Jahanshah Javid

Ditto, MM!

And this is precisely why the great Masonic project of the American founding fathers succeeded. They totally separated church from state, and since most of these individuals were Freemasons, they understood quite clearly the importance of such separation where the examples you cited still have not.

I beg to differ: religion & politics do not mix

One of the worse religious conflicts of the 20th century occurred in Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants in a democratic society.  The other example that comes to mind is the ongoing conflict between Muslims and Hindus in democratic India. 

Taken all together, history has shown that every time religion becomes entangled in politics, the radical elements take over the policy-making decisions while not showing its ugly face as laws.  The Crusades to save the holy hand, caliphs of the Islamic era, witch hunt in the Middle Ages, Taliban and IRI are just various forms of this unholy union of religion and politics.

The clear solution is the concept of separation of church and state while the rights of every religious organization is guaranteed by the state, no matter how disgusting that may be to the other faiths, e.g., devil worship, punishable by death in Islam and Judaism.

Baha'i & politics

I have criticized the official Baha'i claim of non-participation in (partisan) politics before because this claim is pure doctrinal double-speak -- but it has a specific historical reason. The reason is that Abbas Effendi decided to withdraw the initial support he gave to the Constitutional Revolution and commanded all the Iranian Baha'is of the time to follow suit. Part of the reason for this was because the Bayani community (i.e. Azalis) had become prominent leaders of the Constitutionalist faction. This policy has since been enshrined as immutable doctrine.

However it is a doctrine that makes no sense, given that the doctrinal Baha'i platform of world government, etc., is itself political. In fact, to take Aristotle at his word, human beings and all social interactions of any description are by definition political. Man/human beings are therefore political animals (politikon zoon), including Baha'is. So to answer your question: The Baha'i Commonwealth and eventually the Baha'i World Super-State is to be effectively run by the Universal House of Justice, the supreme Haifan Baha'i institution, through its network of National, Regional and Local spiritual assemblies together with their unelected institution of Counsellors (who are currently the pool of candidates that get elected to the supreme body, i.e. the UHJ).

If wishing to bury hatchets is to be cynically defined as khayeh maali, then we as a people are truly lost and democracy will be an impossibility in Iran! But let us see for ourselves if those who beat their chests as democrats and claim human rights as guiding principles are really willing to exercise such principles on the most basic, day to day, rudimentary things, since everything that truly stands is erected from the ground up. So in the eternal words of my great ancestor and Iran's first revolutionary feminist, the remover of the veil, Fatima Zarin Taj Baraghani (i.e. Tahirih Qurra'tul-'Ayn), "Let deeds, not words, be your adorning."

President Pahlavi?

Reza Pahlavi has worked hard to distance himself from his father's dictatorship. He has done so not by explicitly condemning his father's iron grip (although he has pointed out to some "mistakes" here and there), rather by being an enthusiastic advocate for democratic rule. He rarely brings up the subject of monarchy or his position as "crown prince".

Now imagine this: What if Reza Pahlavi renounced the concept of monarchy altogether and officially declares that he will never seek to be king? I'm sure his popularity will multiply and many who are opposed to the resurrection of monarchy would embrace him.

In fact in a post-IRI presidential election, Reza Pahlavi could be the strongest candidate if he runs as an ordinary citizen.

I know. The chances of an anti-monarchy Pahlavi is as realistic of an anti-Velayate Faghih Khamenei. But as history has shown, nothing is impossible in politics. And I believe RP has lived in the West long enough to appreciate the beauty of democracies where blue-bloods get no special treatment.

Another thing I've often thought about is why the Mojahedin leadership does not emancipate its female members by declaring the hejab out-dated and backward? Such a move would greatly improve their reputation among Iranians.

I have a question

Aren't the Baha'is supposed to stay away from politics? Who would run it?

