Kaveh Parsa
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Reza Pahlavi: "The Challenge Of Implementing Democracy And Human Rights In Iran"
29-Mar-2010
Speech by Reza Pahlavi at The International Society Of Human Rights - Bonn, Germany
Saturday, March 27th, 2010
I am indeed honored and glad to be with you tonight. Let me first acknowledge and thank Mr. Martin Lessenthin for his kind introduction, and the International Society of Human Rights for inviting me to this conference.
My first and fundamental observation has been and continues to be this: the relentless pursuit of human rights is the essence of democracy. And, without democracy, human rights cannot, by definition, prevail.
My vision of a future Iran is thus inseparable from these two interdependent ideals and principles. Before I offer my views about how we could attain this goal, allow me to first share my thoughts on the current state of affairs in my homeland.
Since the establishment of the clerical regime in Iran, both democracy and human rights have been grossly compromised. Not only did the people not gain the political freedom, which some may have thought would be attained as a result of the “Islamic Revolution”, but sadly they ended up losing practically all of the social freedoms which had been attained and enjoyed for a long time, particularly since the advent of the Constitutional Revolution at the turn of the 20th century.
One of the immediate questions most people – Iranians and foreigners alike – have pondered upon and asked throughout the years is: Does the factor of religion play a crucial part in Iran’s current state of human rights abuses and lack of transparent democracy? The simple truth and ultimate answer is: Yes. However, the explanation is not so simple. In fact, it is one of the most complex issues faced by a Middle-Eastern, predominantly Moslem society, which aspires to the aforementioned goals of democracy and human dignity while suffocating under an obscurantist and totalitarian, clerical dictatorship.
Even in the most liberal and democratic societies – East and West – religion plays a role and has a place. The problem starts, however, when religion is politicized into a radical ideology, one which allows the “church” or “clergymen” to interfere in the affairs of the state, and ultimately becomes a theocracy, and actually assumes governance, in the name of such ideology and the self-serving interpretation of God’s law and rule on earth.
When one looks at Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of an Islamic Government, one realizes that it actually had little to do with the traditional thinking of the Shi’ite establishment. I say this in the sense that his concept of the “Velayate Faghih” (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists) has in effect violated at least two of the most cardinal principles of the Shi’ite faith. The first being that, the only time divine rule could be envisaged to have domain over us on Earth is upon the reappearance of the 12th Imam, who is considered a “Ma’soum” (or non-sinner). Until then, it is not the role of the clerics to govern society in the name of religion. The second being the principle of “Takassore Maraje’”, or the plurality of sources of emulation, in other words multiple high ranking clerical leaders, as opposed to a single source such as the Pope in Catholicism.
There is no question that these tenants of the faith were indeed violated by Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters. This also explains why most traditional clerics opposed this new interpretation and ideology and subsequently remained outside the newly established so called system, leaving a few to take the helm of this modern day theocracy.
Hence, what ensued was the imposition of an absolutist vision of like-minded radical Islamists, leaving most of our society outside their “in-house circle”, and considering all those who objected to their ideology as blasphemers and God opposing infidels. As such, the regime has arbitrarily discriminated against women, ethnic communities, religious minorities, intellectuals, students, workers, and even men of the same cloth!
But this vision was really not meant for Iran and Iranians alone. In fact Khomeini thought to use Iran as a launching pad for the exportation of his vision beyond our borders and attain a regional hegemony with himself at the helm of a modern day Shi’ite Caliphate. This venomous, radical ideology has since been implemented by the regime’s surrogates around the globe while using Iran’s resources at the expense of the people of Iran themselves. It is understandable that the threat of a terrorist-sponsoring regime attaining a nuclear weapon of mass destruction has been the predominant concern of the free world in recent years.
I need not remind this distinguished audience of the details of the systematic violation of human rights in Iran throughout these sad years, nor do I need to inform you of what you already know about the absence of political freedom. All this has been thoroughly documented by numerous human rights organizations over the course of the last three decades, including Amnesty International, The Bouroumand Foundation, The Center for Human Rights Documentation and numerous other independent and trustworthy organizations. The United Nations is also fully aware of the high number of Iranian refugees, often living in dismal conditions in neighboring countries and elsewhere.
2009 was one of the most challenging years for millions of my compatriots – a year during which the world witnessed the most flagrant violations of both political as well as human rights of our citizens. But last year was not the exception! Sadly it has been the rule over the last 30 years. This time again, when the people attempted to seek yet another way to soften the regime while demanding their basic rights, they were met with a swift and unforgiving crackdown.
Before I go any further, allow me to draw your attention to three of the most pressing and egregious human rights situations involving my compatriots today. I call upon the world’s democracies and advocates of human rights everywhere to focus attention on the longest suffering political prisoner in Iran, Mr. Amir Entezam—who even though he is not currently in prison—because he has refused to sign the regime’s “tobeh nameh” or “decleration of guilt and repentence” is in virtual prison with no freedoms. Also noteworthy is the case of Ayatollah Bouroujerdi, who because of his belief in separation of mosque & state, is in prison—in dire conditions. It is imperative for the world community to shine a bright light on this holy man’s plight and put pressure on the regime in Tehran on his behalf. And finally the fate of tens of thousands of refugees: including journalists and bloggers and other innocents---join us in calling on the United Nations to recognize their status as political refugees & provide them with such protections & supports that only that international body can—and do so with urgency.
Few would argue today that the thought of reforming this regime, whether it be a domestic attempt or a foreign expectation, has proven to be unrealistic and unattainable. Why? Because the very nature of this regime, the very essence of its existence, is in direct conflict and diametrically opposed to the liberal principles of democracy as we understand it and the principles of human rights. Its survival depends on denying what the people of Iran demand. I have said all along, so long as this regime remains in power, Iran will not reverse its course.
