a political novel would put you in jail! The Shah and his regime (those closest to him most specifically) were out of touch with the majority of the population ( one of the successes of this regime from the beginning and the reason they are still in power is because they did the opposite-they rallied and took care of the lower middle class.
Corruption became tolerant and the Shah's immediate family prospered enormously as a result. The distribution of wealth was inequal. Basically, they did not care. They were in their own world, 2500 year celebration, coronation, rastakhiz, changing the Iranian calendar-- big mistakes.
Iran was religious and has been a very religious country but in a different way, different than many other countries in the Middle East. But not allowing democracy to take root even gave more power to the religious elements-- the same mistakes the U.S. made in Afghanistan. We will see what happens in Egypt now.
Like other religions, unfortunately, Islam has not changed with times. In fact, in many countries it has regressed. Fundementalism has taken more root in Islam than any other religions. The U.S. and other powers in order to crush the ideas of nationalism and socialism mistakenly turned to religion-Islam and we see the unfortunate result.
Democracy cannot be achieved without teamwork but again to our dismay, Iranians cannot get together, put aside their ideological and political differences for a greater goal or rarely. In fact, again, the reason the IRI was successful was because they (the clerics) stuck together. We still have a long ways to understand that democracy is not just a word but a daily practice which must start in our own little surroundings. Iranians in general are not about giving credit when credit is due, they think of ME and ME alone. Living under a theocracy has not made people better, even those who cry out freedom and democracy- they think of me, not us.
I have experienced it firsthand from this new generation of Iranians who have come abroad- that is why I have very little hope. I am not even sure if and when the IRI falls, whether we will have "democracy." If I am ready to undermine my friend or colleague in order to get ahead and even lie and cheat, then we are not ready!
Ali P.
by P_J on Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:04 PM PDTNot only people voted with their REVOLUTION, but later on Bazargan’s referendum soundly and clearly ABOLISHED the MISERABLE, INHUMANE and SADISTIC monarchy, that was run by a group of hard core criminals.
Monarchy in Iran is a figment of imagination of a group of paid hustling Shahollahis, PIMPING for and receiving fund from the EMBEZZELED Pahlavi LOOT.
This small vocal group has been unsuccessfully trying to rewrite history…they live in a world of fantasy, lies and self-deception and are PAID for it!
That is, WHY this man, RP, with zero accomplishments or achievements in the past 30+ years can’t declare government in exile…he should have been able to do so; if as these Hustlers think that he was the CROWN and not a CLOWN Prince.
Reason is simple…and goes back some 33 years, and was for the same reason that his TRAITOR father having being kicked out of Iran could not find a home and was MAROONED, and had he not been PITTIED by Sadat and taken in; his masters would have returned him to the Mullahs in hand cuffs.
And in this case US government would not hesitate kicking him, RP, out even if he considers or was thinking about it, the government in exile…why you might ask…BECAUSE Monarchy is and has been ABOLISHED/DEAD in Iran and not recognized anywhere else. He has been interviewed several times…have you ever seen him being addressed as crown prince, or even a prince…I have not!
Conclusion; the Shahollahis/Hezbollah camp who are the sad remnants of the vicious SAVAK agents, would continue their FUTILE and FEABLE attempts on rewriting history so far as they are paid to do so…since, most these folks don’t seem to have any other Skill, job, or capable of doing anything else beside HUSTLING. My guess is that they are unskilled and seemingly can’t stand on their own two feet, have led parasitic lives, incapable and incompetent on their own… they could not even make the minimum wage if their lives depended on it like their IDLE, RP, who flunked out and was kicked out of the Brown University! Later on he was given an “HONERARY”, looked GREATLY like a “PITY”, Bachelor degree from USC. And one can easily DETECT his level of intellect and literacy when he tries to express himself in English…after spending 2/3 of his life, PLUS, in the ENGLISH speaking America!
Dear Aryo Barzan,
by Ashk Dovom on Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:11 AM PDTDear Aryo Barzan,
Thanks for sharing your views. It is so refreshing to be able to talk without resorting to personal attacks, mockery and put downs. No one also has a monopoly on patriotism and no one also has a monopoly on living in the real world! I disagree with you on your thinking that I live in a poetic world or Mr Amini lives in an unreal world. I am not so naive to only look for perfection and dismiss anyone who fails to measure up to my ideal. But I do not like to bury my head in the sand and indulge in self-delusion either. I am sure you agree that a great deal of our national problems is due to the fact that in our country most of the time we do not think clearly or think with the wrong organ. We fail to make the right judgement and properly evaluate characters and circumstances until it is too late. Like you, I also prefer an organised and coherent way of fighting the Islamic Republic with a competent team, quarterbacked by someone who has earned the right to lead and not because he is the son of his father. I look forward to a national leader who is appealing to intelligent people and am averse to a political mafioso who leads a mob of thugs who do his biding. Let us hope that soon competent teams and skillful leaders emerge in our national landscape. Until then however let us not settle for ersatz and the counterfeit and political mafiosos!! Better safe than sorry. Thanks again and good luck!!شاهزاده تنپرور بی تجربه
deevFri Jun 29, 2012 10:47 AM PDT
جناب آریو برزن من با گفتار شما موافقم - آری دلیل دلسردی و گلایه من از جناب پهلوی دقیقا همین است که عرض کرده اید - این آرزوی من بود اگر جناب پهلوی کمی عرضه و پاراگماتیزم از خود نشان میداند و در کردارشان کوشا تر از گفتارشان بودند و تمرکز و تلاششان را به جای ارضای خواستار سلطنت طلبان به سازندگی پایه های دموکراسی میسپاردند زیرا از او به عنوان کسی که در یک کشور آزاد زیسته و از عقاید پوچ مذهبی در امان بوده و دارای اندیشه های نوین و اندوخته های مالیست انتظار تلاش مثبت به مراتب بیشتری داشته ام.