PS: Good blog JJ

You forget, JJ

I have been a card-carrying Baha'i and was born into a Baha'i family. In fact I remember quite distinctly introducing you to a few of my Baha'i relatives in Albuquerque right outside of the Baha'i centre there back in the early '90s. Your  Haifan Baha'i friends and benefactors might have misrepresented facts to you,  which they certainly have (and which they do very well on a myriad of issues), and you have believed them. That's your prerogative. It doesn't say much about your objectivity as a journalist -- which I never had much faith in, in any case. But one of my central goals is indeed to expose the Haifan Baha'i organization as a fascist/stalinist organization in the same way as the MKO was exposed. If, as you say, my goal in life is to deny the human rights of Baha'is -- a cheap slur to which you have no evidence -- , pray tell, why do members of the Orthodox Baha'i faith consider me a friend? This allegation is BS politics, and you know it. And precisely because I am an ex-Bahai from a Baha'i family it axiomatically stands to reason that I have far more concrete credibility to be speaking about the Haifan Baha'i organization and its nature than you ever will.

Moreover I never said you had anything in common with me, nor I with you. For one thing, I have never worked for the Islamic republic under any capacity whereas you have. In other words, I have never contributed or served in any capacity under the propaganda organ of a fascist totalitarian state whereas you have.

But that said, your core beef with me has nothing to do with Baha'ism at all but everything to do with issues that transpired on the campus of the University of New Mexico in the '90s, and the fact that I believe you are a bit of a chameleon.

NO, you and I have nothing in common other than perhaps wishing the IRI to finally go to hell! And this, in itself, is poetic justice from where I am sitting...

Now how about you and I publicly bury the hatchet once and for all, kiss and make up, and focus on the more urgent  and important task ahead of sending the Islamocracy of Sepahi Mullahs to their richly earned one way permanent trip to the abode of Beelzebub. Whatcha say?

The difference

Nur-i-Azal, your whole purpose in life is to bash Bahais. You support any and all efforts to deny their human rights and freedom to practice their faith.

I have nothing in common with you or your ideas.

Ditto JJ! Baha'i Commonwealth

The terminology Baha'is use from their own writings is Baha'i Commonwealth. This Baha'i Commonwealth is deemed to become the World Government. Although not scripturally based, many Iranian Baha'is believe that this Baha'i Commonwealth will begin in Iran and that Iran will become the first official Baha'i state.

Please note that in such a scenario National Spiritual Assemblies will effectively become the government of the Baha'i state who in turn answer to the Universal House of Justice in Haifa. In this Baha'i conception these bodies or institutions are deemed to be infallible and not open to be criticized or second guessed because they represent God. Effectively we are dealing with a system not too different from the Vilayat-i-Faqih (guardianship of the jurisprudent) already operative in Iran. In short, this system is totalitarian.

It is one thing to bestow the Baha'i religion its right to the free exercise of its religious beliefs and to be legally protected from discrimination, abuse and harrassment. But the ultimate goal of official Baha'i doctrine vis-a-vis Iran does not stop there -- and this is what I have been trying to say for the past year. They are literally after the creation of a Baha'i dominated theocratic state, i.e. the Baha'i Commonwealth.

As such at this time when the Islamocracy of Sepahi mullahs is attempting to pull all stops and manufacture any/all execuses, the Green Movement, its fellow travellers and sympathizers must be extremely careful and fully focused not to either be sidetracked or allow any agendas foreign to its primary goal of transforming Iran into a secular democratic state to be sabotaged by anyone or anything. Yes, let us advocate for the rights of Baha'is of all the Baha'i denominations (and not just the majoritarian Haifan branch). But let us not be bamboozled by any theocratic agendas of those whose rights we are advocating on behalf, either. This is an extremely subtle and delicate point needing to be appreciated by all of us and acted upon.

A secular democratic Republic of Iran, or nothing! 

Can't be any clearer

Babak SD: What's not clear about my statement? I said: "the control of a government by any single faith creates conditions that are inherently counter to all democratic and pluralistic principles."

A government under the banner of any religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Bahaism, Buddhism, Any-ism, is a monopoly whose purpose is to protect first and foremost the interests of that religion and its followers. That means the followers of other religions and those who have no religious beliefs at all will not be treated equally.

