IRANdokht

Thanks for the clarification Benross

All is well.  

Better late than never

I am joining this thread quite late and I am in double mind whether I would be welcome - I know how certain people feel about me :). So with some hesitation I just pose a couple of questions and invite the readers to enlighten me (with Irandokht's permission):

Are Iranians a monarchist nation?

History of Iran is rife with 2500 years of monarchical rule which with a few exceptions is entirely achieved by seizing the throne through force and ruling the people likewise. After the Islamic take over of the country, again with the exception of a few dynasties, there has hardly been a sustained line of succession for more than a couple of centuries. Short-lived dynasties have toppled each other one after the other and more importantly they have not been indigenous Iranians. We have been very different from our Chinese, Japanese, South East Asians and indeed European counter parts: no long term seat of power, no comparable coat of arms, no comparable and loyal nobility or aristocracy. Mostly tribal and oligarchical rulers. many of our Kings were killed or assassinated by their own "loyal" servants and commanders. Some of them have killed their own brothers and sons in power struggles. With this is mind here is my next question:

Do we deserve to have a monarchy?

FR  - a staunch parlaimentary monarchist

My apology Mehraban

I'm sorry Mehraban. The quote was from Manouchehr and I didn't take it even as a Manoucher quote, but as a 'prototype' quote of what is out there. I didn't think that would offend you so harshly. It was taken for the sake of clarifying my point. It was not intended to be attributed to you. After all your comments are right below, how could I possibly distort your ideas?

I took that line, because it is the basis of underlying problem and it was addressed to both of you, although each of you have a different take on the issue, and precisely because of that, it is quite revealing about Reza Pahlavi dilemma on what he should represent.

My contention is that Reza Pahlavi should not down play the fact that he is the crown prince. Now you Mehraban, if you want to see him as one face among others, in pursuit of freedom, see him as crown prince doing so. If others have other perceptions about him, they should have those perceptions about the crown prince.

My point was not about you or Manoucher, it was about Reza Pahlavi and his ambiguous stance. I don't know what made you think I was trying to indoctrinate you or anybody else for that matter. About what? that Reza Pahlavi is the crown prince?

I will be more careful to respond separately to different comments in the future. It was lousy on my part. Although I always have the same thing to say! If it sounds like indoctrination, perhaps it is. I have to think about it. To me it's just common sense. My comment was addressed to you, as a follow-up of what was addressed to me, I didn't tell you anything, I just explored my point.

I tried to take your name off my previous post but the edit option is no longer available. My apology.

Thanks Craig !

Hope you will forgive some spelling mistakes as I rushed to brainstorm my thoughts and share it with you readers here. ;0)

I don't have the courage to go through the editing and correct them since I still have Irandokht and others to reply to ... ;0)

Cheers, and thanks for your interest !

DK

DK

A lot to get through! But that was a very good comment! Thanks :)

capt_ayhab ... Hmm ... How was it then that Democracy ?

capt_ayhab ... Hmm ... How was it then that Democracy was first applied in Greek City States given that they were ALL Kingdoms at the time ? ... Therefore to begin with the notion was NOT Republican to begin with since the latter was only invented much later by the Romans and under what was at the time an Empire ...

If I am not mistaken A Tyrant in Ancient Latin tyrannus, meaning "illegitimate ruler" one who has taken power by his or her own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power ?

The Very Notion of a "Dictator" was invented by the ROMAN REPUBLIC which gave absolute Power to a given elected senator for a given number of years on specific circumstances in order to save the Republic for instance if it was deemed in danger due to internal turmoil ( the word Revolution was yet to be invented) or Times of War. By Crossing the Rubicon with his Army, Julius Caesar established the first Roman Dictatorship !

This form of dictatorship has been the Basis to nearly ALL Present Day Dictatorships and throughout the entire 20th century particularly in the Third World. Examples abound like in South American in the 70's, the Middle East or African nations, most of which established Republican forms of government which were often initially formed upon some Revolutionary excuse only to be replaced by successive coups and counter coups leaving little room for pluralism or political transitions. In the Middle East None of the Established Republics have been democracies except the articficially imported Yet Functional Israeli State.

Aside from Saudi Arabia, In contrast Royal Dynasties like Morroco or Jordan appear as much more progressive than nearly all other Middle Eastern Republics all of which are ruled by an Iron first. You name it be it former Saddam Hussein's Irak to Syria's Assad Presidential Dynasty or even Lebanon which switches from one Presidential Dynasty to another be it the Gemayels or the Harriris often triggered by assassinations triggered in an unstable political climate.

