Ali_UK

He has a long walk to mmake to democracy

RP failed to publish condolences upon the death of one of the great thinkers of modern Iran Ostad Shafa. Many years ago Ostad Shafa criticised Prince Reza, it seems he has not managed to forget nor rise above it and offer his condolences. Not trait of a true prince and even less trait of a democratic soul. But then again what do you expect from a man who preaches democracy but cannot take any criticism and moderates his website. He cannot run a website in a democratic fashion and at the same time preaches democracy. There is not a single negative remark on his website, this raises serious alarm bells. Do we Iranians want another autocracy in Iran? Fair enough this lot look nicer and wear ties and shave their face. But my goodness, how controlling and self conscious not be able to withstand a single criticism. Be afraid people, very afraid! If this is the level of control he has over a poxy website in exile how much control will he want in power?

For years I was a big fan of his. But sadly he has failed in my eyes as he does not act what he preaches.

I hope that there is a critical mass of informed and intelligent people in Iran to one day soon be able to achieve true democracy on their own accord and according to their own terms.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

 Regards to all

I never understood the role

I never understood the role of monarchy in a democratic system until ...

You got it right vildemose, except that this is not a role in 'democratic' system. It is very dangerous to reduce a society, its attributes, its way of putting people together, living together, to a 'democratic system'. It is dangerously reductionist. King, specially for Iran, has a role beyond democratic system. It is a security blanket for a nation. It is balancer of an unbalanced society. The actual 'legal' duties of the Shah is yet to be defined in future constitution (if monarchy) but things like healthier democratic life under monarchy that you noted, is not in a direct relation with the role of the Shah. It is a byproduct of that 'security blanket' it provides for the whole nation.

Mirdamadi, I smell a rat...

If you can multiple post the same message, so can I...

The foul smell is coming from your stench of NIAC bias. NIAC is against the removal of the IRI -- they rather have a reformed IRI, yes, but not the end of the IRI. The IRI is a confidential underwriter of NIAC propaganda. This amateur video and your propaganda interruptions are asinine, foolish, and a prime example of the double-dealing sort of propaganda NIAC is famous for.

People like to watch a video of this sort and make their own conclusions, without having it interrupted a half-a-dozen times so that you can spoon-feed us your blatant propaganda. This was pathetic beyond pale, and makes me doubt the sencerity (and legitimacy) of the NIAC even more!

I oppose RP because of his reliance on the neo-cons and the Isra

The Israeli agenda with Iran is as bad as teh Ahamdinejad agenda with Iran! See here to find out more on how they are penetrating the Iranian community

see how the neo-cons are attacking the Iranian-American community through their MKO proxies!

Very Clever but RP still has a problem

Jalal Khalegh indeed! Have you by any chance had any clerical education? You are the master at "twisting".  But let's not go into that. 

I think we have sort of agreement about the point made in my first post regarding the strength of British institutions and the role they play. So this is somewhat becoming circular. 

The point you made in your postcript is very important (I don't necessarily agree with its totality or oversimplification but Mossadeq's adminsitration was an unmitigated disaster). It is unfortunate that MRP also like his father took or had to take shortcuts because of the circumstances. I realise it is easy for me to say that with the benefit of hindsight but unfortunately it is true. That is why the Pahlavis have a credibility issue. RP needs to address it if he wants to carry Iranians with him instead of hiding behind a referendum con. 

Mr. Fozolie

Twisting my words won't help you!

Its seems the Q-bug has hit Mr Fozolie too! Whenever you guys can't offer a convincing argument you take refuge to your little shadowy world and fire in the dark. Your arguments concerning Mussadeq are interesting and nearly convincing but when it comes to constitutional matters they shoot off in tangent and fail to hold water.

The trouble with you boys is that you are so fixated by your convictions that can't even read or when you read don't think about the meaninig of the words you are reading. 

You say: "The Queen  cannot and does not make policy ...." That's fine with me. Did I ever say she makes policy? When I say she has no executive power, what is your understanding of this statement? When i say she her role is principally consultative what do understand from this term? Then you hide behind such vague and unclear statements as: "Her role will be limited to facilitating a new government." How does she facilitate a new government? Does she invite them to a reception to have cream tea with them? Or does she seek advice of all the leading political (and sometimes the church) figures and based of their advice exercises her royal prerogatives? 