A question for you Mr. Javid

May I ask the basis of your conclusion summarized in your statement: However, if a Bahai Republic is created some day, it won't fare any better than other religious states, only because the control of a government by any single faith creates conditions that are inherently counter to all democratic and pluralistic principles.?

Bahai Republic?

Babak_SD, when people speak of major religions, they usually mean those that have been around a thousand years or more. Also, we are discussing religions that have reached statehood.

There have been no theocracies based on the Bahai faith. However, if a Bahai Republic is created some day, it won't fare any better than other religious states, only because the control of a government by any single faith creates conditions that are inherently counter to all democratic and pluralistic principles.

Not ALL major religions Mr. Javid

Dear JJ,

In you very well written and thought provoking blog you mention that "ALL major religions, past and present, have resorted to violence to kill or dominate other believers and non-believers.

Baha'i' faith with 6M+ believers is a major religion; it is recognized by U.N. as such, and it is recognized as a religion in over 105 countries, including all industrialized nations.  Even in China, the government draws upon teachings of the Baha'i' faith especially when it comes to future academic planning as well as reducing the effects of hyper materialism by promotion of spirituality.

Baha'i' faith explicitly rejects the idea of mixing of religion and ruling of a country and calls for separation of church and state.  It also advocates non involvement in partisan politics.  Finally, in its 165 year history, there has been no killings in the name of religion.

Baha'u'llah, the founder of this faith also says that if religion should become the cause of disunity and strife, its better to have no religion.

All of RP's talent will go

All of RP's talent will go to waste and he will be reduced to waving his hand to crowds on official occasions. That to me is a waste

If that is your concern, would you want him to be elected for 4 years and go away, or be elected and re-elected for his lifetime?! And what kind of democracy would that be?!

His talent is good for kingdom, without interference in everyday political life. That's what he is good at and that's what he is trained for.

We will have excellent politicians in a democratic country. Just look at current student leaders. This is not what we will miss. It's a unifier king that we will miss if we continue to be so blatantly short sighted.

I want to change the subject, because I won't make a republic supporter a constitutional monarchy supporter, or vice versa. The point is that we don't have that freedom of expression and necessary open discussion in the society at large to know what would be the decision of people.

So, as a supporter of republic, I suggest you don't choose a system based on a single person capability. Reza Pahlavi will have hopefully a normal life long to live. What next? ...if you want him to be the head of a republic? What I suggest to you is that you use the talent of RP as who he is, the crown prince, for uniting the people based on his constitutional duty, and after restoring freedom and security, campaign for your choice of republic in free Iran. As a true republican, and not IRI apologists disguised as republican, this is your best way to get there.

And don't choose your regime preference based on the capabilities of a single public figure, whether it is RP or any other. You are preparing the future of Iran for generations. 

jj, We are getting closer. Almost all points you made are

valid at theoretical level. Full democracy is a modern concept, has barely been functional for long and requires understanding and acceptance that comes thru culture and/or education. In a place like India long history of acceptance of differences built into the culture, and in modern times reenforced with a pacifist Ghandian revolution. Even there, breaking point was Islam nd separationist Pakistan. No need to enumerate the better condition of Indian moslems to pakistan. Pakistan even when secular was/is a highly suffocating muslim country that could be secular or democratic to a very limited extent.

Or, places like Scandinavian countries where level of wealth and education is high. And religion is essentially a non-factor.

Now as for democracy, on one end, 'democracy is not perfect but it is best we got' which I think is your initial point but would work in examples I mentioned. The other extreme is 'masses are the asses' as Sarte puts it, meaning elite (benevolent dictators or elected officials - the elite) need to manage it. Liberal Democracy certainly died with Soviet demise. So in reference to my previous comments and example of North Africans or Malaysia & Turkey, I'm not endorsing any form of dictatorship rather I'm suggesting that democracy is nothing but a people coming to terms with itself and learning to coexist in a materially and socially equitable manner. That is a process and an evolution. Democratic institutions must be built and while that building takes place,  democracy by itself will hardly produce anything useful. In IRR there was plenty of voting, and certainly started with a referendum. Yet it is among the most repressive states on the face of this planet. Look at the trail of monotheistic religions, and all you'll find is suppression of human spirit. From that night that Joseph dreamt god & angles under joshua tree, any other god or belief became enemy.

