Reza_Fani_Yazdi

Also do not forget that ...

The Spanish Monarchy is a constitutional democratic monarchy and as such is there not by its own will but by the will of the people os Spain expressed through their parliament. Same is true for the British monarchy and therefore Mr Fani-Yazdi's claim that "the return of monarchy is an insult to the people of Iran" comes from his poor or non-existent understanding of the history of European monarchies.

Do not forget

Do not forget that Spanish did not return the royalty to the power. It was Franco the dictator who did it.
Franco and the military participated in a coup d'état against the Popular Front government. In UK story is different and the only way to keep a united UK is to have a symbol which royal family playing this role. Although as we heard recently Scotlad is doing its best to become independant which David Cameron really disliked it. Anyway apart from what uprising the Bahman 22nd ended to but we all agree that Iranian with their demonstration showed that they did not like/want the royalty. 

Long Live IRAN for EVER. 

You analyse the economic cost but you don't understand

  They give their nations something money cannot buy. Something beyond what a money grabbing politician can provide. An INSTITUTION that the natio can depend on.  Just watch some of the Queens's juibilee but look beyond the jungoism and consider why a Briton poor or rich considers having the institution essential to being British.  

Mr. Fozolie

too expensive for noting

in best case scenario, As Anglo pointed Spain and UK, the monarchs are costing their respective countries an arm and leg!! and what they give back?? diamond. emerald, ruby, even tanzanat lavish and unnecessary ceremonies!!

I wear an Omega watch

جناب فانی یزدی

پس به فرمایش شما انگلستان و اسپانیا که به بازگشت سلطنت رأی دادند در جهل و تاریکی محض به سر میبرند؟ چرا شما اینقدر به شکل می‌‌پردازید و از محتوا می‌‌گریزید؟ چرا اگر می‌‌خواهید از ملل غرب تقلید کنید فقط به جمهوری اکتفا می‌کنید و از سلطنت مشروطه آنها درسی یاد نمیگیرید؟ چرا حتی در تقلید ناقص عمل می‌کنید و فقط یک طرف قضیه را می‌‌بینید؟

The Lion and Sun is more than that Darius

The Lion and the Sun is also a national emblem, not only used as royal flags but as seals of the national government. It is to our infamy to have allowed it to be changed. That is how low we sunk as a people to play fast and loose with our culture.

Please leave us with one thing which is not open to dispute!!! 

As for the blogger, why are you guys feeling so threatened all of a sudden? Intriguing. 

Mr. Fozolie

با احترام

30 سال در تاریخ، سکسکه ای بیش نیست.

تسلط اعراب در ایران بیش از 200 سال ادامه داشت.آنهایی که دم از بازگشت به ایران مستقل و آزاد میزدند ، در این مدت،  بدون شک توسط خودی و ناخودی متهم به "اهانت به شعور مردم" میشدند.

دوست عزیز، تاریخ از این دور زدن ها زیاد دارد.

تزار یا فرعون هم اگر طرفدار پیدا کنند میتوانند در صندوق رای گیری شانس خود را بیازمایند.

Just One Question Mr. Fani Yazdi and Jomhurykhahs likeminds

First of all just one observation that as much as you oppose the return of the Monarchy you seem to accept the Restoration of the Royal Flag ( the Lion and Sun is not a Republican Flag to my knowledge although has been claimed as such by Jomhurykhahs including by the MKO) ... 

So this only proves that that as much as you would like to dismiss it, that the Past and a nation's history and heritage for better or for worse do play a role in Nation Building  !

The Lion has a very precise significance as the embodiement of Kingship in all cultures ... Otherwise why is the Lion called 'King of the Jungle' ?  

But then I grant you the argument that Restoring a Previous Flag does not necessarily mean one Restores the Previous regime, let alone the Monarchy.

Take Poland for instance ( the same could be said of Russia) which is a Republic today has also restored it's Pre Communist Royal Flag and in addition they have a Crown on top of the the Eagle's head ( which in most Germanic and East European Monarchies was the Symbol of the Monarchy or more precisely of the Saint Roman Christian Empire as opposed to the Lion commonly used in most European and Middle Eastern Monarchies).  