Even in recent months A Simple look at the elections in Egypt or Tunisia prove that nothing has truly changed even in these relatively moderate Republic States:

After More than 3 decades in power Egypt's Hosni Mobarak hesitates between a Sixth Term

//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8336323.stm

or Naming his own Son as successor:

//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8333426.stm

In Tunisia President Ben Ali was re elected for a with an 89,28% favorable ballots that would put any dictator to shame ...

//english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/10/2...

In Medievel Times A King or Queen had absolute Power, his legitimacy was not based on democratic values or notions but that of the trust or bond that the monarch created with his subjects including with the use of Force, The Church or anyother political or military institution. This was simply admited as a natural way of governing, not that it was morally right but that no one had invented any other way of gaining and retaining power in those days. Sophisticated political thoughts and patterns are a product of barely 4 to 5 centuries ago with such events like the 1789 French Revolution in France or the American Revolution of 1776 ( won with the help of French King Louis XVI soon to be toppled by a similar even in his own country).

Power therefore did not have the negative connotation it got later on and particularly as it has in our contemporary Democratic Era.

Ironically A dictator however often a President in a Republic ( Secular or Not) got its legitimacy through much more ambiguous and perverted means through an election for instance and in the light of the day. The elections in Iran last summer are just one example. Hitler in 1933 is another where he was democratically elected but with a political program which was at odds with all democratic notions and yet became gullible to the people thanks to an efficient propaganda. Other examples throughout the 20th century abound.

That is why it is innaccurate to call the events of 1953 in Iran for instance as a "Coup" or to say that the Shah was a Tyrant if we stick to the very definition of the word. Since as Shah detained both the heriditary right and constitutional powers to do as he pleased. Was it a Democratic Behaviour ? Obviously Not BUT it was Legal. For in our country, unlike Europe, and despite having achieved the drafting of a Modern Constitution ( directly inspired by the Belgian Constitution) we had not managed as a people, still largley religious, to clearly distinguish two very different Royal Behaviors and prerogatives that of a King who rules by Divine Right and another Who rules according to the Constitutional Rights to which he should abide. This was not specific to the Pahlavi Kings since the last Qajar Shah's behaved identically despite the ratification of the Constitution of 1906.

If Iran had been able to create a powerful and educated bourgeoisie under the Qajars, the "divine" Nature of the King would have probably led the Pahlavis to no other choice than either Establish a Republic ( as was Reza Khan's initial intention) or a Truly Constitutional Monarchy as in Great Britain or any other European Monarchy of the time.

Let us not forget that things were not as simple as it may appear today. The 1906 Revolution was just prior to the social and political earthquakes that were to shake Tzarist Russia which already had a Parliment the Duma and that is the Russian Revolution of 1917. Iran in comparison was just in its early stages simply having a Parlimentary system of government in a nation that for 25 centuries under nearly all dynasties was ruled by Absolute Kings.

That is why Modern Monarchies invented the notion of a Constitution and Parlimentary system in order to avoid such circumstances and limit the power of the King but also take away the very notion of "Divinity" associated to a Monarch's rule which all monarchies be them in Europe or the Middle East inherited since the Medieval times. This "Divine" nature was enforced in Muslim countries such as Iran or Afghanistan during Zahir Shah where the King is automatically identified to a direct decendant of the Prophet. A Bullshit Argument common to all Middle Eastern Royal families be it today in such far fetched territories as Morroco or Jordan or Saudi Arabia,where they all claim to be the direct and legitimate decendant of the Prophet Muhamed whether they are Sunni or Chi'it. So however Secular his government and regime can behave dismissing the "Divine" Nature of the King in muslim countries has never been easy nor clearly admited by the people nor the clerical establishments.

I Europe for instance although Great Britain is a Secular Democracy, The Queen of England is the Head of the Anglican Church independant of the Vatican since the separation of the Church of England from Rome under King Henry VIII. So Basically Queen Elizabeth II remains a Monarch with a specific Religious Function despite the entirely secular system of government in place. She is as such a Velayeteh Fagih except that she has No say in neither governmental matters nor in the decisions made by Parliment or the government that may have ethical consenquences such as in the case of legalizing Abortion or contraception. All she can do is at best repeat the Church of Englands Official Stance in which she again has no say. For instance the fact that Women can become Bishops was not a decision suggested nor demanded by the Queen but the Church of Englands Religious Hierarchy. The Clerics cannot impose their wish on the Parliament, all they can do is demand a debate and through their own constituency or elected deputies lobby their demands or cause just like any other political party or constituency ...

Therefore In Iran's case, an ancient nation with the longest monarchical history in the World albeit more or less old dynasties hardly had the time to get accustomed to the notion of a Constitution. The 1906 Constitutional revolution managed to impose the draft but its application never took root due to political instability and the lack of a real civil society and educated bourgeoisie which countries like Great Britain for instance had already achieved centuries earlier and particularly after the Industrial Revolution.