گرچه من حکومت جمهوری را ترجیح میدهم مشکل من با نهاد پادشاهی نیست بلکه با بی لیاقتی فردی است که خواستار آن است - اینکه جناب پهلوی در تاسیس هیچ ارگان و سازمان و کسب و کاری نکوشیده و تجربه رهبری را ندارد دروغ نیست پس من بانو شیرین عبادی یا سالار کمانگر مدیرکل شرکت یوتوب یا شهرام همایون پایه گذار شبکه ملی کانال یک را کاندیدای بهتری برای پادشاهی میبینم زیرا موفقیت آنها در اداره سازمانهایشان بیانگر لیاقت و شایستگی آنها در رهبری است و اینکه جناب پهلوی در ترویج فرهنگ ایرانی و دانش اندوزی کوشا نبوده دروغ نیست و اینکه وی در طی چند دهه گذشته هیچ نشانی از قدرت سازندگی خود به جای نگذاشته دروغ نیست و افسوس که حقیقت تلخ چنین است که شاهزاده ما تنبل و تنپرور بوده و غبغب فربه او نمایانگر بارز این حقیقت است که وی حتی اشتهایش را هم نمیتواند به درستی رهبری کند چون پدر و پدر بزرگ فقیدش از چاقی در امان بودند که نشانی از عزم راسخشان بوده و چاقی یک سیاستمدار گواهی از ضعف بر نفس آن شخص است.
جناب پهلوی اگر به جای آنکه سودای حفظ و تمدید اصل نظام پادشاهی را در سر میپرواند فکر سلطنت را به دور می انداخت و کوشش خود را در ترویج سازندگی و فرهنگ ایرانی و آرمانهای دموکراتیک خلاصه میکرد و شایستگی رهبری نشان میداد به عنوان فردی به متراتب روشن تر از رجوی و موسوی و کروبی مورد علاقه عموم بیشتری از مردم بود و طرفداران بیشتری را بر پایه عمل میافت تا حرف و شعار خشک و خالی - شهرام همایون و شیرین عبادی فقط حرف از دموکراسی نمیزنند و بر پایه عقادشان عمل میکنند و کمبود این عملکرد نشانی از ضعف رضاست پس خوب است مردم را بر پایه عمل بسنجیم و نه حرف.
Four Questions For Fariba ...
by Darius Kadivar on Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:48 AM PDTFariba Jan could you please answer to these 4 questions ... Calmly if possible:
1) Did the Pahlavis Invent the very notion of 'dictatorship' in Iran let alone in the entire region ?
2) Did the Pahlavi's introduce Islam to Iran let alone to the entire region ?
3) Despite an educated elite, was Iran at large, a deeply religious and traditional country, or not, at the time of the events of 1953 ?
4) Can democracy be achieved without Team Work ?
No detailed explanation ... YES or NO will do ...
Based on your answers I may have other questions and need for explanations I would like to have from you based on your unique perspective as well as historical and political insights.
Thank you in advance,
DK
Arya Barzan; Pahlavi Tyranny Belongs to the Garbage Can of Histo
by Masoud Kazemzadeh on Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:32 AM PDTAB: Furthermore your lack (or level of denial) of historical knowledge is really amazing
The main reason why on President Carter send a message to Khomeini from Guadalupe was the fact that one year earlier Shah hiked the price of oil to $36 per barrel and hence send his budged down the putty. I mean really mate whom do you think you are dealing with here.
========================
MK: The problem with monarchists like you is that you are soooooooooo ignorant of basic facts, that you do not realize that you live in your weird fantasies that have no relationship with actual historical realities. Monarchists like you confuse their conspiracy theories with documented and scholarly historical realities.
1. YOU are WRONG on the basic FACTS. Helooooooo.
The price of oil in 1977 (a year before the meeting in Guadalupe) was very low.
//inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp
In 1977, the price of oil was around $14 in nominal dollar. In today's dollar it would be around $54.
Do YOU see how ignorant you are?????????????????????
2. President Carter strongly supported and praised the Shah in the 1978 New Year’s Eve in Tehran. Heloooooooo. Carter made the huge mistake of supporting the Shah’s genocidal policy of keep killing the unarmed protesters instead of accepting the demands of the Iranian people to hold free and democratic elections, respect freedom of the press and respect human rights.
3. AFTER massive marches and after the successful strikes by oil workers, which shut down Iran’s oil production and exports (at its height reached around 5.9 million barrels per day), the price of oil went up. The leaders of the Western countries in Guadalopue reached the conclusion that their NOKAR, the Shah was no longer a viable ruler. The Western economies needed oil at low prices and the struggle of the Iranian people had deprived them of that.
The Shah was a loyal NOKAR of the U.S. During the Arab boycott of oil to the U.S., the Shah sold oil to the U.S., Israel, Holland, and the racist apartheid regime in South Africa. Why in the world the U.S. would want to get rid of its loyal NOKAR who at the crucial period was serving them so well??????!!!!!!!