But then it is an amusing contradiction nevetheless and only proves that no nation can entirely escape from it's own past and political / historical heritage as you seem to wish.  

So eitherway I congratulate you folks for at least adopting our Royal Emblem as the symbol of national unity and Iranian identity even if I am sure you will try to argue against that well know Fact !

;0) 

Also for your information non of the current Constitutional Monarchies in Western Europe became democracies overnight. Most of them including Great Britain ( which doesn't even have a written Constitition) weren't even Democracies prior to their Restoration, the point of which, Parliamentary democracy truly took off.

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

But then I suppose Voltaire who spent his formative years in Great Britain and was a fervent Constititional Monarchist ( and not the Republic Icon he became for the French revolutionaries, albeit himself, only decades after his death ) was to use your words ... an 'Idiot' ? ...

HISTORY OF IDEAS: Ian Davidson on Voltaire's "English Exile"

ZADIG & VOLTAIRE: French Minister's Blunder on Voltaire's Persian Tale

I am sure you know that Some European Nations like for instance, the Netherlands, were actually Republics prior to choosing the Monarchy as a form of government which according to independent polls conducted regularly suggest that European Monarchies rate amongst the highest in the Democracy Index:

But please forgive my long introduction ...  

So here is my Question ...

In the advent of the establishment of a Secular Republic of your choice ( Federal or not) how will your new government deal with Separatist demands which will occur sooner or later notably in the Kurd and Azeri regions but also the Baloutch for very specific historical reasons which I am sure you are aware of ?

A Post IRI Iran will inevitably cause a vacuum of Power and in a country more or less ruled by a strong central government the current regime as all previous Monarchies have had to deal with the issue of Separatism:

SEPARATIST TEMPTATIONS: Don't Let It Fool You ... Treason Exists ...

So could you please tell us how you believe your future Republic and elected President ( regardless of gender) will be handle such issues and guarantee the Yek Parcheghi of our Ancient Nation knowing that he or she will be walking in the steps of Cyrus and Darius the Great ? ...

"A Country that Loses it's Poetic Vision is a Country that faces death"-Saul Bellow.

For Quite Frankly and with due respect to their individual personas or that of other individuals ( regardless of gender) in our Civil Society I very Much doubt that ...

Shirin Ebadi ...

FINALLY GETTING IT RIGHT: Shirin Ebadi say's "I Don't believe in an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights"

Or

Mehranghiz Kar ...

DEATH - VERTISING ? Mehrangiz Kar Claims Husband was No More a Monarchist

or even their Male Counterparts Can live up to the task ...

Not because these individuals don't have personal qualities or talents but because they at best represent only themselves.

For Contrary to your belief the Monarchy is not about Satisfying a Personal Ego or Ambition it is first and foremost about Serving a Nation.

Hence why in the Opinion of Constitutional Monarchists like me ...

The Monarchy Matters  :

MONARCHY MATTERS: Khosro Fravahar say’s Iranian Jomhurykahs live in denial

Wanting to boil it down to merely the most visible aspect which is the Pomp and Circumstance which is often associated to the Monarchy as the Queen of England's recent Diamond Jubilee suggests is misleading. 

Our Own Monarchs's Jubliees were far more modest and cost effective in comparison:

JUBILEE ALBUM: Iranians celebrate Pahlavi Dynasty's Silver Jubilee (1965)

The institution of the Monarchy embodies the Nation and as such when a Prime Minister for instance bows to the Monarch it is not a sign of Master Vs Slave but merely a symbolic gesture that you are paying Respect to the Nation's history and that by Serving the Crown you are therefore serving the Nation the embodiement of which is the monarch. Hence why we are called "subjects" in a Monarchy ( Constitutional or Not) as opposed to "citizens" in a Republic. But semantics aside if the democratic institutions exist and if the nation operates democratically under a Monarchy the deemed "humiliating" gesture to some becomes on the contrary a sign of respect to others and a nation's heritage. It is not about the person but the Institution he embodies in our collective minds due to history.

In a Constitutional Monarchy the Elected Prime Minister Does not serve the Nation but the Crown. Now In practice however it is the contrary.  But all acts in Parliament are passed in the name of the Monarch and not the People.