Can the situation change in Iran, despite the regime? My answer is: Definitely. It is only a matter of time. However, my concern is for this to happen in the short term, and at minimal further cost to a citizenry that has already paid far too much with lost lives, lost opportunities, lost dignity.
Let me offer you now my vision of Iran’s future and the path I propose for its implementation. In light of the limited time I have with you today, I will only discuss the broader issues.
I believe Iranians need to give careful consideration to three predominantly important questions:
1. What is the alternative to this regime, in terms of a political system?
2. How would their rights be upheld and safeguarded under this new system? And,
3. Would this be in conflict with their faith?
In addressing the first question, I would argue history has repeatedly proven to us that a clear separation between religion and state is imperative in order to have the right circumstances for democratic governance. I would, therefore, emphasize the imperative of the “secular” nature of a future democratic system. I would further add the constitution of said democracy should, in my view, be based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This comprehensive document has established standards and principles to which I would refer in addressing all of our social, cultural, religious and political concerns.
As mentioned in the beginning, without a fully accountable democratic system, these principles would be hard to implement. But, it is not just a matter of understanding the need for this alternative. It takes a great deal of commitment and investment by each and every citizen to attain this goal.
This brings me to the second question. Would such an investment usher in a system which would indeed safeguard people’s rights? Here, allow me to offer my observation of a critical point which may have been somewhat unappreciated throughout our history. It is the fact that, as a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society, I truly believe we Iranians have in fact two kinds of identities: one national and the other ethnic. Throughout the centuries, Iran’s national identity was the predominant factor in the preservation of our culture and civilization. Our great poet Ferdowsi is but one wonderful example of how our sense of identity has been deeply embedded in our collective psyche. However, I would add that we should also recognize the importance of the diverse ethnic and religious identities and the preservation of these cultures and faiths as well. Whether from the outside looking in or whether we introvert and self-observe as we move forward, to view Iranians as a monolithic people would be a gross mistake.
Persia has been for centuries the cradle of a broad mosaic of ethnicities and cultures, living peacefully with each other. As such Iran’s territorial integrity has been preserved, in great part on the basis and willingness of its own people. Beyond the overall political repression, the persistent discrimination of the current regime against many groups has caused great deals of concern and uproar. This is a factor that may threaten the very same territorial integrity of Iran as I just mentioned, should the status quo prevail.
Think of it this way, when a Kurdish or Balouch Sunni Moslem faces discrimination by the current Shi’ia regime, for example, by denying him the right to erect a Sunni mosque, is this justice? When an Iranian Jew or Bahai has been persecuted, simply because of his faith, is this freedom? When a woman has half the rights or voice of a man, is this equality?
I have had the great good fortune of having travelled throughout my homeland during my youth, and around the world during these years in exile. I have come to the conclusion that there are some universal aspirations among human beings, regardless of their nationality, gender, faith, ethnicity or culture. The most important is equality under the law; the guarantee that no citizen would have fewer rights than another under any pretext, and further he or she would have the liberty to believe in any political view point they choose, practice a faith they wish, and so on and so forth…
Simply stated, without such rights, such incentives, why would a citizen be willing to give his utmost to the service of his homeland, or for that matter even be willing to be part of his community instead of opting out for a different community where such rights exist?
It is precisely for this reason I put before you the premise that, without upholding such human rights, there is no democracy. Therefore, in my vision of a future Iran, I would urge my fellow compatriots to commit to a vigilant and diligent upholding of these fundamental principles. We have to be pro-active as citizens, invest ourselves fully in carrying out our civic duties, and not rely solely on the government.
It is critically important to realize it is not sufficient to simply rely on the apparatus of state and a constitution. It is imperative to nurture and strengthen a civil society in order to further assist the implementation and preservation of democratic institutions and mechanisms that serve the citizenry, such as labor unions, free press, and NGOs.
I would also emphasize the constant replenishment of such ideals and measures by relying on the single most important factor: education. It is our first and best weapon against obscurantism, fanaticism, bigotry, racism, and other sinister beliefs – this is true of all societies and cultures. After all, enlightenment was the natural outcome of the dark period of obscurantism, last witnessed during the Christian inquisition in Europe. This is why I am confident that Iran is today the cradle of a post – this time Islamic inquisition, renaissance, and the youth of today have demonstrated their bold desire to attain it by bravely sacrificing their lives for the sake of liberty. But is this a struggle against religion, some may think or argue? This brings me to the third question. Would a change in Iran’s political system be compatible or coexist with faith?
The ruling clerics have repeatedly accused those of us striving for a secular alternative of leading a campaign against religion. This is, of course, not true. On the contrary, I would argue that it is in fact in the interest of religion and the clergy itself to have a separation of religion from government. Many of our high-ranking, non-governmental clergymen have attested to this fact for many years. Since the advent of Islam in Iran, the biggest harm done, not only to people, but to the faith itself, has been under this so-called Islamic regime – which I frankly prefer to call the anti-Islamic regime!
Today, our traditional clerics lament about their loss of reverence and empty mosques. Interestingly enough, for a regime that has been chanting “Death to America” from its inception, they must be at a loss to explain why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US, while many Iranians are turning their backs to it in Iran? I think the answer is obvious. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights values and protects the right of its citizens to freedom of religion under a political system which observes the separation of church and state. The clerical regime in Iran and its constitution obviously does not separate mosque from state, thereby rendering both institutions lacking sorely in meeting the very real needs of the citizenry in spirituality or services. Why do so many persecuted or threatened Iranians – and for that matter other nationalities – seek asylum or refuge in European democracies? Because the secular democracies of Europe offer the opportunity for experiencing a more dignified human existence, a democratic forum and a voice and the freedom to practice your faith whatever it may be. How come persecuted individuals from different countries have yet to seek asylum or refuge in The Islamic Republic of Iran, even persecuted Moslems, unless you count members of the Taliban or Al Qaida fleeing justice?