So unlike Iran the Secular Notion of Separation between State and Church was a given Fact in Great Britain and remains so to this day very much like in any secular Republic such as France. However by the 18th and 19th centuries Britain and Europe had already benefited from the lessons of the Religious Inquisitions which had inflicted their history be it during the religious wars Like at the Time of Cromwells in England or Refome Protestant Movements in Germany. As a Result European Monarchies had by then managed to clarify in the minds of their people the distinction between a "Divine" Rule and a "Non Divine" King or Queen. Unfortunately This clear distinction was never entirely achieved in Iran despite a drafted constitution nor was it probably even possible at anytime in the 20th Century. The same remains true for all Middle Eastern Kingdoms because of the intimate relationship between Royal Prerogatives and Symbolisms and that of the State Religion and Religious institutions. Yet this is also True in all Middle Eastern Republics since Religion and State Politics go hand in hand in the Middle East even in so called Secular Republics be it in Egypt or Syria today.

This confusion due more to the cultural and traditional evolution in the region more than the political establishments in place also explains why Iranians back in 1979 made a major mistake amidst their revolutionary zeal ( when ideally they should have been reformists very much like today) not to separate their political demands from the Religious nature of the upheaval. This also proves that the Revolution was NOT highjacked contrary what many former revolutionaries try to claim because the demands were clearly regime Change and the establishment of the genuine Rule of God. The Shah was portrayed as a Pharaoh Despot and idolizer and the revolutionary movement immediately and most probably blindly used this as a tool towards achieving their goal: Topple the Monarchy for a Religious Theocracy with vague democratic promises. As a Result we did not establish a democratic society in replacement to the former "authocratic" regime, but rather instead we simply gave way to a Tyrannical Regime Established By The People, From the People and For the People !

If like some You may consider it at best as a Success or at worst a necessary evil ? I personally consider it as an Unnecessary Calamity for which we are ALL to Blame Leaders and The People Included !

What Was Highjacked in 1979 was Not the Revolution BUT Reform of the Monarchy into a Truly Constitutional System of Government. Very much like today with the Islamic Republic, except that the task here is a million times more difficult and the regimes response a Million times more brutal than the Shah's Regime Ever was ! ...

For indeed People like Shapour Bakhtiar or Secular Constitutionalists including Mossadeghis wished to turn the regime into a pure Constitutional Monarchy just like in Europe. However impatience and revolutionary zeal drove many National Front Leaders to separate themselves from the most moderate and secular elemants of this movement which had been born a century earlier with the Constitutional Revolution.

That is why I believe that the advocates of a Royal Restoration of the Monarchy in a Pure Constitutional Form are not only more legitimate than the clowns who are trying to refome the current Illegitimate and Anti Iranian Turbaned Dynasty but they also have a Coherent agenda that respects the peoples will and for the first time in the History of our nation genuinly share the universal values on which all democratic secular governments have been established in functional Western Democracies.

So to try and boil down Democrats to Republicans today is not only unfair but Hypocritical given the Record of the Republican movement in Iran's history and particularly in the last 30 years.

My Humble But Firm Conviction,

DK

Dear Jamshid

The example of philantropy that I used was only one of the ways that RP could have shown a little more interest in the lives of Iranians who were forced to relocate.

I am relieved to see that you agree with me that he was not actively in
the scene and did not show much interest in being in any type of
leadership role in the opposition. I think I have seen his name more in
the past few months that I had during the entire 30 years prior to the
green movement. 

Didn't RP ask people to boycott the election which resulted in the green movement? now his followers who didn't even vote in the election are dissing the greens as being reformists who accept the IRI constitution and calling them traitors.

All I had seen from RP before the recent events were a few interviews in one he sounded like he was asking Israel and US to help Iranians which I and many others who heard it saw as an invitation for military attack. Later he said he didn't want a military attack on Iran and clarified that but not after many months had gone by. Lately he's asking for strict sanctions against Iran, while many are arguing that the sanctions would benefit the Sepah and be a burden on the ordinary people. So even now that he's speaking out he's not quite in agreement with many of the opposition voices inside or outside Iran.

Anyway, I have nothing against RP because I don't see him in a leadership role. My question and confusion is more about the people who count amongst his "followers". That's why I am confused, how can anyone "follow" someone who can't "lead"?

Thanks for your comments

IRANdokht

Mr Avaznia

"My biggest fear about many good (even Idealistic) things that are attributed to us to give us an unrealistic image that evetually is destructive."

benross

["People have shown their will and intention"].

Is not my statement, nor is it in the spirit of my comment.  Please do not put words in my mouth.  This is exactly what I mean by people around RP eroding even the little credibility he has recently gained by standing on his own two feet.  