That explains why to some extent European Monarchies have managed to eliminated the Politicians Ego and personal Ambitions because ultimately and however democratically elected the Prime Ministers have to first and foremost serve their Monarch be it symbolically.   

And the fact of the matter is that it works quite well ...

Be it the UK

PREMIERSHIP: Historian Simon Schama's Tour of 10 Downing Street

Spain:

PREMIERSHIP: Conservative Mariano Rajoy is sworn in as Spain's new PM

Even Morocco:

PREMIERSHIP : Spanish PM looks for closer ties with Morocco

PREMIERSHIP: Moroccan king appoints new government

Even Jordan (although in more difficulty than Morocco) has been dealing with it's public opinion more fairely than Syria's Secular Republic:

Jordan king orders release of jailed activists accused of "insulting" him 

Jordan's King Abdullah II Names International Judge As New Prime Minister

Because ultimately in a Monarchy the King or Queen have to take into account Public opinion about them where as the Prime Minister has to put away his personal ambitions so as to best serve the Nation. It's all about finding the right balance between the unelected prerogatives of  the Head of State ( being the Monarch) and the elected powers of the invested Prime Minister (appointed by the Monarch even if elected) which makes the difference in terms of democratic transparency. 

The Dutch Monarchies for instance or even the Spanish one ( only restored recently in 1975) are even far more transparent than the British Monarchy in terms of their Finances and personal fortunes:

A KING’s SALARY: Spain’s Royal Family Publish Salaries For The First Time

Just like for President's in France:

PRESIDENT’s FORTUNE: Candidate for re-election Sarkozy officially declares fortune 

The British, Spanish and Moroccan Monarchs for instance now even pay taxes.

The same transparency would be demanded from the Pahavis or any other dynasty in the  future if they would be restored:

A KING's FORTUNE: RP 2 (Parazit) & Revolutionaries Demand Return of Shah's Fortune ('79)

But that's different from aiming cheaply at humiliating our Monarchs or selling off the Crown Jewels in an act of stupid Revenge:

NAME YOUR PRICE: Islamic Republic Auctions Items of Royal Treasury and Valuables (1983)

The Monarchy is not an Egalitarian System ... it never claimed to be ... it is at best a democratic one but the Pomp and Circumstance and Ritual are part of the package.

One can argue against it or find it absurd but then each nation has it's own reasons for perpetuating the tradition. The British pay something like 66 pence for the institution but so do the French when it comes to expenses related to running the Elysée Palace or Matignon and paying the Butlers and personals. Royal marriages or other Flashy events are for the most payed on the Queen's own Salary if not Fortune but if the Nation Participates it is also because it brings them a sense of pride and also benefits the economy but they ultimately do it because they are proud of their heritage.

In a Republic it would be more sober but not less expensive ... 

Most current Monarchies have given up on expensive ceremonies or deemed extravagant like the Coronation reduced to a simple Oath in Parliament as is the case in Spain. The British on the otherhand love the whole idea of an unapologetic pomp and circumstance and quite honestly to put it bluntly so do I. It matters to let the world know what we are as a nation and to display the colors and the pride of our royal heritage in a once in a Lifetime Performance. But most monarchies have considerably reduced that and this low profile trend will probably continue in the years and decades to come.

But the Crown Jewels don't belong to the Monarch, even the Shah and Shahbanou had to sign any retrievel of the jewels on display at the Banke Melli whenever they neeed them for a ceremony or during State Visits, dinners etc ...

But we won't sell you for what the Monarchy isn't : A Socialist or Communist Egalitarian State. As much as Socialists Prime Ministers can be elected in the UK, Spain ( where actually most socialists are far more monarchists than meets the eye due to their hatred of Franco's Fascistic rule) or Japan, some things remain sacred notably the Royal Family. One can criticize them freely in the Press but the Constitution aims at protecting their Status in order to avoid useless institutional Crisis. The Job of an elected Prime Minister is to notice the Red Lines ( even at times to advise or remind the Monarch of his prerogative) and avoid getting the Monarchs too involved even indirectly in the Political Arena to that purpose. 

The more society is prepared and understands the sets of rules that operate their Constitution and the Separation of Powers that are inherent to it, the less are the chances of having the type of Institutional Crisis that we have been faced in our country in the past 100 years of struggle for democracy since the Constitutional Revolution.