All the constitutional theoreticians and experts have not been able to come up with a definitive and conclusive scenario to foresee all the constitutional crises that might be waiting in the wings and now we have couple of Iranian "experts"who claim that the monarchy is a powerless body in Britain and if it is removed from the stage no crisis will occur?

Jallal Khaalegh!. With such experts in our midst we should have no worries for the future of democracy in Iran!!

FR

ps - I wrote in my extended comment below that Reza Pahlavi may or may not change hos mind. It is he (or a presidential candidate) who should be deciding how the constitutional democracy in the Iran od the future must be saved from slipping towards dictatorship.Constitutional experts and lawyers (and not the likes of you gentleman or me) are the people who should configure the future constitutional laws in such a way that cannot be abused.

By the way Mr Fozolie, we did have the institutions that would support a British style of monarchy in Iran until they were destroyed by one man and one man alone. His name: Muhammad Musaddeq. 

Mr. Fozolie

Thank you for articulating my main point.

Muddying the waters

Parviz khan, aka Parkhash, aka Ms Rusta, I am sorry but muddying the
waters with the argument about hung parliaments and such is a really poor tactic.  

You are wrong about the Queen's constitutional rule. It is really awuful to see people who are supposed to be supporters of consitutional monarchy to have such little regard for the constitutional part of it!

The Queen  cannot and does not make policy, any role she plays is in safeguarding the constitution.  So stop harping on about the hung parliament. Her role will be limited to facilitating a new government. Neither does she in her "weekly" chats get involved in deciding policy.  She is obliged to "obey the will of her ministers" in all matters of
policy. The only time a British monarch in modern times would ever conceivably refuse royal assent to a bill would be for constitutional reasons and it will not be without considerable legal advice and support from her staff and the independent civil service.  Again, Britain has the institutions to support the monarch in her role. 

Will RP behave in the same manner? Let's see some convincing arguments and specific gurantees of how he would limit his role to safeguarding the consitution and that he will stay out of policy matters. "Trust me" is not good enough.

Mr. Fozolie

Did you know ?

If the English parliament abolishes the monarchy tomorrow , what will happen? 

• Aab az AAb tekan nemikhoreh ! 

So please stop asking me , did I know this , or that ?We can all read papers and use Google and wiki..  You have to find a better argument to give the concept of constitutional monarchy credence.

I don't know which England you live in Ali...

but thankfully I can assure you it is not the same place I used to live in.

A number of my like-minded friends like, Darius Kadviar, Free, Vildemose as well as myself have  described to you, from different angles, the merits of a constitutional monarchy. But you seem to be here not to be informed, or even inform, but to promote your own agenda. But it is not clear what your confused agenda is. Which part of my comment didn't you understand? You still insist that the British monarchy is a symbolic entity and has no power! You obviously have not got the full story. The British Queen does not have any executive powers but she has a strong consultative power in matters that can change the fate of the nation. You speak of a hung parliament (I did not use this expression as some of our American readers may not quite understand what it means). In a few weeks time the British elections may result in a hung Parliament in which none of the majors parties have an overall majority. Do you know in such a situation who decides which one of the three major players (or a coalition of them) should form a government? The Queen! Is this a symbolic role to you? Do you know why the British prime minister should meet the Queen once a weeek to report to her all the political and financial decisions of his government and seeks her advice? Is this a symbolic gesture to you? Do you know what is the role of the Privy Council and why they should meet the Queen regularly? Did you know that each bill that has passed the houses of parliament cannot become a law until and unless it is approved by the Queen. Hardly a symbolic gesture I would say! Do you know which institutions of Britain are only accountable to the Crown and not to the government? 

I am not going to make it easy for you but I strongly advise you to search and find the answers to these questions (Google them) and then you may have an incling as to what a constitutional monarchy means. 