Democracy you mention is based on freedom of belief, opinion, press, voting, sexuality.... all of which are controlled, doctrinated and regulated by religion, directly or indirectly. So if your position is that Secular democracy is not incompatible with islam, I can agree with that very hesitantly if the condition is islam/religion must be tightly controlled. islam says: islam is the way of life (dianet ma sisate mast va siasatema dianete mast- Our religion is our politics and our politics is our religion) it will sooner or late devour democracy because it can use the levers of democracy to gain power, and once in power use tenants of religion to supercede democracy.

Turkey's wiretapping is unprecendented and very much driven by islamist suspicion of military & nationalists. Google it and you'll find plenty. I was also not suggesting their islamists are radicals but given the opportunity they will follow the pattern I explained earlier.

MARGE Galore ;0)

My problem as a Constitutionalist is not RP. Anyother member of that family can fit the job. But I am a Legitimist ( see below)

What matters to me however is the Crown ( which embodies the Constitution and Unity of the Nation so to speak). Yes its a piece of Jewel encrusted hat but it's the symbolic significance just like a Flag has that transecends it's materialistic nature. No One is forced to share that assessment and seeing some so called Green supporters tear up the Sun and Lion Flag proves that ignorace can abound amongst many who ignore their history and think that they know it all ... ;0)

Please watch this clip by HATEIRI:

//www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-273363

Or NIAC former Spokesman Babak Talebi :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=och26QdEEF8

Needless to say I know perfectly you cannot understand this notion due to your own resentment for the Pahlavis and the Monarchy in general but that is your right. I cannot take it aways from you even if I wished it.

But to clarify where I stand be it to satisfy or not your curiosity.

I AM in the following order:

1) A Constitutionalist: That is a Democrat.

2) A Monarchist ( Since one can very well be a Constitutionalist but a Republican)

3) A Legitimist: That is I favor the Pahlavis to Ascend to the Peacock Throne upon Restoration and not any other Royal Family ( Qajars, Safavid's etc...)  even if they have the perfect and equal right to claim the title, create a party and run for election.

In all constitutional monarchies Republican Parties exist and question the role of the Monarchy. 

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

Same thing in Republics like France where the descendants of the Kings of France are elected deputies or mayors or have created a Royalist political party although quite marginal and have never won any major election to represent a threat to the republican establishment. 

I could develope my views more in detail but Emrooz Hoseleh Nadaram ... LOL

Bon Baisers de Paris ,

DK

Muslim countries are corrupt!

Muslim countries that breed radicalism are corrupted. Also, the term "progress" is very unpopular with Muslim countries. At schools in Islamic Iran, students are taught that as a Muslim they are to encourage the non-believers to convert. Muslims are not to be patriotic to their countries but to their religion.

That's not the case for all Muslims, but for the fundementalists.

Darius jan

You pose a good question. It all depends on what form of government Iran has post IRI. I was suggesting RP as PM in a parliamentary system where there is either no office of President or it is purely symbolic. Personally I like that the best. 

My real point is that RP will do better as an elected leader instead of a king. 

Say we have a European style Constitutional Monarchy  with RP as king. His powers will be very limited; basically non existent. The real power will be in the hands of a PM or a President. All of RP's talent will go to waste and he will be reduced to waving his hand to crowds on official occasions. That to me is a waste. So I rather have him in an elected position where he can actually do something useful. Not just sit around and appear official.

Is it Islam or Economy?

To get a better prespective about this topic, I'd recommend reading "The Future of Freedom," by Fareed Zakaria.

We can't compare India or Malaysia with Iran or Saudi.  In the oil rich countries, the people (collectively speaking) don't have to work to revive their economy or maintain it. The country is naturally wealthy and prone to political corruption. That's the big picture thought, it doesn't mean people in Iran don't work hard. Many do, but the government has nothing to worry about. They have free power: no need to promote innovation, no need to stop drug trafficking, no need to stop poverty, and ultimately no need for diplomacy with other countries. 