IF anything It was the lack of a genuine understanding by both sides of our Social Contract but also of our fairly young democratic Institutions barely 50 years old at the time of the events of 1953 which led to the return of absolute rule and not merely the authoritarian nature of the last Shah ( himself having reigned for 12 years like a perfect Constitutional Monarch):

THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ? 

Democracy is also a question of social maturity and not merely having a set of laws drafted on paper. Again I remind you the UK doesn't even have a Constitution and the Queen is actually a Velayeteh Fagih so to speak as Guardian of the Faith ( again an exception compared to other monarchies due to the fact that she is the Guardian of the Faith in the anglican church). 

From that point of view and with a few exceptions I should even add that it is interesting that you do not find the same Racist Parties in a Monarchy like Great Britain as opposed to France where Far Right Parties try to highjack questions related to Patriotism or National Identity and hence threaten the democratic institutions by suggesting a very different political platform than the one historically attributed to the nation.

So the Monarchy is not merely an Obsolete system of government. It plays an essential role in guaranteeing national cohesion but also when properly implemented ( as has been in all Restored Monarchies to date) an asset to the democratic stability of the Nation. 

So to cut it short, contrary to your presentation and conclusion we Monarchist don't claim the Monarchy is the Best of all Systems of government or necessarily the most perfect democratic system even in it's Constitutional form ...

We merely claim it is a Coherent System of government with it's set of rules and limitations but it cannot be dismissed merely because it is often reduced by critics of the Monarchy as a system captured in Pomp and Circumstance. So before criticizing it might as well understand the fundemental roots of why they exist and how they genuinely operate the way they do.

Is it Perfect ? Heck No but then isn't that also the case for Democracy itself best defined by a British Prime ( And NOT President) Minister Winston Churchill:

"Democracy is the worst system of government that exists but it is certainly the best we have' 

Well a simple look at the world we live in clearly shows that Democracy is not merely defined by Republics ! 

So with due respect for your intellegence Sir maybe before dismissing our "intellect" merely because we don't have the same understanding of statesmanship and nation building and before claiming to speak for us or defining the Monarchy according to your Republican terms might as well understand what we are actually advocating:

ROYAL FORUM: Explaining the Concept of a Constitutional Monarchy to a Staunch Republican 

Thank You Sir in advance and for giving us this opportunity for an Openminded and Civil Debate.

Kind Regards, 

Darius KADIVAR

An Unapologetic Constitutional Monarchist

Paris, FRANCE

Recommended Blogs:

RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy ( 1984 interview done in London for Newsweek Magazine)

Crown Prince Reza on importance of "Checks and Balances" of future regime

Cyrus Amir-Mokri on Pros and Cons of 1906 Constitution

Roosyeh keh bah Jomhuryshoon az Tezar Badtar Shodeh keh

PUTIN ON THE RITZ: Putin Replaces 'Buddy' Medvedev as new 'elected tzar'

Mesre ham keh Cheeh Begom ...

Profile: Mohammed Mursi

Ta Gabre ... Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah ... 

ادامه سلطنت با بازگشت آن فرق اساسی داره

ادامه سلطنت مثل بازمانده هر چیز دیگری است که به گذاشته تعلق داره ولی هنوز باقی مانده و جان سختی می کنه ، مثل هزاران شکل از تبیعض که هنوز در خیلی از جوامع باقی است مثل زن ستیزی یا تبیعض نژادی و یا سایر اشکال تبیعض اما وقتی آنها از میان رفتند دیگه قرار نیست کسی سراغ آنها بره

، مثلا تصور کنید در مصر به دنبال باز سازی نظام فرعون ها باشند و یا در روسیه به دنبال بازگشت تزار

صحبت از بازگشت سلطنت در ایران توهین به شعور مردم است

اگر مردم سوئد، انگلیس و ژاپن خواهان ادامه سلطنت در مملکتشان باشند چی؟ به شعور خودشان توهین میکنند؟

جالب بود

 نکته ای که مورد میل واقعی غربیها برای رسیدن به یک راه حل و مسئله هستی که با آن میتوانند افکار عمومی جهان را تحریک کنند جالب و حرفی تازه بود!!موافقم

I wear an Omega watch