FR

Hung Parliaments and Tivializations

In regards to the references made to the role of the monarch in a consitutional crisis I would like to comment as follows. Britain has faced constitutional crisis in modern times and although it does not have a written constitution (no matter how complete a constitution nobody can foresee all scenarios anyway), there are certain guiding principles  to protect the monarch.

British system is not a presidential but a parliamentary system so parliamentary elections in themselves are not held to elect a prime minister. Therefore the incumbent prime minister is duty bound to remain in his post and assist the monarch in finding a solution. The guiding principles are that he and the civil servants specifically shield the monarch from the politics and ensure he performs the constitutional role of facilitating the formation of a democratic goverment. 

The reaosns why it works in Britain are manyfold. Some historical but most important is the strength of its institutions which we do not have.

A constitutional crisis is not and should not be used as an
excuse by a monarch to revert to absolute rule. We are paying the price
for that mistake by M.R. Pahlavi no matter how justified his actions
were given the circumstances (Toudeh threat and incompetence of Mossadegh to name two).

Mr. Fozolie

Darius,

That was impressive!

Well said! However, I don't think Ali is going to be very impressed, and I don't necessarily think he's a "bach-e-mullah," I never called him that by the way. I actually think, unlike the IRI leaches around here, he's well-intentioned, just terribly misinformed.

Mostly, I think Ali is really young, maximum 23 or 24. You can tell by his stubbornness and inablility to process information. Iranians are very stubborn by nature, God only knows why. But I think you and the others (Ms. Rusta, for example) have done a great service to him by giving Ali some invaluable information to think over. Let's hope he ages like wine (as opposed to vinegar) and acquires some wisdom to enhance his life and political perspective.

Again, kudos to you for your tenacity and wealth of information on this topic.

ali_UK Simply Underlining your ignorance is an Insult ?

If that is how you feel I am sorry and in that case please accept my apologies not for Underlining that ignorance but for the emotional reaction it seems to trigger in your inner feelings ...

But that YOU personally don't like the Monarchy or think it is a regressive system is one thing but refuting Logical arguments based on Factual documentation and presented under your very nose is another ...

As such Your statements seem to contradict your thorough knowledge of British history.

For instance:

You say: "I suggested that all the current constitutional monarchs are just natural evolution from full monarchy , short of abolishing them"

May I ask then How that "natural" evolution was achieved in Great Britain  ? Given that the Absolute Monarchy (which in your vocabulary is "Full" Monarchy) was abolished by beheading the King ( Charles Ist) and establishing a Religious Republic under Cromwell ( As a Protestant Lord Protector aka Velayateh Fagih) only to be followed by the abolishment of the Republic and the Restoration of the previous constitution ? ...

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

What was "natural" in a Monarchical evolution Interrupted in it's continuity by more than a decade of Republican Rule ? ...

You say: There are mixed feelings among the British public. Some love the royal family and see it as a symbol of "Britishness" and some see the as a burden on the tax payer. 

66p per person in the UK (bbc) and that does not include the Royal families Personal fortune ( also subject to taxes as her own subjects)

this in my blogs also by refering to the British Republican's critical views on Prince Charles for instance:

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

Yet Until further notice Great Britain is not on the verge of Revolution for that matter. No more than it was at the Height of the early Post Diana Years where the Monarchy was bashed from all sides as responsible for Lady Diana's misery and misunderstood even in America:

Monarchy And Democracy - NPR Talk of the Nation Q&A with Listeners ( Dec 2nd, 1998)

Two Opposite Views:

'The Queen has never been more secure' By Andrew Roberts (bbc)

'Time for a UK president? By Hilary Wainwright (bbc)

You say further : What/how they are NOT looked at is part of a “political” system.

Answer: False on the contrary they DO have a political role in terms of Responsability and Not Power:

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

You continue: They are not arbiters ( as one suggested here ) and do not have an iota of say in anything to do with politics. 

ANSWER: False The Queen of England Was an Arbitrer in 1974 at a time of an electoral juncture that created a vaccum of power which forced the Queen to enter the Political Arena ( under Parliamentary supervision):

HISTORY FORUM: How Truly Democratic is The British Monarchy ?