I believe the great majority of Iranians are no longer influenced by the desperate rhetoric of a regime that has lost both its political and religious legitimacy. Instead, they believe, as I do, that we should move beyond this regime and secure our aspiration to a secular, democratic system and a government which will guarantee all that this regime has denied us as a nation.
Having said all this, we must remain mindful of another dynamic, beyond what we as Iranian citizens have to contemplate and do, which plays an important role in relation to the overall evolution of our country’s situation. I am referring to the role of the international community, particularly that of western democracies. Campaigns of non-violent civil disobedience in many countries were ultimately successful as a result of explicit support from the free world. Today, Iranians expect, and I might add deserve, the same degree of commitment and support from democratic societies. Specifically, we expect the world to realize that the central issue for us is not the peripheral so called “nuclear issue”, but in fact the question of human rights and political freedom, and lack thereof in Iran.
While for many years, many western governments would – in the name of ‘real-politik’ and economic interests – brush this pivotal issue of human rights and democracy in Iran under the rug, they can no longer be indifferent and allow it to be ignored. Beyond what respective governments could or should do, the people-to-people relationship is just as important, if not more. By this I mean that Iranians could benefit from more overt expressions of solidarity by people organized under different structures the world over. For example, support from labor unions for Iranians workers in the event strikes can be organized; or support from foreign NGO’s to Iranians NGO’s to bring special attention to the plight of political prisoners and give them financial support to help them with their medical and legal expenses; or technological assistance to circumvent Internet “blocks” and cyber spying of the regime, and exposing entities or companies who, despite such a deplorable climate, continue to do business with Iran while hurting the people – Nokia & Siemens being the most recent and most egregious examples; or by putting pressure on those politicians who still insist on “talking with Tehran” while reducing this to a simple nuclear negotiation – as though leaders who sanction the rape and murder of their own children can be trusted to enter in to reliable agreements. Special funds and foundations are already in place, and more could be set up to implement important international activities in support of the Iranian people. Such an investment by the free world would help expedite a win-win outcome. There is no question that change will have to come at the hand of the Iranian people. But the cost could be heavily reduced as a result of the active participation of the international community. As Dr. Martin Luther King has said: “In the end we will forget the words of our enemies, but we will remember the silence of our friends.”
In closing, let me reiterate democracy and human rights for Iran is not just a slogan; it is our unique hope for salvation and the fundamental element which will bring long term political stability as well as put our nation back on the track of modernity, progress and prosperity. Iranians have come a long way, particularly in this last century. We have paid a heavy price while learning valuable lessons. As such, we are stronger as a society and perhaps clearer in our collective vision of a better future.
I place my faith and hope in today’s generation of the young and brave sons and daughters of Iran; a generation which not only understands the values of democracy, liberty and human dignity, but is also willing to pay the price for it; a generation which recognizes the importance of respect for diverse views and endorses tolerance and pluralism; a generation which understands that only by defending the individual or collective rights of all can one hope to have his or her own protected. Today, Iran does not lack the knowledge or the tools in the sense of both its human and natural resources. I am confident the vision I shared with you tonight, which is also shared by millions of my compatriots, will soon be attained. It is, however, through an unwavering commitment to the ideals I have enumerated tonight that we will guarantee its survival and perpetuity.
I leave you this evening with the certain knowledge that this first revolution of the 21st century, this “Twitter Revolution”, is an epic struggle for human rights and dignity waged by my compatriots. This is a battle for the soul of a nation; a nation credited with the first ever documented Declaration of Human Rights, dating back to the time of Cyrus the Great, the replica of which adorns the Great Hall of the United Nations. This struggle will end with the Iranian people reclaiming their rightful place, as the leaders they were some 3000 years ago and first appreciated the significance of the rights of each and every human being. As a Persian poem’s says: “The end of a black night is white.”
| Recently by Kaveh Parsa | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
گفتگوی پیام یزدیان با سیروس آموزگار بمناسبت درگذشت داریوش همایون | - | Jan 29, 2011 |
| Reza Phalavi Meets with the Kurdish National Congress of North America (KNC-NA) | 2 | Aug 05, 2010 |
| Dr Mossadegh, Dr Fatemi & General Rahimi would turn in their Graves!! | 11 | Aug 03, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
God Bless Reza Pahlavi
by Free on Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:31 AM PDTI know that his haters are either jealous or misguided souls. The Crown Prince will return to Iran as a constitutional "ceremonial" monarch. Iran will become a constitutional monarchy in the order of Japan and England, and we will resume our march toward a first-world nation. The Islamists and their despicable master, akhund Khomeini, hijacked our country in the 1979 black revolution, i.e., the second Arab invasion of Iran, but our noble country has been invaded numerous times and we have always emerged victorious, with our original culture and institutions in tact, including the monarchy.
Indeed, the institution of monarchy in Iran has been interrupted at various points in our turbulant history -- contrary to what you may have been told, the institution of monarchy has never been a continuous 2,500 year history. In fact, the 1979 national suicide is but an example of this sort of temporary interruption.
God Bless Reza Shah the Great and His noble son and Grandson. The Pahlavi Dynasty was the REAL revolution of 20th century Iran. The 1979 national suicide was but a counter-revolution, which has failed miserably. Everything relevant in Iran today, from the nuclear program to the subway system to the new airport, is a remnant of the Pahlavi Revolution.
The day of reckoning is fast approaching. Let us put our petty differences aside and rid ourselves of this cancerous foreign regime and welcome back our cultural heritage in its most viable form, a constitutional monarchy, which celebrates our ancient heritage and our "Persian-ness" and unites our many different peoples under the banner of our unique and special identity as the descendants of Cyrus the Great.