Do not try to discredit my voice by falsely representing it as a voice that is convinced of the legitimacy of the 1979 referendum.  Plus I feel no guilt in the matter as I had nothing to do with the installation of IR.  Your discourse is becoming more like an attempt at indoctronization and less like a debate.  

Mehraban and Manoucher

People have shown their will and intention.

I believe that Reza Pahlavi did a great disservice to the cause of democracy and freedom, and this for the past 20 years, by not acknowledging what he is all about.

The whole argument is based on the falsehood of the above statement. We should not even discuss Reza Pahlavi, if the will and intention of people (not their manipulative leaders) was expressed 30 years ago. This is after all, what his opponents are saying. Yet, he is out there, and every move he makes becomes a big news. Even for those who rush to throw mud at him. Why? Why for the past 30 years, he could not go anywhere in public without bodyguards? To whom he is a constant threat? IRI perfectly knows to whom. IRI apologists try to make people ignore it.

Now for those who do not want to fully face their collective guilt, this 'man bemiram to bemiri' solution may sound easier to swallow. But does it lead to anywhere? Not in my opinion, as it didn't in the past 20 years. 

Dear MG

Thanks for giving me a little of the background. I have lived in US for over 25 years and I do not have a clear idea of how much support the Pahlavis still have in Iran. Since more than 50% of the population was not even born before the revolution, I guess the Pahlavis sound like ancient history to most.

What I know is that Ahmadinejad has at least 10 million supporters in Iran. I don't know how many people would vote for RP if there is a referendum tomorrow! But will it be more than 10 million?

I am not quite clear about what you meant when you explained the lack of leadership from RP and how does that justify wanting him as the nation's next leader? Granted you don't like the regime, and neither do I. Yes they are charlatans, but how does that make RP the ideal one? You may not remember but in 79, people fell into the same trap: they thought as long as the Shah was gone, it wouldn't matter who took his place. That was a very costly mistake, wouldn't you say?

Thanks fo ryour comments.

IRANdokht

Manoucher jan

I like your last comment to Jamshid the best. You're right about being open to criticism and to keep a balanced view of the past. Unfortunately we as a nation are very susceptible to idol making and we've done it for millenniums. I believe the reign of IRI has caused many of us to obsess about our past glory and maybe that's why any criticism of the kings especially Kourosh Kabir hits the wrong nerve with most of us.

Your last comment clarified a lot and I appreciate your taking the time to write and explain. 

Thank you my friend

IRANdokht

Jamsheed Aziz;

Thanks for your opinion.  To be accurate, Koorosh was killed 2539 years ago.  The fact of the matter is that The Hakhaamaneshee dynasty was a very tolerant government compared to the Assyrians who have described their brutalities in details in their own writings.  There are plenty of evidence in the Old Testaments to attest to this as well.  That relative tolerance is the main factor that Empire builders rely on to expand their power. 

When it comes to the mud-slingings that the West  does against us through their media, Hollywood, and fabrication of historic facts; definitely I will put Koorosh in the scale with their conquerors as far as it goes to the twenty first century.  Defintely, Koorosh's treatment of Babylonians was far far better than George Bush the Second's; leave alone the legacies of World War I and ...

These said, Brother, reality is that Koorosh was an expantionist person.  Every expansionist from one angle is a liberator as well, but they change the balance of power to their own benefits eventually.  My biggest fear about many good (even Idealistic) things that are attributed to us to give us an unrealistic image that evetually is destructive.  You and I, as Iranians, are always better off to hear these criticisms from ourselves than someone else to bring them up and shape our mentalities according to their interests.  You just imagine my stand about the story of the "Manshoor' Hoghoogh Bashar", as it was propagated, to be presented by others during a crisis.  The least impact of that would be that we think we were pure barbarians as they have tried to depict us.  I hope you understand my concerns.  Even Herodot believes Iranians (according to him Persians) regarded Koorosh as father, but Dariush as a merchant, if I remember it correctly.

They say Arastoo said: "I love Aflatoon, but I love the truth better".  Our legacy is way stronger, rich, and deeply-rooted to be damaged by a few criticizms. 

Regards

Benross

Let's not speak as if the only possible hope for Iran's future is Reza Pahlavi.  I appreciate what he has done recently to be a voice for the Iranian uprising.  I think, he is right in thinking that he could be a voice (maybe a strong one) in the collective symphony of demand for Democracy in Iran.  I do believe that the people around him do him a disfavor by pushing him to the crown prince position or the future king.  By claiming such a position he loses credibility with most.  About the damned if he does....., the response is clear if there is ever a referandum and the people of Iran vote for a monarchy then....... for now, the unifying goal is not his reinstatement but Democracy. 