This is currently also the case in Belgium where a deep institutional crisis resulting from political divisions both in Parliament and in the streets led to a vaccuum of Power forcing the Prime Minister   to resign during his term and the King had to enter the Political Arena as an Arbiter and had to basically run the country for 6 months before the parliament and the political parties came to terms with naming a New Prime Minister.

Belgium's Monarchy has always been equally subject to critics and praise amongst the Belgian people even from the early days of the former King Baudouin's accession to the throne: 

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

Iran's 1906 Constitution is largely based on the Belgian one which also proves that if it has to be restored it will need to be updated into a much stronger, transparent and flexible constitution that in it's orginal form. Constitutional Revisions ammended by a democratically elected Parliament are common in both Republics and Constitutional Monarchies.

Lastly For Your Information The Queen of England ( As Opposed to all other European Monarchs most of whom are Catholic as in Spain or Belgium or Protestant as in some North European Monarchies) is de facto a Velayateh Fagih since she is the head of the Anglican Church of England. As Such she has an enormous power on the Religious Establishments and institutions in her country. Which explains how she was also able to overlook the naming of Female Bishops ( as opposed to the Catholic church where only men can become priests).

Something that Not even Our King or Queen's could impose on our Clerics despite demanding their staunch loyalty to the Crown:

//iranian.com/main/2010/apr/shahanshah-elslam-panah 

ROYALTY AND FAITH:Ayatollah Jannati Kisses Shahbanou Farah's Hand (1970's)

As Such the Queen of England is actually a Divine Queen without the Powers of an Absolute Monarch. This is specific to Britain which since Henry VIII broke away from Rome's Vatican and the Pope so as to establish it's own Church.

All other European Monarchy be it Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark or the Netherlands remain PURELY SECULAR !

So if you don't want to see Your Feelings Hurt because people ( or I ) call you an Ignorant ... Then At Least Get YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT !

No One claims that Our Vision as Monarchists is Superior or Better than Your Republican Mindset and Preferences.

We are simply saying this is what a Constitutional Monarchy is and how we would like to see it implemented in Iran if the Pahlavi's are to be Restored on the Peacock Throne.

Does that for that matter allow YOU to patronize us in return by calling us Fanatics or Shahollahi ?

No more than Us calling You an Ignorant !

My Humble Opinion,

DK

Who is Obtuse ?

I have yet to read a well articulated argument on the benefits and enhancements that restoration of constitutional monarchy may bring Iran All I read here is insults and put downs ( Obtuse ? Dummy ? Bache Mullah ? ) , form lecturing me on history , political system in England , to … 

• I suggested that all the current constitutional monarchs are just natural evolution from full monarchy , short of abolishing them.
• There are mixed feelings among the British public. Some love the royal family and see it as a symbol of "Britishness" and some see the as a burden on the tax payer. What/how they are NOT looked at is part of a “political” system. They are not arbiters ( as one suggested here ) and do not have an iota of say in anything to do with politics. 
• To go to something like this from a republican system ( All be it a joke under IRI ) is just nostalgic regression.

Ali UK,

Seriously, man, you have to try very hard to sound as obtuse as you do here. No offense, but just start from the beginning of your blog and re-read all the posts. I think there's plenty you need to re-consider before you make your final conclusion on this matter. From your voice, you sound like you're 23 years old. Again, no offense, but one shouldn't even have as strong a political opinion about anything until at least 30. You may not believe me and think of me as a fool, but with age comes reason, and most important of all, wisdom.

Yeah and you saying

Yeah and you saying republic does not mean there s gonna be democracy in iran ... we can see what republic has done to iran for the last 31 years ... at least i as a secular monarchist ready to put it to election & have no fear of losing at all cause i know no matter the result people of iran will choose democracy first republic-monarchy comes after that  ... but are you DEMOCRACY LOVING REPUBLICANS ARE READY TO PUT YOUR LITTLE BEAUTIFUL REPUBLIC TO ELECTION?

I have nothing else to say

Repeat

By repeating the same words again does not give it any substance.