Long live the Land of Iran
**Never Trust A Mullah**
Kaveh Parsa
by jamshid on Thu Apr 01, 2010 09:21 PM PDTI indeed agree with you. This was a particularly innovative idea from his part. I hope that people will take notice, specially in Iran.
Jamshid
by Kaveh Parsa on Thu Apr 01, 2010 07:27 PM PDTI exchanged my views regarding the 1906 constitution with David on another thread
I think the above speech, shows that RP is innovative & proactive in coming up with new ideas. To incorporate the Universal Declaration of human rights in the future constitution is not only progressive for a country like Iran, but for any other country in the world.
The difference in signing up to the declaration versus incorporating it into internal laws, means that its provisions not only need to be implemented internally, but also its non-compliance can be challenged & enforced by courts internally. Iran has been a signatory to this declaration, and the UNHRC can shout and scream all it wants, about its non-compliance by IR or any other country, but can not enforce it with out the willingness of countries themsleves.
To my knowledge no other country has actually taken this step. The EU nations have setup their own HR convention, but that is on a treaty basis, and they can opt out of some of its provisions as and when they feel the need.
This single idea, if implemented should ease the fears of everyone who "rightly" fear any system, or the motives of the proponents of any system, be it a Republic or Monarchy.
Of course the prerequisite to this and all other good ideas in any system requires good & honest people.
While Jamshid and others
by MM on Thu Apr 01, 2010 06:42 PM PDTWhile Jamshid and others have concerns that are raised in this page, benross and Kaveh also have good answers. But, as Jamshid pointed out, RP needs to talk about these issues, and more importantly, then do something about them, like amending the 1906 constitution to ease folk's concerns.
Ahyab
by jamshid on Thu Apr 01, 2010 06:40 PM PDTI am not opposing benross or anyone else in here. To you who sees things as black and white (reformist good, everything else bad), it might look as such, but to others, it would only look like a healthy and positive exchange of ideas and thoughts, and not opposing.
And as far as your rantings about Reza Pahlavi, it only goes to show that people like you don't really have anything of "substance" to present in your opposition of Reza Pahlavi. And due to this very lack of "substance", all you can muster then, as evidenced in your last comment, is personal attacks, profanity, belittling and not much else.
In other words, when faced with RP's progressive views, you find your own backwarded position so weak and trembling that you feel you must revert to what amounts to hochi gari, fahaashi and arbadeh keshi, something that is actually very much fitting for you, and which I don't mind to see at all.
This self-decandence and self-degrading attitude of yours, which you are so eagerly willing to demonstrate in a public forum, only speak volumes about your own "laat" character as well as your own well proven failed poltical views.
Have a nice day.
Dear Jamshid
by benross on Thu Apr 01, 2010 06:30 PM PDTAnd more generally speaking, what recourse do the constituents of Reza Pahlavi today have, if they don't agree with some of his political views or actions?
Oh yes. It completely shuts me off!
But seriously this is a good discussion, somewhat misplaced. My comment was not in defense of Monarchy per se. It was about the right policy to push forward the modernity agenda. It was purely political, which in current circumstances, dumps a big load on the person of Reza Pahlavi and his historic inheritance.
The same political agenda for modernity, has restoration of the current legitimate constitution through a referendum, and preparation for a constituent assembly. Your observation is mostly related to the latter part of this agenda. Up to there, we are all together, regardless of our regime preferences.
But to deter some confusion, I would clarify few things which I don't believe their time for discussion has come yet.
Monarchy doesn't have a 'constituent'. It is not a political party running for a chunk of popular support. Monarchy, once established, is the symbol of nationhood of the whole country and the whole nation. I remember that about twenty years ago I wrote to RP that as the Shah of Iran, you have the responsibility to protect the rights of Khomeini. The basic 'political' role of the Shah, is to observe and defend the dignity of each and every Iranian, as a father figure or a mother figure of a nation.
It is actually in that symbolic role that at the time of crisis, like now, it is called upon to unite forces for saving the country. This is the whole point of monarchy. Once the country saved, monarchy has no political responsibility whatsoever, beyond that 'security blanket' it is offering to a nation. I personally associate the role of the army and national defense with the role of the monarch. But I recognize it is not a generally shared idea and its time of discussion has not come yet anyway. It is inconceivable for us, in 21st century, even if we completely set aside Reza Pahlavi's own beliefs and our own historic drama, to see monarchy as a ruler. This is not going to happen. Period.
If our current legitimate constitution does not clarify that (and it doesn't) then this is something that the constituent assembly should resolve. My figure of speech 'trashing' Reza Pahlavi as a dissident was about a political strategy that has a limited shelf life until the end of IRI. But even if you consider it as dissidence against monarchy as a whole, or a monarch in particular, again, these are issues that can easily be addressed in a new constitution. It shouldn't be so difficult to include in the constitution some provisions for impeachment of the monarch or some provisions for periodic revision of the constitution and the system as a whole. This is really not an issue. When we establish freedom, the rest is semantics.
In some ways, your remark about my comment is revealing because your view of monarchy is not at all something like what I just described. You see monarchy as a 'ruler', and based on that view, you think that someone who is against the views of the 'ruler', is loosing his democratic rights. If choosing 'republic' and loosing a good chunk of our historic identity is based on this perception, then I don't believe you are in the right track.
When I warn RP about his stand towards his critics, I didn't mean people who are not for a monarchic system. It should be obvious that I didn't mean people like you. In my perspective, we call upon the monarch to save his country. Something that the legitimate constitution and the concept of monarchy both are asking for it. Reza Pahlavi has always insisted that after liberating the country 'my job is done'. His job is not restoring the monarchy. His job is restoring the monarchy constitution as a vehicle to continue the modernity agenda. Whether the outcome of that agenda would be the continuation of the monarchy or a republican system, is up to people to decide, through their elected constituent assembly.