Governments in oil rich countries do not have a sense of patritism so they often use religion to evade from the topic. Religion becomes their tool to exercise their powers. 

And the people, on the other hand, tend to be more ignorant cause they are not involved nor engaged in the countries growth process.There are no expectations of them. They resort to religion to fill their social and emotional voids. Overtime their religious believes become their day to day life styles: They breath, fear, and eat religion. To deprogram these people from their dependencies (religious related) is a long term process.

My 3 cents.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan if RP were PM then who would be

President / King?

A Prime Minister is usually attributed to Monarchies Not Republics ( France being an exception) which have Vice Presidents ( and Canada's Prime Minister is actually symbolically named by the Queen of England if I am not mistaken because of the fact that Canada is part of the CommonWealth).

Your question is interesting because it proves that the notion of a Constitutional Monarchy is not fully understood by many.

A Constitution is first and foremost a Moral Contract between the governing body ( Head of State, government) and the people ( Parliment, electors).

All of what JJ mentioned as his preferance in a Democratic Republic prevail in a Constitutional Monarchy and that is the election of "governors, mayors and legislators are all elected directly by the people" and Prime Minister. The President however is unique to Republics.

But Presidents are Not Always as Powerful in All Republics. Take Germany which is a Federal Republic. The President has only a symbolic role. Everyone has heard of Merkel as German Chancellor making all the decisions etc but who knows Horst Köhler ?

Same for Austria. Or Italy where Silvio Berlusconi is Prime Minister and that Nobody Giorgio Napolitano is President.

In a Monarchy the King or Queen Embody the Institutions of the State. Is it an Elitist Notion unlike the Presidential Republics ? Of Course it is. But at least it is not ambiguous because everything is drafted in the Constitution.

Again it is ultimately a Nation's choice. One cannot simply dismiss the Monarchy on grounds that it is a Stupid system or that the people living in such countries are stupid or lack the wisdom of their fellow neighbouring countries.

Some of the most progressive nations in Europe which have had left wing socialist policies have precisely been Sweden and Norway both of which are Constitutional Monarchies.

In Spain many consider themselves as Juan Carlist rather than Monarchists because of Juan Carlos' positive and constructive role in establishing democracy. Many however are less enthusiast in seeing his son reign one day. So the Monarchy even in the Restored form as in Spain still has to last the test of time.

In a Constitutional Monarchy the King or Queen or Royal Family are NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

Princess Ann was tried over tax evasions and the Queen Also pays taxes.

The Government ( that is the Prime Minister and his cabinet) as well as the Parliment can force the King or Queen to abdicate if she or he does not live up to her role. That is what happened with King Edward VIII for instance when he decided to divorce.

The Key of the Constitution is first to defend and protect the rights  of the citizen/subject and define his responsabilities/duties in civil life as an elector.

The rest is formalities which depend on the choice of the system of government.

Another Myth: Royalty is Expensive:

Royalty The cost, equivalent to 62p per person in the UK for the Tax payer.

It can vary from one year to another based on the economy and factors like Inflation or economic growth but all this is carefully calculated and controlled in total transparency by government and verified by the Parliment.

Just a comparison to France where just the Public Relations of the President with the Press is equivalent to 11 euro Cents per person. And that does not include his travels, State dinners, or other costs.  

Given that One Euro is 0.9 pence, I let you do the Calculation ...

In addition to jobs and tourism that the Monarchy generates for a country like Great Britian, You can imagine the advantages for a country like Iran which was known as not only the First Empire but also the Land of Kings Par Excellence ...

Latest on this Year's Inventory on the Royal Spendings in the UK (bbc)

Re: I want to know something from Muslims

Marge Jan,

I am with you. I don't understand why Muslims leave their own countries; go to the West; then try to turn West into another version of what they left! It makes no sense to me. 

As for the "Charities" I don't trust them one bit. What does CAIR want to prove. It is acts not advertisements that really form people's image of Muslims.

anarchy brings happiness to a lot of people too

I've seen photo essays in national geographic about remote people who live alone and they are thrilled with the world. They are free of posessions and greed doesn't involve Tiffany's or iPods. I don't know if I could try that, as appealing as it is, though. 