1. “ Constitutional Monarchy can guarantee a stable form of government “ , exactly how , when the monarch has only a ceremonial rule ? 
2. “ no party can easily take over the entire country “ . A parliamentary democracy , it does not need a king ( without power by the way ) to oversee things ( they call it vallieh – faghih now days !! ) 
3. “ countries that are ruled by monarchy, citizens of those countries have more rights & privileges” , German and French citizens have less rights and privilages than the British citizens ?! 

Monarchy useful for iran

first of all please do not associate monarchy to this despicable islamic REPUBLIC. look at all of these bright shiny republics around yourself my friend (Communist regimes, china, north korea, Saddam iraq, lebia etc) so please get things right. it seems that you did not understand my comments: head of state does not matter it is the content of the government that makes it democratic or undemocratic.

secondly monarchy is one of the institions that connects iran to its glorious past just like our poems, persepolis, shahnameh, persian gulf & etc.

Thirdly ... HELL YEAH Swedish people have more rights in terms of freedom of expresssion & social wise compared to france & USA. Not only that monarchy in those country is so open minded that hardline socialist republicans are the current prime ministers.

I dont know how old are you but i was born after this god forsaken islamic REPUBLIC (1979) & i want things to go back the way they were except for the shah to be non rulling ... i dont care if my prime minister is you or any other individual.

Nice Words .Substance ?

Excuse me for spoiling the chorus of praise for Constitutional Monarchy. Lots of nice words but not much substance ( in my opinion ) 

1. “ Constitutional Monarchy can guarantee a stable form of government “ , exactly how , when the monarch has only a ceremonial rule ? 
2. “ no party can easily take over the entire country “ . A parliamentary democracy , it does not need a king ( without power by the way ) to oversee things ( they call it vallieh – faghih now days !! ) 
3. “ countries that are ruled by monarchy, citizens of those countries have more rights & privileges” , German and French citizens have less rights and privilages than the British citizens ?! 

robertborden54 BEAUTIFULLY writes:

"A Constitutional Monarchy gives Iran a living link to its history and culture (This is for all of you who fill your rooms with replicas of the Cyrus Cylinder). A Constitutional Monarchy, especially in the Iranian context, impresses the people worldwide with all its pomp and ceremony and sets Iran apart from all the newer colonially manufactures states in the region (and no S.Arabia and Kuwait aren't Constitutional Monarchies.  They aren't even real monarchies.)

A Constitutional Monarchy can guarantee a stable form of government while the Iranian democracy is maturing (Prime Ministers change but the Monarch remains thus providing symbolic continuity). A Constitutional Monarch can connect to Iran's various peoples and cultures without the distortion of politics (if you think some politician in a future democratic Iran isn't going to play the ethnic card you are once again dreaming)."

Well said!!!

Benefits of a Constitutional Monarchy

A Constitutional Monarchy gives Iran a living link to its history and culture (This is for all of you who fill yuor rooms with replicas of the Cyrus Cylinder).

A Constitutional Monarchy, especially in the Iranian context, impresses the people worldwide with all its pomp and ceremony and sets Iran apart from all the newer colonially manufactures states in the region (and no S.Arabia and Kuwait aren't Constitutional Monarchies.  They aren't even real monarchies.)

Monarchy embodies both the principles of secularism while formally respecting the cultural traditions of the country, including Iran's religious traditions.

If you think Iran would suddenly turn into a mature democracy you are dreaming (just look at the Turkish democracy and the mess it has been for decades.  A Constitutional Monarchy can guarantee a stable form of government while the Iranian democracy is maturing (Prime Ministers change but the Monarch remains thus providing symbolic continuity).

A Constitutional Monarch can connect to Iran's various peoples and cultures without the distortion of politics (if you think some politician ina future democratic Iran isn't going to play the ethnic card you are once again dreaming).

And these are only a few things that I came up with in the space of 2 minutes.

Monarchy useful for iran

BAVAFA is saying "on the other hand you see many countries around the world that have
either a full fletch king or some thing to that affect (Emir in case of
Arabs or valyate faghih in case of Iran) which clearly is a
dysfunctional nation

First of all Velayat faghih is not monarchy is republic so please get that thing right. I can say there are many republics that not only dictators (Islamic regime, Saddam Iraq, Syria, Communist regimes in east europe, china, north korea, various dictators in south america & the list goes on) & are far more violent, savage & blood thirsty than absolute monarchies BY FAR (Just compare the Shahs regime with Khomeini regime). So simply having a president does not make it democratic or having a shah does not make it undemocratic ... it is the content of the government not the title of the head of the state (Your highness or Mr president) that makes it dictatorship or democratic. 