The issue here, in the context of 'a job to be done', is to emphasize that the job is the modernity agenda. It is not restoring monarchy at all cost. In that context, those critics that I'm aiming at, are not part of that agenda. They are not part of a modern thinking, with respect of individual rights, freedom, and the respect of a democratic process. They are not part of it. The issue is not that Mohamad Reza shah was not a dictator. The issue is that these people are far worse than him. Validating their claim and giving them satisfaction will contaminate our modern agenda and due process.
Modern agenda and due process is the work of Iranian citizens, respecting their individuality and individuality of others, respecting themselves and others, coming together to built upon our one century of struggle for a modern Iran. Something modern, and something Iranian.
***
Sorry for this long comment. While I was typing it, I was notified of several additional comments in this thread but I didn't get a chance to read them. Hopefully this will suffice as my part of contribution.
Kaveh Parsa
by jamshid on Thu Apr 01, 2010 06:08 PM PDT"In a constitutional monarchy, the constitution can/should allow for the removal or impeachment of the king by Parliament"
That's fine. So then there is recourse. But shouldn't RP talk more openly about these recourses to the public in order to ease many people's rightful fear of monarchy? Shouldn't he not only talk about them but also emphasize them, show them in details to the people, and keep repeating them?
He can start doing so by showing how "people" can more directly than indirectly influence him. There is a big difference between being passively influenced by the people, than being pro-actively influenced by them.
Don't get me wrong, I like and respect RP's views. But I think he should be more innovative. He cannot just rely on the 1906 constitution's ways and processes. Those ways and processes belong to a century ago.
He should pro-actively hint or suggest democratic modifications to that constitution that would demonstrate his stand for democracy in action. In other words, speeches are fine and necessary, but innovative actions such as the one I mentioned would speak volumes and even louder about him in the eyes of the public.
And there is no need to wait for people's vote and refrundums in order to take these procuctive steps forward. More than anytime, it is now that we need innovation and creativity by the opposition leaders.
conclusion
by capt_ayhab on Thu Apr 01, 2010 05:33 PM PDTWhen you see Mr. benross, opposing Mr. Jamshid, in a thread [blog that is]which is written in order to shed a glimmer of light on a charcter that is self proclaimed savior of Persian heritage, the soul rightful owner of the KIANI Taj, also known as chapter 13 filer, MISmanager of the historical proportion, boycotter of the elections, BUT, now GREEN wearing, tear jerking opportunist[one eyed kind that is] the [@ss h@ole] called Reza Pahlavi who misses no oportunity to take a ride on the backs of the misery, in order to promote for what ever that he is being paid for…………………ahhhh
Sane minds [aka AIPAC – alaki step aside] ask for a favor…………… Stop and think about this fat boy of non accomplished, before you bestow your honor to a man who can not even control his greasy eating habits obviously, let alone his own personal finances.
Fine with me, give him what you have, his papa left him billions and he pissed them away but unlucky for us, he has made a claim on entire country.
Reza Pahlavi[also known as mir5 1/8].............. Over my dead body you fat boy.
-YT
P/S you have my number
Jamshid
by Kaveh Parsa on Thu Apr 01, 2010 04:54 PM PDTThe Flaw as you describe it belongs to any authoritarian system, whether a Republic or a Monarchy.
In a constitutional monarchy, the constitution can/should allow for the removal or impeachment of the king by Parliament,
In Britain with a much longer democratic tradition, and without a written constitution, they forced the king to abdicate in the 1930's, with out the need to use the Parliamentary process.
Kaveh
benross, you just described the inherent flaw with monarchy
by jamshid on Thu Apr 01, 2010 04:09 PM PDTbenross, you just described the inherent flaw with monarchy and the superiority of a republic as a system of government.
You wrote, "If RP starts belittling his inheritance, there is no need for you, I WILL BE THE ONE TRASHING HIM. And I can do a far better job than you ever did!"
And what if he actually did just that? As his constituency, what recourse would you have? And more generally speaking, what recourse do the constituents of Reza Pahlavi today have, if they don't agree with some of his political views or actions?
This is a point in case as to why a republic is a superior system. Because if people don't like their president or prime minister, etc, they have some sort of recourcse by not electing him into office in the next elections. But can a people de-elect a person who is King by virtue of birth rights?
As long as this flaw in Monarchy as a system is not resolved, I and many others, who don't have biases against the Pahlavis and who might even respect RP's views, will still vote for a republic!
Q
by jamshid on Thu Apr 01, 2010 03:57 PM PDTQ, writes, "How does your version of secularism square with democracy? What if people want to vote for an Ayatollah for President?"
Well, what about those who want to vote for, say, a pro-Israeli Iranian who openly regards Israel's interets above the interests of Iran? Shall we, in the name of democracy, allow such person to become our president?
If no, then in your own words, "Why should this be illegal? Why? Are you afraid of democracy?"
Do you see the fallacy in your statement? As long as an Ayaotllah regards his version of Islam (or anyone who regards any other religion, country, ideology, etc.) above the nation of Iran, that person is automatically unqualified.
However, that same Ayatolah can first disrobe, openly announce that Iran and its people come first and above all else, including above his version of Islam, then run for the office of presidency with no problems.
The same could be said about Reza Pahlavi. He can be either king or chief of government, but not both. If he wants to run the country, he must first abandon the title of Shah and assign its duties to someone else, and only then run for the office of presidency. No exceptions.
You wrote, "Who decides what is secular? What is religious and what is cultural?"
Certainly not you or anyone else in here. Those decisions will be made by the people of Iran. However, this can be accomplished only in a free democracy.
Besides nobody claims that a democratic secular government will solve the world's problems. But we do claim that it definitely creates a better atomosphere for the pepole to exercise their will.
Lastly, I want to tell you that before asking these kind of questions from us, first take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself and your beloved IRI these lines of questions.
