In as much as I love democracy, there are faults in it. What
institution can there be to defend it against its abuse. Below is my simple argument favouring Constitutional Monarchy, as opposed to a Republic.
Before you reply, please rise above Iran’s history, and all that has happened. We know how the present pretender to the throne has
interfered in politics, when he really should be concentrating on
certain very fundamental issues confined to the cultural heritage of Iran, and then be acting on them. His role is clear. As a Prince he should be gathering the people who put Iran first, above politics, religion, and commerce, and then moving ahead to get Iran’s flag and anthem back. So I do not want this thread to be a Pahlavi bashing or praising thread. I am talking conceptually here about a Republican vs a Constitutional Monarchy system of government for Iran.
A Constitutional Monarchy, would not let the flag or the national
anthem, and many other elements of our cultural heritage, to be changed by politicians, theocrats, or commerce. The Constitution would clearly define each of these four areas (Charchoob). Democracy is allowed to flourish, but not be abused.
In a Republic, where Democracy is the “be and end all of
everything, there is no system that safeguards against any
intransigence on behalf of democracy in politics, religion, or capital.
Democracy would be abused to do many things. You could get a Theocratic Republic, where religious democracy goes mad. Or you could have Nationalist Republic, where you could have Nazis going mad in the name of nationalism. And finally you could have Capitalist Republic, where markets decide everything.
In short, you can’t put everything to the vote. Do you agree?