Three reasons for usefulness of monarchy in Iran:

1. iran is a country of variuos iranian ethinicities & religious groups. Constitutional shah can be of help due to its historical identity can unite these groups. I believe president will not be that charismatic to accomplish that

2. no party can easily take over the entire country as there is a symbolic permenant head of state.

3. in countries that are ruled by monarchy, citizens of those countries have more rights & privillages than any 1st degree republic (compare scandinavian monarchies to France & USA).

But all that said first need to annihilate the islamic regime before getting to republic-monarchy debates.

Cheers/ Mehdi

Farah Rusta: Thank you for a well written explanation

I share your wish for a secular democratic system in Iran but I can not see how Iranians could benefit from monarchy. It maybe the bad history of monarchy that we have had for the past 200 or so years (of course that is only my opinion) and the fact that the current regime is a notorious one, should not be a yard stick for the past regime. Also, please keep in mind that there are many democratic nations around the world without monarchy that are functioning just fine, democratic I mean (Germany, India, Israel, etc) with many political groups.

On the other hand you see many countries around the world that have either a full fletch king or some thing to that affect (Emir in case of Arabs or valyate faghih in case of Iran) which clearly is a dysfunctional nation.

Mehrdad

Farah Rusta

Which England did you live in? Monarch the father figure ?!The ultimat arbiter?

If there is no majority , then they will have what is called a hung parliment.

can you please ( for my benefit ) , give 2 or 3 reasons why we may need a Constitutional Monarch ?

FR: You have been extremely

FR: You have been extremely informative and helpful. Your insights are always original and well written. I wish you contributed more often.

Ali UK

Did you really read my post and internalize it -- I mean, if you're going to bring up this topic, at least be a little open-minded, please. You write:

"To put a strong man ( potential dictator ) to stop disintegration , is a flawed argument."

When did I say we should put a "strong man" in the position of a Constitutional Monarch? Is Queen Elizabeth a "strong man"? Japan has an emperor, is he a "strong man?" 

For someone who lives in the UK, you have a very superficial understanding of a "Constitutional Monarchy," EXTRA emphasis on the "constitution."

As far as I care, we should have Reza Pahlavi's eldest daughter as our "constittutional Monarch" -- it would certainly set the right tone in terms of emancipation of women in the a muslim country. And by the way, we did have 3 reigning queens in Iran before the Arab invasion.

Nobody here is proposing an absolute monarchy, with a "strong man" at the helm -- no way! Please, are you hearing me? We're -- I'm proposing the same system that they have in Norway, Spain, England or Japan. It's not a position of political power, even though the Constitutional Monarch could play a very powerful role in terms of national identity and unity.

Principles of a European style monarchy

First allow me to acknowledge the extensive contributions of my good and unseen friend, Darius Kadivar, who has written at length on this subject and all I add here is an extension to what he has contributed and not in contradiction to.

Bavafa,

Thank you for your relevant question. Let me explain that the reason that I consider your question relevant and do not extend the same distinction to Ali's question is that unlike Ali's your questions are based on rational premises. But if I answer a question that I consider irrational I am affirming my approval of those irrational premises on which the question is based.

Now about Reza Pahlavi and his plans. I am not a speaker for RP and therefore whatever I say should not be taken as his agenda. Nor am I aware of the details of his plans and no one can in honesty guarantee if he does not change his mind in future. But based on what he has said and written so far he is advocating a secular and democratic system of government for Iran. To him, and to many of us including me, it makes little difference if this democracy is shaped as a republican democracy or a monarchical democracy. Personally I prefer a monarchical democracy for the reasons that I shall detail later here but the ultimate target is a secular democracy.  As I said, I can only speak for myself but I am sure there are other monarchists like myself , Darius included if I may say so, who are not going to run away from Iran if it becomes a republican democracy. There seems to be a much more stiff aversion towards monarchy by the republican groups than the other way around. But why I prefer monarchical democracy to a republican style democracy for Iran (and exclusively for Iran) is a matter that I shall explain in response to Vildemose below. 