I don't have any whatsoever issue with a person like you being a hypocrite and a charlatan. There is nothing illegal about that. I only have a problem with such said person, when he crosses certain lines and degrees of hypocrisy and charlatanism, that takes him to the new realms of criminality. And in my opinion, that would be you Q.
Q
by MM on Thu Apr 01, 2010 02:51 AM PDTIn the US, we have separation of church and state, but the clergy can run for government. Here, there are not that many clergypersons who run for government (they actually have churches to run), but the people are quick to recognize a charlatan wolf in sheep clothing and run them out of town before or after they are elected.
Maybe one day, after a moratorium period, clerical class in Iran be able to run for government, but after 31 years of nepotism, corruption and terror brought about by the mullahs, it is time they went away to their cubicles in Ghom, Najaf and mahhad (preferably Najaf) and left the political arena to those with leadership skills and educational backgrounds in government.
you ARE losing it David,
by Q on Thu Apr 01, 2010 02:32 AM PDTWhen did I say "IR" was protecting muslims?
As usual Jamshid's hatred has blinded him. He missed the point entirely and jumped into his standard "You are evil!!!" tirade. So boring...
You and Jamshid are now devolving into the absurd (where the opportunist Parkhash has been all along).
How does your version of secularism square with democracy? What if people want to vote for an Ayatollah for President?
Your other blog has a provision that 'excludes' clergy. Why should this be illegal? Why? Are you afraid of democracy?
And then, at the same time you say:
All the people of Iran, whatever ethnic group, culture or tribe to which they belong, enjoy equal rights. Color, race, language, religion, culture, gender, sexual preference and the alike, do not bestow any privilege or lack of.
How can this be true, if people can form political parties based on language, culture or tribes but not religion?
The investigation of individuals’ beliefs is forbidden
Really? Then how do you ensure a secular government? If a part of the government is not secular, how do you determine this? Or do you just think it will be "obvious" ?
Who decides what is secular? What is religious and what is cultural?
Are you beginning to see what I've been talking about this whole time?
IR protects Muslims such as:
by David ET on Thu Apr 01, 2010 02:19 AM PDTAyatollah Boroujerdi (IN PRISONS OF COURSE) !
//iransecular.blog.com/2010/03/08/boroujredi-secularism/
//iransecular.blog.com/2010/03/11/faghih/
the list of Muslims such as Boroujerdi that IR has protected is a long one!
and here is how seculars will protect Iranians (Majority Muslims):
Article 1. 12. Full guarantee and legal protection of all human, political, economic, social, religious and cultural rights within the scopes of the constitution
Article 9 . Secular government of Iran observes no official religions for the country. Secular in nature, everyone in Iran is treated the same, regardless of their religion or lack of it. All religions within the limits of the law and without limiting or violating the guaranteed individual and human rights within the constitution are free to perform their religious rights, and to act according to their own canon in matters of personal affairs. The individual and human rights as guaranteed by the constitution shall always prevail and take precedence over religious and ideological preferences and beliefs.
Article 14 . All the people of Iran, whatever ethnic group, culture or tribe to which they belong, enjoy equal rights. Color, race, language, religion, culture, gender, sexual preference and the alike, do not bestow any privilege or lack of.
Article 17. The dignity, human life, property, rights, residence, and occupation of the individual must be protected by the government and the law and may not be violated.
Article 18. The investigation of individuals’ beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be interrogated, taken to custody or imprisoned for holding a certain belief. There shall not be any prisoners of conscious or political prisoners.Article 19. Publications and the press have freedom of expression within the provisions of the law and their rights to express must be protected by government and the law.
Sign the Iranian Solidarity Declaration
Dear David and Jamshid
by Farah Rusta on Thu Apr 01, 2010 01:06 AM PDTYour time is more precious than getting involved in arguments that are totally devoid of intellectual or academic content. This character who has engaged you for sometime is nothing but a useless teaser, meaning that he is manifestly unable to understand the falacies of his own so called arguments. He has added NOTHING of value to any debate and he is on the record here to have admitted to monitor the site on two computers, reloading the removed blogs/comments, keepin records of and profiling the contributors (always with made up allegtions). Now you can guess why? I must say that he is good for a laugh from time to time.
FR
Q
by jamshid on Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:46 AM PDTI am sure that David ET is more than capable to answer to your comment, but here is my view on your knee jerk reaction:
You wrote, "The kind of secularism you have in mind is western-defined and heavily biased against Islam."
This is the kind of propaganda that the IRI is using in Iran against secularism. But you are ABSOLUTELY wrong. The kind of secularism we are talking about is not biased against any religion or the concept of religion in general. It only supports the separation of religion and government.
It actually protects Islam and protects the majority Shia population in Iran much better than the theocratic IRI is today. That is because the IRI enforces and imposes its version of Shia and Islam on the entire population by mixing it with the government. This suffocates many "Shia moslem" voices that represent a different version of Shiism and Islam than the IRI imposes.
In fact, with a secular form of government, Islam can flourish to its best. It will do so with a change of guard from the fanatic, narrow minded, uneducated mollahs, to the intelligent, open minded and educated scholars.
The IRI will never allow this progress (hence leaving Iran with people who still in the 21st century follow the rules of "tehaarat" found in backwarded tozihol masaael), while a secular government would fully allow this progress and the flourishing of many scholarly and open minded moslems who happen to have different views about Islam that you and your marja'e taghlid.
And it is not secularism that really bothers you. Instead, it is that change of guard, from backwarded mollahs to progressive open minded moslems, that scares people like you the most.
You worry that the Islam that your type and a few mollahs have hijacked for centuries can finally be restored to the people, with no chance of hijacking it again this time. This literally enrages you and the mollahs to no end.
But if you know your history, you know that this is where Iran is headed, sooner or later, and whehter you like it or not.