Benross Aziz

Thanks for your comment in this regards.  Let's be realistic.  A popular revolution such as that of 1357 has brought down a government.  People have shown their will and intention.  A political figure (leader) cannot deny that great fact; also cannot simply speak of a legacy which has been brought down with a popular uprising without giving a critical opinion about the events which has ruined his legacy.  It just too fishy to easily by pass it.

Regards

Avaznia

I don't understand why you are spreading misinformation about Kourosh. It is certain that he wasn't a "democratic" ruler based on today's standards, but has it occured to you that he belonged to 2500 years ago? 

For his period where the evolution of civilization and politics was 2500 years behind our times, he was indeed a fair and modern ruler, one that today we can be proud of.

Your view is similar to a person who scolds a young student in third grade for not knowing calculus, despite getting straight A for his grade's math courses.

Manoucher Avaznia

Did he break his oath? What kind of oath and oath-taker are these?  I see a pure and vicious deciept from the very beginning.

Ironically I agree with you totally! but I don't think it was ill intentioned. It is more of 'ill executed'.

Reza Pahlavi, as an oath-taker of kingship, is determined to leave for Iranian people to decide the structure of future regime in Iran. This is the right thing to do. But how you go about it to convince people you really want to do so when you already represent one side of the options?! It is sort of situation of damned if you do and damned if you don't. He looses your trust because he doesn't introduce himself as the crown prince, but he would loose the trust of many others, if he actually does so. (I don't agree but this is what he thinks) after all, he inherited a monarchy that was toppled by a revolution and an illegitimate referendum.

He naively believes if he acts as a simple Iranian citizen, and not the crown prince, some people will stop spreading hatred against him. I believe people will trust him more, if he does act as a crown prince, working for Iranian citizens. It may not make you a supporter of his leadership for freeing Iran, but it will present him in a more honest way, as a crown prince seeking the freedom of Iranians in order to chose freely their future regime. This is who he is and this is what he wants to do and he has to present it exactly as it is. Our first step toward choosing our regime is to undo IRI and restore constitutional monarchy anyway.

If Reza Pahlavi thinks that he has already clarified his role in our struggle, he is dead wrong.

And perhaps, he is just waiting for all of us to realize how awkward this situation is! 

Irandokht Aziz

The content of the Koorosh's Cylinder's text as it appeared on my posting is several words of English, which is the word for word translation of the inscribed Akkadian words that come in phonetic form, of the originally cunieform (meekhee).  Then, again several words of English translation come and again the Akkadian writing in phonetic alphabet.  You may find this translation on Iranchamber.com's website where it has come more clearly and seperately.

On the second subject of your opinion, unfortunately, I greatly disagree.  Almost twenty-five years of Koorosh's reign is totally devoted to war and conquest.  He was a talented soldier who expanded what he inheritted by rebellion against his grandfather Eekhteeveego the king of Maad whom he forced out of power and I do not remember what he practically did to him.  Eventually, when he was killed in 530 before Christ it was during a war with Saka People somewher in Mavar'onahr, perhaps beyond Seyhoon River.  A government based upon militarism has its peculiar problems.  Just bringing heavy tributes to him in Babylon by others shows a great deal of Koorosh's intentions as a conqueror.  Perhaps, except for rare examples like that of the Jewish people who were happy with his administration, almost no other nation was happy with his government.  The best indication of this matter is many cases of reported rebelions against the empire that he created shortly after his demise.  In Beestoon Daruish gives a detailed acount of the butchery he has committed against rebels in Babylon, Maad, Pars and many other places.

Iranian peoples' kingdom in Iran had begun some one hundred and twenty years before Koorosh by the Maad people who are the nowaday Kurds.  Parsees, who were related to them, later on orchestrated a coupe under the leadership of the famous Koorosh and usurped the kingdom and broke all agreements that Maads had with other nations including the Babylonians who had participated in deafeat and destruction of the Ashooree Empire.

What I brought as personal experience about the Pahlavi's was just to show a tiny eyewitness account of what I have seen, however I will bring up these matters and similar ones to show that we were not regarded as people with rights by this family.  Mr. Reza Pahlavi has taken oath of loyalty to the "taaj o takhat".  The video was put on this very website of Iranian.com as well.  Now, he claims democracy and refrandum and elections while claims a legacy and never criticizes his father and grandfather's absolute reign. This hypocracy is to serve his purpose of Meeveh Cheenee.  The greatest refrandum has been held by the 1357 Revolution of Iran.  What is his opinion of that?  A conspiracy!!  I think he believes Iranians owe him and his legacy a great deal for exercising their will and rights.

Regards

Thank you Jamshid

mg

" We have to outgrow this way of thinking"

We are desperately in need of  thinking in a different way.

Dear Irandokht

mg

Thank you for your lengthy answer to my comment.