4. Today the fundamentalist only have around 10 to 20 percent support among the population, but they are ruling. The Shah had only a small percentage support (around 5% or so) by the ruled tyrannically. The main reason that tyrants rule despotically is that they constitute a small percentage of the population.
5. I have already discussed the role of the JM during the 1977-1979 revolution. Read it here:
//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/role-jebhe-melli-during-1977-79-revolution
6. The Pahlavist monarchists have proven recorded history of being a blood-thirsty savages, who engaged in systematic torture, rape, and killings of the Iranian people. Instead of apologizing to the Iranian people, the blood-thirsty monarchist savages say that the problems was that they did not kill enough people when they were in power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Pahlavi tyranny belongs to the garbage can of history. Hopefully, the Iranian people will soon succeed in sending the vf regime to the same garbage can.
Best,
Masoud
Ali P.
by deev on Fri Jun 29, 2012 09:53 AM PDTKhodaa omret bedeh, farmoodid...
"The root of the law, should be the will of people. The law can be changed. Many of us would like to see the Islamic Republic be changed/replaced with a secular democracy."
I agree with you 100% and until that day that Iranians do change the law Mr. Pahlavi shall remain an ordinary citizen without any titles or claims as currently there is no monarchy to claim, should Iranians vote for monarchy I will respect their will, but we're talking about a long shot hypothetical scenario.
Dear Masoud
by areyo barzan on Fri Jun 29, 2012 09:38 AM PDTAs hard as you tried in the end you still could not put a hold on your rage.
So you call a group of your fellow countrymen blood thirty just because they believe in one form of democracy that you do not.
If you are behaving like this while not in the power then I hate to imagine what you will be when in power. I guess you will order a stick to be hammered trough the hearth of all those “blood suckers” who do not agree with you.
Furthermore your lack (or level of denial) of historical knowledge is really amazing
The main reason why on President Carter send a message to Khomeini from Guadalupe was the fact that one year earlier Shah hiked the price of oil to $36 per barrel and hence send his budged down the putty. I mean really mate whom do you think you are dealing with here.
But the more important question here is that if as you say the number of monarchists is only 5 to 10 present then what is the worry. Why should not they be able to also anticipate in the referendum? Even if they did not accept the results these are a small minority who could be put in place by the will of majority and rule of law.
Unless you actually do not believe in what you are saying and in your hearth of hearths you know that the average man in the street of Iran is leaving in the nostalgia of 33 years ago and regards all these other political groups who line up behind Khomeini and not only brought this disaster upon them but also refuse to accept their error and liability, as the primary reason for the fact that he does not have a decent income or the inflation and the corruption and the lawlessness and ….. Which prevents him from providing for his family.
You see mate the problem that I see here is the fact that the majority of people in the streets of Iran today could not care lass about the mambo jumbo of ideology that you and I are promoting on the other hand they are longing for an economy which enable them to provide for their families and live a good life, just like 33 years ago. Now I am not saying if that nostalgia has its roots in truth or fantasy but that is what you and I need to address in order to even get their attention let alone support.
This is the factor that is working in favour of monarchists and RP and this is the problem that we need to address and I assure you that the last thing that is going to make these people to change their mind is insult and accusation by people who refuse to admit to their own error in the first place
Are you OK Ms Amini? I am really worried for you!
by anglophile on Fri Jun 29, 2012 09:35 AM PDTLook! No amount of raving and ranting by you or your good brother is going to change the past or even the future. But you should not allow prince Reza's occupying the centre stage of opposition to the regime that Aminis of this world helped to power, drive you to a state of near insanity.
Please madam. Calm down and take some rest. Ok you fabricated a story behind a photograph to ridicule the Shah and your lie was exposed but this is not the end of the world dear lady. Don't forget, you and your dear brother have still a lot to offer by creating noises to disunite the opposition - much to the satisfaction of the Islamic regime.
So please Fariba khanom don't let anyone here to make you go ballistic just because you lied about that photo of Kashani being kissed by the Shah and still can't authenticate it. That was a harmless little lie but you need no lose your sanity over being caught red handed.
Take some rest Friba khanom. You need it for the next anti-Pahlavi fabricated rant :)
Dear Ashk Dovvom
by areyo barzan on Fri Jun 29, 2012 09:00 AM PDTAlthough I do understand and appreciate what you and Mr Amini are sayling here and in theory or in a poetic way that might make sense, in the real world things are difference.
With regards to the countries like Libya Egypt or Tunisia I believe it is still early days.
They are currently at the place where we have already passed 33 years ago.
I personally believe in having a plan, being ready and having reliable leaders of if you like spoke people.
I personally prefer to deal with real world and all its imperfection.
In a perfect world as you argued we could have people leading themselves, creating political institutions and be mobilised to overthrow any dictator.
However in the real world any institution from a small firm to a large revolution needs leadership and a clear strategy. But do not get me wrong here I personally do not believe in one leader but in a council of leaders who present all sectors of our society. And as I told you I prefer this leadership to be divers and more than one person so that all sectors of our society could be catered for.
You see! I believe that the difference between us or between me and Mr Amini is the fact that I take the world as I find it. And what I see it currently is that fact that most of people in this country (right or wrong) are longing for a leadership that could unite and mobilise them against the IRI. Also they have a deep suspicion against those who lead them into the last one (i.e. MKO, Jebhe Melli, communists) especially as they have not yet come clean to admit their error and apologize for it.