Q
by David ET on Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:20 AM PDTI have no issue talking about Secularism. I have issue talking to those who are dishonest in communication. One has nothing to do with another... I have much better things to do with my time than wasting it on you anymore... :-)
WOW Q - YOU ARE RIGHT! - Happy April Fool's Day (4/1/2010)
by MM on Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:18 AM PDT.
Great David ET, the truth finally comes out
by Q on Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:04 AM PDTI have to let you know David, I fully expected this. I dared to question your fundemental assumption, secularism. This is like a religion to you and your reaction was natural.
You always lose it, when you have nothing of substance to say. Since you did nothing but make crazy accusations, I will repeat the main point that I made below: The kind of secularism you have in mind is western-defined and heavily biased against Islam. You did not want to face the fact that none of the religious activities routinely practiced in this "secular" country would be unacceptable to you for Iran, just as they are strictly unacceptable in Turkey's (flawed) system which you want to emulate.
I realize its too much to swallow all at once, too painful to question the core of your beliefs, but here we are.
I'm still really glad, we went through this. You keep talking about unity and reaching out to all aspects of society but when someone presents the slightest deviation from your accepted norm (even though it is totally consistent with a large sector of Iranians), you lose it and throw a temper tantrum like the worst of the Shahollahis that you criticize!
Lame!
To the "sad" Monarchist below: Sure, even though Iran's legal system had much Islamic influence even under the Pahlavis, Iran was considered a secular state. This is mostly because the Shah wasn't following his own constitution. Sure, let's call it secular. Just like Saddam's Iraq pre-1990 and Turkey has been for decades. We see how well Iran and Iraq worked out and Turkey may only avoid the same fate by some very smart policies.
Jamshid, You are right about Q
by David ET on Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:50 PM PDTQ!
Talking to you is an absolute waste of miliseconds and typing letters on internet. You dance around facts. You avoid answers. You take couple of examples and apply it to the world! You presume we are idiots? Your 31 years of selling religious governement is over, take your salesmanship of butcher shop of IR to those who have no morals.
You take a prayer in a western nation and equate it to supporting a religious system that does not let its people breath in the name of religion.
You should be ashamed of yourself as a human being for supporting a regime that executes one person a day.
Where is your humanity? enough of your tafre raftan and safsate! You support a regime of murder and khafeghan that has been ruling our nation for 31 years. Enough of puting up with your nonsense..
Shame !
Flawed and irrelevant arguments
by Farah Rusta on Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:46 PM PDTWhen bias and mental blindness take hold the result is a circular and flawed argument. If one refers to the main source of this flawed debater, meaning Wikipedia, one finds that Iran is classified as a "former secular state." In other words, secularity of state was a well accepted and established way of conducting the affairs of the state before the Islamic dictatorship removed it violently. Therefore the suggestion, by this flawed debater, that secularism may not be welcomed in Iran is as meaningless as his pointless struggle to suggest that the United States of America is a religiously governed state.!! And this nonsense comes from someone who claims to have lived in the US for more than three decades!! By this flawed and twisted logic, Germany, currently run by a Christian Democrat Chancellor and President, must be a theocratic state!!
BTW, the so called reformists mentioned in the previous comment have had their revolution for the last thirty years. They are still living it through!
FR
David ET,
by Q on Wed Mar 31, 2010 06:54 PM PDTYou seem to have a cartoonish black/white view of secularism, and even that only by a Western standard. This is not going to work in Iran, --at all--.
Yes I did ! because that is a fact?
It's not a fact.
any questions?!
LOL! Yes, a few. Norway is listed as non-secular yet it has 100% literacy rate. By contrast Ethiopia is listed as secular but has the lowest literacy rate on the map. I noticed at least 5 other examples, that totally contradict your little "theory". Also the literacy rate is way off. Both Iran and Iraq are higher than shown. I don't have other figures on top of my head.
How do you measure "secularism" anyway? You live in a country that has a congress that starts with a prayer every morning. There are prayer breakfasts and meetings. At the end of practically every speech, they say "May God Bless America". Nobody can hope to be elected to anything if he/she does not profess love for religion. There are religious symbols mixed in with government all over the place. This country (USA) is marked as secular, but if the reglion was Islam, you would not call it secular. Same with other Euro-centric thinkers from Turkey to France. Think about that for just a second before you decide to opine on future Iran policy based on some graphic you pulled off Wikipedia.
Your usage of the term secular is completely meaningless. You must define two categories of things: acceptable and illegal. When you get down to doing this, you will realize how difficult it is in a country like Iran, and how inappropiate this Euro-centric model will be.
As for your question, I already explained the Green movement is a large coalition. Some of them are religionists, some of them are faithful to the constitution. I don't know what about this is difficult for you to understand. If you want names, here they are: Montazeri, Mousavi, Karroubi, Khatami, Moin, etc. no one, NOT ONE of the leaders has talked about wanting a revolution.
Don't get carried away with wishful thinking. There is a difference between reform and revolution.
Referendum
by benross on Wed Mar 31, 2010 04:30 PM PDTUntil, and unless he starts talking about the wrongs of his father, and those of his grandfather he will remain a wounded wolf in a lamb skin.
If RP starts belittling his inheritance, there is no need for you, I WILL BE THE ONE TRASHING HIM. And I can do a far better job than you ever did!
At a personal level, it is obvious that he has serious criticism about the past. He has even publicly frequently mentioned that. But a detailed account of all wrong doings is not his job. Simply because the actions of his father and grandfather don't belong to him. They belong to Iran history. He, as the Crown Prince, can only say what HE believes in and what HE is prepared to do. The previous kings are non of his business. He has inherited a kingdom and he has a job to do. He can only say what HE is prepared to do, carrying out his legal inheritance.
After establishing freedom and a legal framework, it is always possible for a state to officially apologize for some wrongdoings in the past. This has done in Canada for example, regarding the mistreatment of aboriginals. In U.S also I believe, some official apology, such as for their treatment of American Japanese during WWll has been issued.