What I said about Reza Pahlavi was not based on his recent speeches whatsoever. I never express my opinions before going through it and have it examined in different ways. Reza Pahlavi is not a gifted leader and even not a good manager. Therefore I did not mentioned anything in relation to his possible specific  political presence in our new  request for a better system of management.

As to the  inactive and reluctant  presence of RP in the political and social fields during all theses years, I have to refer you to our (Iranian) general ways of approaching the matters  and issues which are somewhat intricate in nature; in this, it is the impulse of the moment which makes our mentalities towards an issue and not the true expediency and prospective views; as living  for three completely devastating decades under an obviously inhuman system of ruling is not something that we can deny it or even dispute it, at all. Can we? Have not been any potent and right men or women in that God-forgotten country to put our quest in the trust of them  and change our way and stop that mockery of self-limiting and self-destructing? 

Dear Irandokht I do not  know how long you have been living out of Iran, but I left Iran a few years ago . When Ahmadinedjad took his sinister office I was in Iran and saw the people how attentively attended the elections and chose him as their hero! sixteen million of people voted for him! He seemed to them as Jesus Christ who were supposed to set off the resurrection and bless them for ever!! I do not know, perhaps the Islamic regime and Mullahs were the best in the world until that time!! And perhaps they have just recently gone off and badly rancid!! have not they??

Do we know who is a reliable person? Is it easy for us to recognize such a person? And hundreds of such questions... And surely three decades of going astray and making  mistakes  after mistakes which have mostly been made to utmost of daftness, will not leave any room for even a single "Yes" to those questions.

Back to a while ago most of Iranian used to picture Rp as the son of a traitor king( If  he was really a traitor king) and thus directly and indirectly were rejecting him( As our history is laden with these kind of blind rejections) and pushing him into his solitude. And plaintively we have  done so to many others. It is quite a long time that we have not gone up to a righteous and true person, that is why a real shepherd like Ahmadinedjad who is not even able to speak the sweet and rich language of Farsi in a proper manner, is our president!! Is not he? That is why  we have been supporting the pimps and charlatans who as the masters of human sciences have easily turned us from a bright nation with great quests into a submissive and haughty nation.

Dear Irandokht this the nature of good people,  if you give them a cold shoulder, if you do not count on them  and easily count them out of your list, if you do not go  to see them, it is obvious that they do not come to see you; as simple as that. Do you think that we(The Iranians) have been correct with our searches for the right and righteous figures? If the answer is yes, I have to confess that Ahmdinedjad and Khameini are a thousand times better than Reza Pahlavi and figures alike!!

I hope we will be wise enough to use all our means as they must be used.

I usually try to avoid the vulgar language, but for some reasons I permitted myself to use a bit of that... I beg your pardon for that.

Irandokth

Regarding your reply to Ghanbari: I partially agree and partially disagree with you. I agree that RP has not demonstrated substantial leadership abilities. But I don't fault him for it, as we are all genetically wired differently. Some of us are meant to be warriors, others are builders and managers, and yet others are inventors, artists, and so on.

Although I consider RP to be a strong candidate to run our country (which is outside the scope of this comment), but I don't consider him to be a warrior. His forte is elsewhere.

"I believe he (RP) could have proven his leadership and his love for Iran during these 30 years using the funds available to him and his family."

I strongly disagree with you on this because I think you are mixing philanthropy and patriotism (i.e., love for Iran), which are two distinct concepts.

As an example, I consider Mossadegh to be a patriot. He was also a wealthy land owner, relatively far richer than RP is today, but I don't recall Mossadegh distributing his lands among the very much needy peasants of his time. There are many patriotic Iranians who even died for Iran and for the cause of freedom, and who were not philanthropists at all.

Also, we must ask ourselves, when elections are run in the US for example, do people judge the candidates' love of country and leadership abilities only by their wealth and acts of philanthropy?  

Additionally, I consider helping others and publicizing it for propaganda and political gain to be unethical. Many years ago, I setup a small fund to help dismembered veterans of Iran-Iraq war by buying used electric wheelcharis for them (which I still encourage people to do whenever I get a chance). RP's office graciously sent some money without me ever contacting or asking him.

And they never mentioned it anywhere. In fact, most philanthropists do their help outside public view and scrutiny. But this is besides the more important point that patriotism (one's love for his country) and philanthropy are two distinct concepts.

Additionally, you speak of RP's family funds. There are two flaws with this. First, how can a limited ordinary individual impose his financial will over his independent relatives in a country like the US? We tend to forget that RP's limits are not much different than our own.

Second, what funds? As far as I know RP has direct control over limited wealth. I don't know and I don't care about his family, I am talking only about him. He must be rich, sure, but he is not a billionaire as some falsely paint him to be in order to further their own agenda, and definitely less wealthy than many other ordinary Iranians.