My point is, Darius, if Reza Pahlavi brings people so much happiness and inspiration, why does he need to have a throne and a crown to prove it? He hasn't done it with the freedom the US has provided him. Democracy does not mean happiness, but it means satisfaction. 

I think I've realized what disappoints me most about your view of Reza Pahlavi - you limit and label him more than I do, Darius. I guess you don't see his potential as an individual beyond the womb he exited or the name on his birth certificate.  

RP has been a figurehead all these years

And look how far he has gotten. He can't even unite bitter disaporic Iranians. Another failure. I don't really see why he should be a PM, but this is my personal opinion. I'm sure Darius will disagree.

Also I'm Not sure "Democracy" brings "Happiness" ...

However It makes one Responsible for one's own choices and actions.

That is commendable not to say necessary in our modern times ...

But "Happiness" is an "American" Bubble Gum Notion in my opinion that has nothing to do with a nation's well being ...

In the Middle Ages Religion was supposed to answer that question.

Today it's Psychiatrists who try to offer us that answer ...

Democracy is always a source of complication not pre definite answers. I No wonder some Russians regret the Communist days ...

Le Coeur a ses Raisons ...

Monarchy?

I am not really sure what is the point of having a Monarch. Maybe as a symbol of the nation. But I think most people including Monarchists oppose dictatorship. So a monarch would have to be severely restricted in his or her powers. Most likely it will be a figurehead position. If not it will devolve into a dictatorship. I have said before I like Reza Pahlavi but I rather see him as a PM than a king. As a PM he would have real power but will also be replaceable should people chose to. That is how democracies are and should be run. 

As for Islam or religion in general it has to be out of politics. There is no possible way to have a religious democracy. So we should not even try to. If people want to practice Islam fine; if they don't fine.  Muslims should be treated just like anyone else. No special positions for Shiite and no punishment for leaving a religion. Otherwise we are in trouble once more.

I want to know something from Muslims

I hope people who find this blog from google will join and discuss this. 

The reason Nehru wanted to divorce Muslims from India was good. He did not hate Muslims, but he felt that their aims clashed with India's to a degree that couldn't suit compromise. THEY GOT IT and all Pakestan has to show for it is a nuclear weapon.

What I do not understand though is why after this failed state, Muslims do not wish to return to these places such as Pakestan to nurture and help it. Instead, I see Muslim lobbies like CAIR in the USA wasting money to pay for advertising here and there about how sweet your veiled Muslim house neighbor and her son really are. Before 9-11, if you had a Muslim name, you probably received a lot of mailers from Islamic charities. A lot of them dissolved. What were they doing with all that money, I wonder? Why aren't Muslim states asking educated Muslims to help out? I am no cheerleader for Israeli policies, but this right to return is a fabulous advertisement for young Jews worldwide to come and enjoy Israel and find ways to contribute after the hangover has wore off.

Muslims do not seem to unite in this way save for stoning adulterers because they think they will suffer less in the after life OR because they are angry with Bush policies. I will eat my words the day I see Muslims who immigrate returning to invest and nurture Islamic societies like Pakestan. They react better as a community than organize or be proactive. A failed report card for Muslims.  

THanks JJ But you still did not answer my Questions ;0)

I knew You wouldn't Answer entirely but that is OK !

LOL

Oh and KNOWLEDGE IS POWER !

Monarchy: Been there done that

Kadivar, no need to list all the countries that live happily under a monarchy from the United Kingdom to Malaysia. (Oh by the way, speaking of Malaysia, their monarch is an ELECTED position not hereditary.)

My personal preference is a secular democratic republic whose president, governors, mayors and legislators are all elected directly by the people.

I don't want a totalitarian hereditary king like the ones we've had during our entire history until 1979 or an unelected hereditary one in a constitutional monarchy.

That's my choice. You and every Iranian can make your own choice.

A Few Questions JJ regarding Democratic systems ...

In the examples mentioned by you I noted that the majority of the countries were Republics (often created after a Military Coup, or Revolution or Anti Colonial Wars) and all happen to also be dictatorships.