For such apology to take place, there has to be a petition, a democratic process and the support of democratic representatives of people. In that case, the grievance should be clearly formulated, and the head of the state, the king in the case that the system remains monarchic after the constituent assembly, would issue accordingly, an apology for a historic wrongdoing. These all come after a referendum to restore the legitimate constitution and providing peace, freedom and security for the nation, in preparation for a constituent assembly.
This is the proper way of requesting an apology and getting one if well deserved. Because we are talking in the realm of modern and democratic values that we want to establish for the first time, and not with Wild West mentality.
But I would trash RP for such action for totally different reason.
The Crown Prince should not give the SATISFACTION to his critics by producing an apology. For the first time in Iranian history we are about to build a pure and healthy social movement with true modern values. Giving an inch to reactionary thoughts will contaminate a healthy movement and an unhealthy modern movement is bound to fail, like all others in the past. A social movement for modernity does not need to satisfy guilt ridden reactionary thoughts and reactionary urges, which were the source of 30 years of stagnation of the opposition.
Beware Reza Pahlavi, if you give-in, I give-up... not silently.
FYI/Videos of conference Here
by Darius Kadivar on Wed Mar 31, 2010 06:51 AM PDTInterview and Q&A at Conference:
REZA'S CALL: Crown Prince Reza at Bonn Conference and Democratic Think-Tanks (March 27th, 2010 )
Anyone can recite a speech. Who is this guy?
by rustgoo on Wed Mar 31, 2010 03:35 AM PDTUntil, and unless he starts talking about the wrongs of his father, and those of his grandfather he will remain a wounded wolf in a lamb skin.
Yes less education = less secular!
by David ET on Wed Mar 31, 2010 03:06 AM PDTQ: OK. It's true, you didn't link "Islam" and "education", I stand corrected. You linked "secularism" and "education
D: Yes I did ! because that is a fact? Which countries have more educated? Is it just a coincidence that the most of the same countries are also secular?
Look at the white countries on the map of the world. They are the not secular: //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Secular_world_map.gif
Now look at the light color countries of the world here! They are less literate:
//www.justmaps.org/maps/images/thematics/world-literacy-map.gif
any questions?!
As for your other questions and comments, after you tell me what is your definition of "the Greens" in this sentence I can answer your questions that follow :
Q: You have spent countless time on articles and drafts of constitution without the slightest evidence that people in Iran want a revolution. The AN supporters and the Greens I mentioned do not want this. That is a fact. Where is their input into your so-called "consitution" ?
Yes, you're right
by Nur-i-Azal on Wed Mar 31, 2010 02:41 AM PDTBut the Bourbon's were already re-established on the French throne a full year before when Napoleon escaped Elba and launched the 100 day campaign that saw his final defeat at Waterloo on 18 June 1815. So the basic point remains.
As for RP bringing people to the streets, I say stay tuned..
Ya NUR
p.s. Another correction: the Stuarts were re-established on the English throne in 1660, not the sixteenth century. That would be the 17th century.
Nur jan,
by Q on Wed Mar 31, 2010 02:34 AM PDTFirst, Waterloo was 1815.
Second, I know what you're saying. People are nostalgic. It certainly was the case with Louie Napoleon who only won presidency because of name recognition. Maybe you will be right in the future about Iran too. One thing you should consider is that Iran has not gone through even remomtely the same tumultuous periods in France and Cambodia.
I don't really care about anecdotal evidence in general, cabbie or no cabbie.
Let's just say when RP can bring millions of people to the streets chanting his name and associating his persona with divine religious figures, then he can be taken seriously.
You would have to agree that at the very least he would have to do better than the "exasperated" Greens did at the height of their influence right after the elections. (which I believe has not peaked)
If Jr. can do that, Jr. can gain my respect. Until then, talk is cheap and Iranians talk a lot.
OK, you asked for it David,
by Q on Wed Mar 31, 2010 02:16 AM PDTYes, David, let me tell it to you know so that you won't be too disappointed later. You are completely dismissive.
You have spent countless time on articles and drafts of constitution without the slightest evidence that people in Iran want a revolution. The AN supporters and the Greens I mentioned do not want this. That is a fact. Where is their input into your so-called "consitution" ?
How have you determined that even the idea of secularism will get majority support in Iran? Where are you getting this information?
OK. It's true, you didn't link "Islam" and "education", I stand corrected. You linked "secularism" and "education", basically that people who don't support secularism must be uneducated, right?
It's not Marxism, but in a strange way, it has a lot in common with Marxism. Just like Capitalism, Marxism and many other -isms, secularism too will probably be seen as a foreign ideology with western supporters being imposed on Iran.
This has history in the region, as a matter of fact. The founding ideology of Baathism, which is also called Arab Socialism (before Saddam Hussein usurped it and ruined it) specifically rejected western secularism, but still had religious tolerance as its cornerstone. Even though the founders were Christian, they embraced and celebrated Islamic influence within a socialist government system. The point is, that ideology had at one time a lot of native support and even more intellectual support (Syria, Egypt and Iraq) not because it embraced yet another western ideological imposition, but because it rejected one.
You have taken this idea of "secularism" as a basic foundation of the future Iran without justification which is in fact dismissive of people who have specifically said "we don't want a western liberal democracy."
Two big pitfalls were ignored by you. One is that secularism may not be welcomed in Iran. Two that secularism may never get a chance to have a fair assessment in Iran, even after your best case ideal scenario of a clean "regime change".
benross: amen!
by David ET on Wed Mar 31, 2010 02:03 AM PDT"This is what he is saying and this is what we have every right to hold him accounted for. Nothing else. ... He has to take his responsibility for organizing a movement to bring about the values that he just mentioned in his speech. The real accountability is right here."