This is the fact on the ground regardless of what we wish it to be and that is the primary reason that in spite of 99.99% opposition to the IRI no one is making any move except some very brave individuals who are being incarcerated shut down by the IRI and its cronies
There is noting degrading or embarrassing about looking for or accepting someone as your leader, however thing become degrading when people (as we Iranians often do) start to put their leaders above the law. Until and unless this fundamental problem is addressed even if as you say we start to appoint the next activist (Like Tabarzadi) as our leader there is no guarantee that when in power he will not be turned into another Khamene-ey as he was once an activist.
Furthermore the supporters of RP or other political groups and “Leaders” will not go away quietly just because we say so after all they have as much right as you and I to campaign for the type of democracy that they see fit.
That is why I personally believe that we need to set aside fighting and patronising each other and instead find shared middle grounds and common causes that could allow us to work towards a shared goal namely a free fare referendum that could lead us to rule of law for all or a secular Democracy and ultimately pave the way for a flourishing economy and well being of our people.
We need to get out of this vicious circle of moving from extreme to another. In the last revolution everyone accepted Khomeini as the only leader and no one was allowed to ask the question about him and hence this time around we tend to throw the baby away with the bath water by claiming that we do not need any leadership at all and even dismissing the institution of leadership altogether.
All the best
Apologize???!!! How many times must you apologize to us?
by Fariba Amini on Fri Jun 29, 2012 08:37 AM PDT"Later, however, both Kashani and Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Bihbahani were
approached by CIA contract officers to encourage them to split with the
National Front.2 It was later stated that they did take the money,
leading to stories of 'Bihbahani dollars' in the bazaar, and a report of a
post-coup meeting between the Shah, Zahidi, and Kashani, in which Kashani
was thanked for his efforts."
Several days after the coup the British received a report from the Iraqi ambassador in Tehran that the Shah and Zahedi together had visited Kashani, kissed his hands, and thanked him for his help is restoring the monarchy. "An Account of Conversation," 1 September 1953, FO/371/104571.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ayatollah+kashani&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=aGe&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=tMjtT_jAFsee6QH-lbibCg&ved=0CFkQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=417
(see the first photo of Kashani and Sha'ban Jaafari)
During the period of the Shah's reign, reading a novel called Kharmagas was forbidden and anyone who had a copy would be arrested and jailed!!!
Monarchy is gone and done with. Don't cry out like the White Russians who still think (after 80 years) that one day they will have their Tsarist Russia back!
Thank you Darius jaan for articulating it so well
by anglophile on Fri Jun 29, 2012 09:52 AM PDTDear Ali
as you see our good friend Darius has articluated what I had said much better than I could, If I am correct the American president is known as President designate in the period between the election victory and the oath of office. The term king-designate is perhaps a better term meaning: acquired the status of the king but not yet in office (or officially sworn in). The term heir apparent or king apparent implies that he is still waiting for the existing king to go (die or abdicate) while he is the first in the line of succession. The fact is that the king is gone and therefore as Darius says he is (from the dynastical point of view) the existing king (roi de jure).
Thank you both gentlemen.
هم وطن عزیز
shahrvand2Fri Jun 29, 2012 08:04 AM PDT
هم وطن عزیز گمان من اینست که در موارد ذیل امینی زیاده روی کرده است:
پهلوی را با محمد علی شاه مقایسه میکند.
طرفداران او را دیوانه زنجیری میخواند.
میگوید پهلوی خود را شاه خوانده در حالیکه سایت رسمی او حتی به او شاهزاده هم نمیگوید.
میگوید او خود را با ماندلا و گاندی همسنگ میداند.
میگوید پهلوی با شیوخ امارات و شاه عربستان هم پیمان است.
میگوید او برای هجوم خارجی به ایران روز شماری میکند.
میگوید پهلوی بی شرم و آزرم و خود ستاست.
میگوید پهلوی نباید بگوید با جنبش سبز در تماس است. چون چنین گفته پس او فرهیخته نیست.
میگوید خود بزرگ بین است چون گفته به هر که در ایران تلفن کنید نام مرا میداند.
امینی زیاده روی بیش از این دارد ولی وقت تنگ است. هموطن عزیز اگر تصور شما
چنین است که من سلطنت طلب هستم، یک نگاه دیگر به نوشته من بیاندازید شاید
اینبار نام فروغی، مصدق و صدیقی نظرتان را بگیرد. همواره موافق باشید.
Ali P.jan & Anglophile jan: correct term is "Roi de Jure" (i.e.)
by Darius Kadivar on Fri Jun 29, 2012 07:57 AM PDTAli P. jan and Anglophile the correct term is "Roi de Jure" ( in French) aka "King Apparent" ( in English) ...
When it comes to Royal successions each royal house (regardless of dynasty) has a head of family who is deemed the rightful heir to the throne in the order of succession.
But each head of a given royal family (ruling or not) can claim his or her right to the throne. But he or she has to first be accepted as the official heir within their own Dynasty.
Examples:
Libya:
ROYAL HOPEFUL: Libyan Crown Prince offers to help homeland
Serbia ( ex Yougoslavia):
ROYAL FORUM: Crown Prince of Serbia Seeks to Restore The MonarchyIn otherwords Sarah Shahi for instance is no Shah ...