Vildemose

I am glad that you have touched on a very important and fundamental issue by comparing the US and UK democracies. I have lived, and worked in both countries for many years and without being presumptuous I have studied and experienced both systems from close questers.

Without going through details as I am sure you know, the fundamental difference between these two democracies is that unlike in the US where there is no non-partisan body to act as the final arbiter in matters related to the benefit of the nation, in the UK there is a totally apolitical and non-partisan body whose sole interest is in the good of the nation regardless of the ideological, political, religious and ethnic differences. This body is an institution called monarchy.

Monarchy in Britain, as well as in other European countries, acts like the father of a household whose many children (hence many many political parties in the UK) may bicker over major issues but if there is no overall winner, in the sole interest of keeping the family together, the father of the family is the ultimate arbiter whose decision is respected by all the children involved.  Having said that in these European democracies the Sovereign is the elected Parliament, in other words, the people.  Therefore the moment that there is a clear majority in the Parliament that vote for the abolition of the Monarchy, the monarchy can be removed the next day. Again should the parliament with an overall majority decide to re-instal the monarchy, it can be returned the day after the next!  

It is like a household/family that is run and managed by its children and yet there is an independent moderator who acts in the interest of the family alone. In our own words "mamlekat bi saaheb nist". 

This  is why a tradition of continuity in this independent body is preserved through the hereditary role of the monarch.  

Finally, I believe if we as a nation are ready or mature enough to put in place a democratic system of government that, be it monarchical or republican, can guarantee a secular democracy, then we are not ready for a democratic rule.

Any future democracy in Iran should be robust enough not to be influenced by its shape meaning a monarchy or a republic. Otherwise it is not a democracy but a caricature of one. Both a President and a Monarch have the potential of becoming a dictator - it is the quality of a solid democratic system that should prevent such a possibility not the shape of the system.

Hope I have made myself clear and been helpful. 

FR

Americans and love of monarchy

Americans do have this romantic notion about the British and monarchy. I do not know. Maybe it is because of lack of history or heritage when it comes to US. 

• Everyone has access to history books , so excuse me if I do not patronize you by lecturing you about our history and the "2500 years of unbroken moarchy".

 Thank you “Free” for at least elaborating on the reasons why he/she supports constitutional monarchy. With all due respect , I think your argument is flawed. To put a strong man ( potential dictator ) to stop disintegration , is a flawed argument. 

• In a democratic republic , the prime minister and all members of the government are accountable to the parliament. If people are not happy with them , they get voted out next time.

• How is this done in a monarchy ?

• How is democracy protected against possible didtatorship? Howver well intended the monarch.

• Velayate-faghih by the way is just undemocratic as monarchy.

FR. I never understood the

FR. I never understood the role of monarchy in a democratic system until the recent highly bipartisan political and ideological division in the US society, which some equal to the atomspher before the Civil War in the US.

 I think because of the British system of monarchy, the British have a "truer"

democracy than the US and they actually get to practice it more vigorously. Look at the number of political parties in Britain vs. the US.

 I also think because of the monarchy the British democracy will endure much longer than the US version because there is no chance of one party taking over the other completely and changing the entire democratic system unlike in the US. If the majority in the US decides to join the teabagger movement and turn the US into  theocracy, they could very well do it at least in theory.

A question to Farah Rusta

A question to Farah Rusta as I rather not engage with DK unless he is willing to be civil and logical:

Will all sincerity and not as a defense of Ali-UK as I am sure he can speak for himself

Wouldn't be more relevant to respond to his questions rather then guessing his age or whereabouts?

Just in case the question has been lost, here it is again:

Is it suggested that RP be the king in the next regime (which we all hope the regime change comes sooner then later)?

And if we are arguing that the Kingship is a ceremonial figure, then would it be correct to conclude that RP as a king will have no real power, thus not a leader (I am going with assumtions that leaders have power)

I am sincerely interested to understand his supporters position.

Mehrdad