Some may agree with me in principle, but bring to attention that RP's money, even if limited, belongs to Iran. I strongly disagree with that too. RP's money obviously was the Shah's money. And as the CEO of Iran for a long time, the Shah did a lot of good and brought unprecedented prosperity for his country, specially considering the intial conditions.

Yet he earned a whole lot less than the CEO of Ford would have earned in the same period. and who, pound for pound, didn't accomplish even a faction of what the Shah did.

We can't look at RP or others from this angle. We can't judge people's political carrier by how much money they have or don't have, and how they spend it. I think we have to outgrow this way of thinking.

Irandokth

"Are you saying Mohammad Reza Shah's reign was not secular? ... I know Mohammad Reza Shah was superstitious, but religion was not part of his government as far as I know."

Shah's government was indeed highly secular considering Iran's history, but only partially secular considering other true secular nations. For instance, one was not allowed to openly ciriticize the religion of Islam without getting in serious trouble. By the constitution, Islam was the favored and official religion. This is not true secularism.

But I do give him credit for introducing secularism to Iranians and for being one of the most secular leaders of our history, including our pre-Islam history.

The 20 years presidency was only meant to be a tool to demonstrate that in reality, our Monarchists are primarily Pahlavists, and to them, a monarchy or a republic form of government is secondary.

Dear Azarin

Thank you for your generous kindness. I appreciate your remarks, especially coming from an intelligent and nice lady like you.

Thanks for your comments

Capt jan,  Thanks fo rthe definitions. Those definition answer to a lot of the arguments on these specific terms.

Mirza, You're right. These labeling and total intolerance for people's different views is getting tiring.

Samsam

Thanks for the explanation, I also felt that there could have been a lot of reasons for the cylinder to be written the way it was. It's obvious that King Cyrus did not know that this one cylinder would become his legacy.

but did you just compare Cyrus the great with Hitler, Stalin and US occupation of Iraq?

IRANdokht

Manoucher jan

Thank you for explaining the earlier posts. The Cylinder text was hard to read and got me confused. I also was not sure where you were going with it since there was no explanation.

I am not an expert in the Iran Bastan at all and what I know is what I have read and heard throughout the years at school or from the books I read later. It seem to me that even compared to today's heads of governments, Cyrus the great was one of the most humane and just leaders and most countries that joined the Persian Empire did this voluntarily and not by force. Even when he conquered a land he gave the people the right to keep their religions and their languages and did not enslave them, which was very open minded when you compare with many rulers since him.

I understand that you do not accept the 2500 year history as it's been presented to most of us and you have that right to deny it and deny the greatness of Kourosh Kabir, but I am not convinced that writing in Babylian and speaking of their God would turn me off from him after all I have learned about his reign.

As for having to march on their birthdays, I know it's not pleasant to be forced into it, but do people really volunteer to march in front of their country's leaders anywhere else? We had to wear white gloves, and a white headband with our school uniform once a year and learn a few new "sorouds" every time Shahbanoo came to visit our school and if someone forgot to wear the proper uniform that day or their socks weren't the specific length they would be kept in a classroom away from the sight until the cameras were gone, but these are little things that are not worth holding a grudge over....

Thank you my friend and my favorite Malek-ol shoara :o)

IRANdokht

Mammad jan

I agree with a lot of the points you made.

Your criticism of Reza for not acknowledging the crimes of his father as valid as it is, I am afraid you're asking to shoot himself in the foot!  There aren't many monarchists in or outside of Iran and the majority of them are older generations whose loyalty lies with Mohammad Reza shah. I am sure if Reza speaks ill of his father at least half of his supporters would stop supporting him.  I believe that's the main reason that there is a disconnect between Reza's ideas and his supporters' too.

Thank you for gracing this humble blog with your comment  :o)

IRANdokht

Jamshid and MG

Jamshid

Thanks for your comment and explanation. I was following you all the way to the end when I read the last sentence. Are you saying Mohammad Reza Shah's reign was not secular? Why would you say that?  I know Mohammad Reza Shah was superstitious, but religion was not part of his government as far as I know.

I also didn't understand if you meant to say that in Iran the presidency should be a 20 year term instead of 4? Or should only Reza Pahlavi's presidency be that long? A lot of people criticized Chavez when he changed the law to prolonge his presidency calling it anti-democratic. Maybe you just used that as an example of what people actually vote for, so why did you use the "20 years"?

Dear Mostafa Ghanbari

Thank you for your comment. I wish I could agree with you, but I have not seen Reza in a substantial leadership role or even actively in the scene and on the side of Iranians except for the past few  months. Reza Pahlavi, considering his means and his political ambitions should have tried and helped the Iranian community in diaspora in the last 30 years. He was in a position to be there for the Iranians who ran away from Iran especially for political reasons and to give them temporary assistance, house them and help them until they could survive on their own. He could have lead an organization to assist Iranian refugees. I believe he could have proven his leadership and his love for Iran during these 30 years using the funds available to him and his family. He could have built a foundation and helped himself and his name to remain dear in people's heart.