;0)
not just because the Iranian constitution unless amended doesn't recognize a female monarch but because she is not in line of succession in her very own Royal family. No more than Princess Farahnaz in the current Pahlavi Family can be deemed as in line for the Throne. But her Royal status is fully acknowledged ( not sure for Sarah Shahi given that Qajar's had many illegitimate offsprings, never fully recognized)
But now Depending on different traditions or cultures ( salic laws which define the royal bloodline is a universal royal concept except in Malaysia's rotating monarchy as well as Combodia ) there can be slightly different nuances but generally When the Monarch dies based on either the constitution of the land or merely ancestrial customs the eldest son ( or daughter) automatically becomes the new monarch hence the tradition upon the monarch's death to proclaim:
"The King ( or Queen) is dead ... Long live the King ( or Queen)"
In this case Crown Prince Reza is Reza Shah II de facto in regard to the Royal House he represents. But as Monarch of Iranzamin he is only King or Shah Apparent ( roi de jure).
That is the case whether or not he is invested as Monarch by Parliament. But he is not King of Iran per se at least not democratically or officially as long as he has not made his Oath in Parliament.
In the case of the Iranian Constitution ( also true for Spain) the Royal Succession laws have not considered the possibility of the Monarch to have anything but a male heir. Hence Crown Prince Reza's daughters ( Noor, Iman, Farah) although recognized as royal princess' including by the Constitution do not have the possibility of being Crowned Monarch ... Although the late Shah did amend the Constitution that if he were to die prior to Crown Prince Reza's 20th Or 21st birthday, Queen Farah would step in as Monarch for what would be defined as a Regency period. Therefore the Iranian Constitution does consider the possibility of having a Female Monarch to succeed the Shah in this particular case.
Naming one's successor however is a Royal Prerogative which the Monarch as head of his or her dynasty has. He or she is therefore free as Monarch or Heir ( ruling or exiled ) to name his or her successor. That is not for the Parliament (running or not) to decide.
They usually don't oppose it so as not to avoid a constitutional crisis.
The Parliament can only accept or refute the proposition but in no way suggest or impose the future Monarch precisely because each dynasty has to safeguard it's bloodline.
That explains why usually given the notion of Royal continuity that when Restoriations occur they usually restore the previous dynasty but that is not an obligation. Dynastical competition often remains open as was the case in Spain where Juan Carlos ( who was not even born on Spanish soil but in Italy Rome) was in competition with another Royal Branch than his: The Orealais branch. Juan Carlos himself was a Bourbonne Prince.
Sweden's King for example asked the Parliament to ammend the Constitution so that his eldest daughter as Crown Princess Victoria would be named his heir. Despite the fact that he did have a younger son.
In Great Britain the Royal succession laws allowing the First born ( if a girl) to become the crown Princess and therefore Queen were only modified this year. Queen Elizabeth had no brothers and as first daughter the issue did not create any headaches but were Prince William and his wife to have a daughter, had the constitution not been modified then Prince Harry would be deemed as the legitimate heir:
British Monarchy Removes Gender Rules Regarding Royal Succession
This has been sorted out in the UK by allowing first born girls to claim the throne as equally as first born boys. But the suggestion in this case was submitted ( most probably upon the queen or Royal family's suggestion) to Parliament for ratification but given that the UK is also an Empire the new law had to be approved by ALL nations of the Commonwealth. The Amendment naturally was approved but had one Nation refused it could have created problems for the new married Royal Prince and 2nd in line to the Throne after his father Prince Charles.
In short Crown Prince Reza is a Royal by birth. Whether people want to call him Reza or Mister Reza Pahlavi is irrelevant. It actually doesn't even depend on him to require others to call him as they please. They can of course but as long as he has not abdicated ( nor did his father) he remains King apparent. If he were to abdicate then either Prince Gholam Reza automatically becomes King apparrent or his sons.
If the pahlavis decide all together to abdicate upon RP 2's abdication then other Royal Houses can reclaim the throne as theirs. The Qajars head for instance.
So Crown Prince Reza ( or Mister Reza if you please) remains a Prince is Reza Shah Dovom eversince his father died in Cairo in 1980. But Constitutionallly he is only King apparent Reza Shah Dovom based on his Oath in exile.
Hope this helps ...
I know it does sound at times complicated but that's how nearly all royal succession rules operate: The Bloodline and gender ( except in recent years due to ammendments made in their constitutions).
Now one can rightly debate whether or not such laws are obsolete, sexist or unfair or should be ammended to be more in line with today's values but Monarchies never claimed to be fair they claim rightly or wrongly to be patriotic and legitimate.
But then that is another debate ...
Hope this helped anyway ...
Best,
DK
Why It is Essential to Fight Against Monarchist TyrannicaSavages
by Masoud Kazemzadeh on Fri Jun 29, 2012 07:37 AM PDTAli jaan,
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi did NOT allow freedom of expression, the press, parties or free election. From John Locke’s times and the American Declaration of Independence it is widely recognized that once a form of government become oppressive and repeatedly violates the most basic rights of the people, the people have the right to rebel against the tyranny and change it and form a new form of government to their liking.
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi repeatedly violated and undermined the 1906 Constitution. One of the forms of resistance that JM members used to do was to write down parts of the 1906 Constitution and distribute them in the early 1960s at universities. SAVAK used to arrest and severely beat up and torture JM university student members for the sole crime of distributing those one page copies that contained articles of the 1906 Constitution.