On the otherhand you mention Malasia, a Constitutional Monarchy ( Not certain How Constitutional it is compared to those in Europe though )  along with the two Republic's Turkey and Indonesia on the top of your list of countries where thanks to a minimum of democracy ( Or democratic requirements), Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism seem to have been less dominant or sufficiantly under control.

Below I looked up at the other nations you mentioned and roughly noted their regimes in question in the List Below.

So here are my Four questions in order:

1) Do you concieve Democratic systems of government as being Only Republican in nature ?

2) Why is it that nearly all Republican experiences in the Middle East and North Africa ( "Le Monde Arabo Musulman et Le Maghreb" as we French name them ) failed to date in bringing Democracy to their country ? And that Presidential Dynasties ( including in Secular Republics like Tunisia) seem to have replaced monarchical dynasties:

North Africa's leaders keep it in the family (bbc)

Tunisian president in fifth win (bbc)

( Also See Notes Below)

3) Are Revolutions necessary to achieve Democracy or can or should a nation concieve other means such as Reform regardless of the nature of the Regime ( Republic or Monarchy) ?

4) Do you consider the following countries and their Head's of State as Democracies or Dictatorships/Tyrants : Great Britian ( Queen Elizabeth II), Spain ( King Juan Carlos), Belgium ( King Albert II) the Scandinavian Monarchies ( Denmark, Netherlands, Swedan and Norway) ? If Not what should be done to replace them ?

Look forward to your answers.

Best,

DK

Lists of Countries and their System of government mentioned in your list : ( Did not include Syria ( Republic), Jordan ( Monarchy), and many others like Lebanon etc )

Turkey: Republic ( with a Military Junta on bay in case the secularist nature of the regime was at threat ) fairly stable since Ataturk.

Malaysia: Constitutional Monarchy

Indonesia: Republic 

Saudi Arabia: Kingdom

Egypt: Republic

Iran: Religious Republic

Afghanistan: Republic ( Karzai Refused to Restore Zahir Shah on the throne, which he refused also due to old age, but former  Afghan Prince's are running to become President and accuse Karzai of corruption amongst other shortcomings)

Pakistan: Republic

Somalia: Republic ( but have kept their Former Kingdom's Coat of Arms)

Yemen: Republic

Algeria: Republic

Tunisia: Republic ( has made more progress in terms of women rights than it's neighbours)

Morocco: Monarchy ( in the process of reform and the King pays taxes and the press is much more free than under his father, political prisoners have to a large extent been set free and unharmed contrary to the the claims of the leftwing fundemantalist propaganda, French TV is aired through Canal Sat without the slightest censorship and the internet are not banned).

Note1:  I think you would agree that Isreal is Not an example of democracy achieved through social transformations like Revolutions given that it's democracy was virtually imported by jews who all had lived in democratic states or had a good idea of what democratic systems worked like so there was already a concensus on the nature of the regime to be established back in 1948) and that in nearly all the countries mentioned in your list what seems to have appeared is rather Presidential Dynasties ( Recent Elections in Tunisia or Algeria confirm this tendancy).

Note 2: It is noteworthy to mention that as far as North Africa is concerned that Morocco (a Monarchy) and Tunisia  ( a Republic) achieved independance without going through a bloody war like in Algeria. Very Much like the British in India, The French pulled out without too much fuss.  

Religion has proven itself

Religion has proven itself to be the catalyst for all inhumanities, wars and power hungry individuals and because of it is why the world is in the mess it's in today. Men, not the creator, wrote the basic lies of the religous scripture and other varying religious  books that have made us all different to the point of hating each other like we do. So many lies and misinformation was put into these religious books for the purpose of control and power over mankind when man was NEVER supposed to rule other men.

I'm learning on this thread

about possible models of democracy and their track records.  Thank you Jahanshah for this important blog and the good discussions. So far I'm with you and Marge on India. (Actually Marge's India comment was on your other blog, sorry Marge.)

Khar's point on Islam's inability to change is crucial.  The man knows his islam!