Besides a couple of children charities that are run by different ladies in the Pahlavi family and some art related projects from Shahbanou, there was no community related organization run by them to show that they have not abandoned the Iranians in these hard times.  I think you are basing your very positive sentiments on a few of his speeches, I agree he is speaking well since last June, but he has 30 years he could have built himself a great positive image and reputation.

Best to you gentlemen, I combined the answer because I felt I needed Jamshid to hear what I had to say about RP too.

Thanks again

IRANdokht

Mammad

These people who call themselves monarchists, are actually anything but.

They simply assume that this site should be a gathering place for bunch of Reza Pahlavi's supporters with no tolerance for apposing ideas.
They have a well-known and outdated method of cowardly confrontation which is based on the notion of tarnishing and, labeling opponents.
As soon as someone raises the question as to why Reza Pahlavi has so far failed to categorically and explicitly acknowledge his father's wrongs, he or she has to be labeled as an agent of IRI.  

some points on beloved Cyrus & Babylone conquest

First off, to all true followers of path of Kiaan, happy Cyrus day even if a bit late :)).  

Some points on his cylinder & Babylon conquest , mind you this has nothing to do and in no way is in defence of the Ommatized version of monarchy in Iran post-Qadesiyeh which has nothing to do with either Cyrus message, true Iran or legacy of Kiaan;

Why the text is in Babylonian language and not old Persian;

Well , the same reason that American command sends out it,s bulletins in Arabic to Iraqi people, Hitler sends out his message to German occupied France in french & Stalin prints Soviet declaration of victory over nazis for Germans in German language. It is called having a dialogue with the locals after a regional war and the text on the cylander was written in Babylonian language by direct orders of Cyrus(pbuh) for the average new citizens to understand his positions and clear misconceptions . If he had forseen that one day this will be called world's 1st human rights decla, I,m sure he would have translated it in many different languages and ask for sponsors such as coca cola or microsoft.

Why the mention of Marduk and not Ahura;

Damn if he does damn if he doesn,t heh.Again, this goes to show the degree of Cyrus tolerance and world view. Just as Alexander in Persia , khosru in Jerusalem  & most victors did later in the foosteps of Cyrus, here it shows his diplomatic side by paying homage to local God Marduk that average folks feel connection to. this goes to show his genious and flexibility to respect and celebrate local customs & beliefs rather than fight em like ommatie fanatics.

Why Cyrus didn't   talk about his heritage and background?;

& again on the contrary to the fabricated claimes, he did talk about his lineage and his background mind you not in a nausiating fashion as some folks expected. What do you expect? what would have whining nancies said if he had gone and said "I am Cyrus an Aryan and I am here as victor over you Semitic Babylonians", I guess all whiners would cry foul then too. This to Cyrus was a mere regional conquest among many and he meant to appease folks rather than be confrontational and wear his patriotism on his sleeves since his intentions for this text is to show his achievemnts in Babylone and not his lineage. here is part of what he said;

"king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Summer and Akkad king of the four quarters (of the earth), son of Cambyses,descendent of Teispes, great king, king of kings, king of Anshan..."

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia

Monarchy vs Democracy

As a definition:

Hereditary monarchies represent the historical example of privately owned governments, and democratic republics that of publicly owned governments.

Monarchy rule and represent sovereign KINGS where democratic-republics rule and represent sovereign PEOPLES.

Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) A natural Law Philosopher argues that:

" Following Aristotle,  there are exactly three kinds of government. A people may be governed by one person or more than one; if more than one, then either by part of the people or by all of the people.

Monarchy is government by one person;

Aristocracy is government by part of the people;

Democracy is government by all of the people.

Other apparent names for governments are misleading. Tyranny is not
different from monarchy. The word “tyranny” is simply used for a monarchy that is not liked.

Similarly, “oligarchy” is used for an aristocracy that is not liked, and “anarchy” is used for a democracy that is not liked (L 19.1–2, 46.35, “Review and Conclusion” 9; DC 7.2; EL 2.1.3).

Other misleading terms are “elective kingdoms” and “limited
monarchy.” A government that elects a so-called king is in fact usually a democracy and the elected official is a minister of the democracy.

The phrase “limited monarchy” is a contradiction in terms since
sovereignty must be unlimited or absolute.  A so-called [limited monarch] is a minister of whoever in fact has the sovereign
power, and this may be either an aristocracy or a democracy (L 19.10, 19.12; DC 7.4; EL 2.2.9)."

Ref: //homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/hobbes...

//mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_3.pdf

-YT