The 1977-79 revolution de facto abolished of the ancient regime of monarchy. The referendum conducted by Bazargan and the Provisional Government is widely regarded as clean. The referendum de jure abolished the monarchy. The voting procedures met the international standards for fair vote.
The referendum in April 1979 was over Islamic Republic and should not be confused with the Velayat faghih Constitution. The referendum on the vf constitution was NOT conducted in a legitimate and acceptable manner.
Therefore, legally and legitimately the April 1979 referendum de jure abolished the system of monarchy in Iran. If Mr. Reza Pahlavi gave a damn about legality and the votes of the Iranian people, he would have accepted the votes of the Iranian people back in 1980. But Mr. Reza Pahlavi refused to abide by the votes of the Iranian people and in contradiction to the VOTES of the people, he took an oath to be the King of Iran.
You are absolutely right: the vf regime is a zillion times worse than the Pahlavi tyranny. Based on the exact same principles that gave the Iranian people to right to rebel and change the form of government under the Pahlavi tyranny, the Iranian people have the right to rebel and change the form of government under the vf tyranny.
Today, the vf regime refuses to allow the Iranian people to have a referendum just like the Shah’s fascistic and tyrannical regime refused to allow the Iranian people to have a referendum on the form of government.
Once the vf regime is overthrown, we will hold a referendum. By ALL indications, the monarchists are a small proportion of the population. Lets say that monarchy gets somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the votes. Reza Pahlavi did NOT accept the VOTES of the people in 1979-1980, why would he not do the exact same thing tomorrow???????????????
The institution of monarchy is not based on VOTES. It is based on FORCE and inheritance.
Reza Khan first gained power with the help of the British the Feb 1921 coup. It was a British colonial coup. From Feb 1921, Reza Khan used force, including assassination, and intimidation to consolidate power.
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was NOKAR of the UK and U.S. from the get go. The Shah helped the subjugation of the Iranian people. The Shah literally gave OUR oil BACK to a consortium of foreign countries. OUR oil had already been nationalized by Mossadegh.
Form the point of view of Iranian nationalists and democrats BOTH the Pahlavi and vf regimes lack legitimacy. You are right, in a democracy, we have to allow voting for all forms of governments. The problems is that when the Pahlavis had power, they did NOT allow for democratic and free votes (thus the necessity of revolution). The same with the vf regime.
In sum, the monarchists and fundamentalists have PROVEN that by their practice when they had power, they OPPOSED the votes and the wishes of the Iranian people. And when they are out of power, they ask for free votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As is clear the monarchists are still unrepentant for the crimes they committed against the Iranian people during THEIR reigns of terror. How do we know that these blood-thirsty charlatans are not lying just like the way Khomeini lied in Paris????????? How do we know that these monarchists whose hands are soaked with the blood of the Iranian people are not planning to recreate another hellish dictatorship? Almost all the other groups have evolved in the past 33 years, except the monarchists. Actually, the monarchists of 2012 are more blood-thirsty than the monarchists of 1979.
Therefore, the pro-democracy forces have to do two things simultaneously: (1) we have to fight against the fascistic monarchist savages; and (2) we have to defend their political rights to participate in politics. We have the exact same dilemma with Khamenei and his supporters now and after the overthrow of the vf regime.
In order to have a transition to democracy, it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to make monarchists and fundamentalists as weak as possible. The weaker the monarchists and fundamentalists are, the higher the likelihood of the transition to and consolidation of democracy. It is not possible to have democracy if the fundamentalist and monarchist savages are strong. The reason that the revolution did not succeed in having a transition to democracy was that the pro-democracy forces (JM) were weak and the dictatorial forces (e.g., Khomeini) were strong. For the exact same reason, we have to make certain that the anti-democratic forces (monarchists) are weak, in order to have democracy after the overthrow of the vf tyranny.
You are right that after the overthrow of the vf regime, we have to protect the political rights of all groups, including the dictatorial groups such as the monarchists. Certainly, after the overthrow we have to have a referendum where the people can vote: Nezam Velayat Faghih, Yes or No?
The question is what next? One way is to hold 100% free and democratic election for Constitutional Assembly (Majles Moasesan). People from ALL parties will be free to participate. This means dictatorial groups such as monarchists, Khamenei supporters, fundamentalist Reformists supporters, PMOI, Stalinists, etc.
Among the very first votes of the members of the Constitutional Assembly will be on the form of government. Monarchists want a vote on: "Monarchy, yes or no?" The fundamentalists want a vote on "Democratic Velayat faghih, yes or no?" The Hezb Kommunist Kargari wants: "Soviet Republic, yes or no?" The PMOI wants "Democratic Islamic Republic, yes or no?"
If the vote is for secular democratic republic, then we could have democracy. But if the elected delegates vote for one of the anti-democratic systems then there will NOT be democracy in Iran.
So, you are absolutely right, there will have to be votes for all options including anti-democratic options such as monarchy. Reza Pahlavi and monarchists will try to fool people by using terms like Constitutional monarchy, like what Khomeini, Reza Khan, and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi did BEFORE they could GRAB absolute power.
The role and responsibility of our scholars and intellectuals is to teach our people about the dictatorial groups so that they will not be fooled by the anti-democratic groups. And ultimately, it is up to the Iranian people for not being fooled, yet again, by the dictatorial groups and charlatans.
Best,
Masoud
Dear Aryobarzan
by Ashk Dovom on Fri Jun 29, 2012 07:09 AM PDTDear Aryobarzan,
Thirty-five years of humiliation under the Islamic Republic has degraded our prospects and diminished our aspirations to a level that people like many on this forum are not only considering but zealously defending the option of giving the reins of their country and leadership of their democratic movement to a man such as Reza Pahlavi. This in itself is a sad commentary on the moral and psychological state of our nation. It is a sure sign of our intellectual degeneration and the impoverishment of our expectations. You( Aryobarzan) say in your post that : "What I am asking you is to provide an alternative ( to Reza Pahlavi ) in terms of person, strategy and ideology or a road map." As far as naming any one person who and can lead and we shall follow, and the need for such a person is concerned, I believe Mr Amini has referred to this in his article. He has remarked that Iranians are not retarded or immature to require a guardian or someone who can speak or decide on their behalf. And certainly not someone who has spent most of his life in a Washington suburb. Not that we want or should follow their examples but in recent democratic movements in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya there were no one persons speaking for the whole nation. As far as the "ideology" is concerned if you have not yet heard, our era is the era when ideologies and reliance on ideologies have come to an end. Finished, Kaput!! There are no more illusions about easy ways out and no more hiding behind "isms" to supposedly solve the problems of the world. We have to think constantly and see what solution fits the problem of the moment. As far as the road map is concerned it is quite clear: the solution, the will, the initiative, the struggle should come from Iranians only. This does not mean that we close our eyes to what the superb human minds have produced throughout the world and throughout centuries such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other intellectual achievements of great democracies. We should support any Iranian who selflessly and sincerely is fighting to establish justice, democracy and freedom in our country. We should back up any genuine democratic effort that is not aiming to wheel and deal with superpowers and regional powers to the detriment of our national interests. I have no personal grudges against Pahlavi family or the person of Reza Pahlavi. Neither me nor my family were ever arrested or tortured by Savak, but I know many Iranians who have been. I wish Reza Pahlavi and his family happiness and prosperity. On the other hand to think of him as a leader will be an insult to my country and all those who have died to preserve its honour, independence and national dignity.
anglophile jaan, I am confused
by Ali P. on Fri Jun 29, 2012 06:19 AM PDTThere is always a procedure, for elected, or appointed officials, to go through, before taking the office.
The US President-elect, cannot call himself "Mr. Presdient", until he takes the oath of office.
How can RP legally call himself the Shah of Iran, before being confirmed by the parliament, and before taking the oath of office in that forum?
If I may Ali jan?
by anglophile on Fri Jun 29, 2012 05:31 AM PDTI think couple of issues are being mixed here.
You correctly asserted in your response to PJ that revolutions are not elections or voting for or against something. This means that monarchy was not ousted on a lawful basis (unless one accepts that IRI's legislation as being lawful). Therefore as far as prince Reza is concerned, after the death of his father, and under the legislation that he accepted as the lawful legislation of the land, he stands as the lawful king of the land (until and unless the monarchy is lawfully voted out). He cannot be heir to the throne as the Pahlavi throne is already vacant and the only lawful successor is himself and also he cannot be the "king candidate" as there are no other candidates in his dynasty (and the previous dynasty was lawfully abolished some 86 years ago).
With regards
Anglo
Just One Point
by areyo barzan on Fri Jun 29, 2012 05:19 AM PDTDear Ashk Dovvon
When did I ask you to accept RP as your leader in fact even I have my doubts and I have not yet accepted him as my leader. But I recognize him as the leader of another group of my fellow countrymen.
Why on the earth do you people need to blow things so much out of proportion just to play the role of victim. why is it that aeny one who fails to agree and comply with you is either Hilter or Mmisiliti.or Saddam. Have you even read about these people or do do know about their crimes.
What I am asking you is to provide an alternative in terms of person, strategy and ideology or a road map and you (in general) constantly failed to do so
I even told you that you might be surprised as I might support your candidate.
I believe I have enough inputs in this site
//iranian.com/main/2010/jan/1979-all-over-again
to proof that I am NOT a monarchist and I have NO especial favour towards RP.
My frustration is due to the fact that there are no other viable leaders available and our republican friends spend all their times bashing RP instead of promoting their own agenda or introducing their own leaders or more importantly telling us in why they can guarantee democracy while RP and his followers cannot
Although RP is a leader, like the others he is also capable of making mistakes. At least for better or worst he has exposed himself to the public arena.
I want other leaders to also do the same.
Ideally I want a council of all leaders of different ideologies and parties (monarchist, communist, republican, even Greens) to work together to get us into that Free Fair referendum and in that referendum every one could cast their ballot freely and privately as they see fit.
All these wars before that vote is just a smoke screen and an illusion that steers us away from that goal. Furthermore it plays right into the hands of RP and his followers as their movement will remain to be seen as the only game in town and the only opposition movement that is actually doing something (however little) while the rest of us spend our time to either fight him or bring each other down.
I have no problem with your democratic rights my problems is when you use or I better say abuse it to supress mine
If any thing I am the only friend you have got because I am telling you the truth as it is
دیو
Ali P.Fri Jun 29, 2012 03:40 AM PDT
1) The root of the law, should be the will of people. The law can be changed. Many of us would like to see the Islamic Republic be changed/replaced with a secular democracy.
If RP, or even Ghaajaars, get enough signatures to put a "Pahlavi Monarchy", or a "Ghajaar monarcjy" on the ballot, and win a popular referendum, I, for one, certainly bow to the will of people. That goes the same, if people choose a "social republic", or any other form of government.
Mohammad Reza Shah never officially "abdicated" the throne. People seemed to be asking him to leave, and he left.
2) I agree with you on this. RP, at most, even according to the old Constitution, is "King candidate" or "Heir to the throne". He misspoke , if he called himself the legal King.
P J
by Ali P. on Fri Jun 29, 2012 03:26 AM PDTRevolution is not voting ; that's why it is called a "Revolution".
The Revolutionaries of 1979, dissolved one form of government, and set up a new one. The new one- by all accounts- stinks more than the old one.
The new generation is stuck with the supposed choice, that was made for it, by the old generation, 32 years ago.
I don't know what kind of government the new generation would like to form,and I don't claim to know, and I don't want to make that choice for them. If there is a tendency among people, to at least consider monarchy as a form of government ( and I don't know if there is, or not) you can put it on the ballot, and put it to vote.
Regarding HITLER, I did imagine. I don't know. People are different. I personally would judge Hitler's son, based on his own conduct, not his grandfather's.
Sharing a last name with a famous person, should not automatically disqualify you and your agenda, from appearing on a ballot, should it?
I don't know anyone, more hated than Mussolini, in Italy. Alessandra Mussolini , granddaughter of Duce, ran for office there and won)
Dear Deev
by areyo barzan on Fri Jun 29, 2012 04:45 AM PDTI am curios as I see something at odds in here.
As I understand you are upset with RP because you believe that he is not doing enough and that is completely understandable. You want him to do more like creating institutions and recruiting people around his cause. As understandable as that is but it still works two ways. Even if tomorrow RP and his team opened a centre in every major town in Tthe West and organised relies and events round the clock, I still bet you that there will be people who will dismiss him as to intrusive and hand on or accuse him of wanting to dominate all the political spectrum not leaving room for others to breath.
I say this as I dealt with Iranian people and know how their mind work as they always look for the negative
However one only asks a leader to do more or questioning his lack of actions when he/she actually believes in some if not most of what that leader stands for and actually sees some credentials in his works or potentials in his character..
As for me personally I never bother to ask as I am not even interested in the activities of the likes of Banisadr, Rajavi, Khamene-ey or Mosavi, because I have a fundamental problem with what they are standing for, their personality and their past conducts.
However if I see a potential leader who actually has some credentials and is letting it to go to waist then I would be very upset.
Hence before continuing with this conversation you first need to be honest with yourself and your audience.
Now! Correct me if I am wrong but just like me you also see some potentials in RP but you are not happy with his performance as you believe that he is letting it all to go into waist.
This is completely agreeable and as I told before I agree even admire your approach and I believe RP or any other potential leaders need more people like you in their camp
Furthermore
It seems that in quoting my comments you only pick the part that serves your purpose and blow them out of proportion
I told you "he is the next to the throne IF and only IF our people vote for a constitutional monarchy".
Now what I am primarily interested in is getting to the stage of such referendum. Furthermore the referendum of 1979 was fundamentally flawed as it was a just yes/no vote to Islamic Republic and if we are to go with that results we need to still honor the IRI as the legitimate government of Iran as according to those records 98% of Iranians did and still should want an Islamic republic.
Furthermore as one Khomeini said once “what right did our fathers have to decide our faith and dictate to us what we want”.
We are master of our own destiny and we want a legitimate referendum as a true referendum would be a ballot which gives the option between a Democratic Republic, a Constitutional Monarchy, a Socialist Republic and yes even the Green Movement. It is only in that way that we show our fait in the wisdom of our people and especially the young generation, by putting them at the helm.
Furthermore even if in 50 years time our descendants want another referendum then who are we to say no
RP is by no mean a perfect candidate however my problem is that at the moment he is the most viable one available we can deny it as much as we want but we cannot change the facts on the ground by denying them. Now unless you and I can come up with a more viable candidate whom people could and would accept and follow we have only two options.
We can either sit on the side lines and send negative waves while watching his support to accumulate due to lack of another viable alternative and hence watch the raise of another dictator to power or we can extend a had of partnership and control him from inside.
Please pay attention to what I said here. “A hand of partnership” as equals and not like the last time a relationship between one Khomeini and people like Yazdi, Banisadr, Ghotb Zadeh and others, which was one between a supreme leader and a crowd of subjects who were noting but absolute followers.
Don't want to take Sides but I think Anglophile has a point
by Darius Kadivar on Fri Jun 29, 2012 01:50 AM PDTIf we are debating about history might as well substantiate our claims with valid and irrefutable evidence and not moral ( not to say moralistic) statements or hiding behind what a sibling or deceased father ( however respectful) said or claimed.
Look forward to a healthy and mature debate.
Best,
DK
Ms Amini can you prove the authenticity of your claim?
by anglophile on Fri Jun 29, 2012 01:30 AM PDT"I refer those of you to a very sad photo of the Shah kissing the cheeks of Ayatollah Kashani, the mentor of Khomeini. Sad, yes." - Fariba Amini
//72.41.82.130/?p=26847
Or have the decency to apologise to the readership for fabricating a claim just to have a cheap shot at the Shah.