Oghdeh
The Iranian complex
December 18, 2003
The Iranian
Reflexive, knee-jerk, and programmed. These words describe the
reactions of some to the idea of monarchy in Iran. I am still dumbfounded
by the almost religious nature of such people, one that is oblivious
to facts and events. Why do these people so passionately object
to their imperially expedient heritage?
Why do these people have so much hate and self loathing inside
of them that they are willing to be associated with anyone or
anything that opposes the Iranian institution of Shahanshahi, irrespective
of whether they prolong the terrorist regime in Iran or not;
irrespective
of whether the masses of ordinary Iranians, including the Pahlavi
haters themselves, suffer under cultural persecution, poverty
or torture.
These people are so against the millennia-long institution of
monarchy in Iran that they are willing to stand with anyone and
anything
that opposes it. They have acted as loudspeakers of western media
and western political motives against the Shahanshah and our sovereignty
vis-à-vis our own natural resources. They have even adopted
foreign oil interests explanations as to why, today, Iran’s
treasury receives less revenue, in real terms, from its hydrocarbon
resources than it did from the British concession days of 50 years
ago.
Iranian opposition to Imperial Iran is reflexive, knee-jerk,
and programmed. It's emotive, not cognitive. Thus we must look
deeper
at their solution to the perceived ills of Iran, namely the Islamic
Republic. Let us take a look at the people behind each of its
components, the Islamic revolutionaries and the Republican revolutionaries.
Is anti-monarchism ultimately the violent expression of those
who have failed in finding meaning/happiness in life; a collective
reaction to the rapid economic and educational development of
the
Pahlavi era? Is it a collective angst, a national jealousy that
is a group amplification of what drives privately an Imam Khomeini
or Seyed Khalkhali / Khatami / Khamenei or Peoples Leader Rajavi?
For the Islamic revolutionaries, to criticize their own countries
success under Pahlavi stewardship disguises, yet also secretly
satisfies, this impulse for collective belonging and superiority.
Without the pretext of some truly awful act of murderous oppression
on the part of the Shahanshah, there would be no justification
for their moral crusade and no cause for them to feel superior,
since Imperial Iran was not in fact enormously oppressive; it was
even distinctly liberal compared to Iraq and Turkish occupied Kurdistan
to the West, Soviet Union to the North, military dictatorships
in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the east, and the caliphates to
the south. Thus we have the Pahlavi regime's offenses being continually
exaggerated or simply fabricated whole cloth. So much so that looking
back at the accusations thrown at the Pahlavis today we see how
absurd and comical they were a quarter of a century ago at the
time of the "popular revolution".
Samuel Huntington, in his book clash of civilizations, has adeptly
pinpointed the impetus behind much of the hatred for the West that
exists in the Islamic world. He writes that the followers of Islam "are
convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed
with the inferiority of their power." Naturally, this causes
them to lash out at the "inferior" culture that possesses
the power that is rightfully theirs. Iranian “erfan” culture
with its own books (by Hafiz, Khayam, Rumi, Ferdowsi, Saadi, Nezami)
who have defined the role of Shahanshahi in Iranian culture was
seen as the inferior culture for these revolutionaries along with
the rational and scientific modernity promoted by the Pahlavi state
which was viewed as simply “westoxificated.”
For the Republican revolutionaries, anti-Monarchism seems to
be a religion; a secular faith for people who hate religion. It
comes
complete with a devil (the Pahlavis); sacred texts (The Communist
Manifesto, Shariati’s “Westoxification” etc.);
saints (Khatami, Mossadeq or even Khomeini); zeal (marg bar shah,
allah-o akbar and Khomeini is rahbar); and many of the other characteristics
that we find in various faiths.
However, these anti-Shahanshahi Republican revolutionaries provide
none of the social good that most religions provide. One should
not call this type of anti-monarchism a faith -- it is too negative
for that, in fact it is nothing but negativity, rejection and hostility.
(FYI: Nietzsche calls this sentiment "resentment"; for
Satre it is “living in bad-faith.”)
They have nurtured a radical individualism that undermines traditional
religion and gives birth to the ideal of a collective crusade
for individual rights as a substitute for the mechanisms of the
old
society.
The Left no longer has its city on a hill (the Soviet Union),
but it still has its Sodom and Gomorrah (Reza Pahlavi). Many saw
the
fall of Communism as the death of the Left. It wasn't. No longer
having to defend the indefensible -- it's safe from criticism
because it has no positive program and holds up no country as its
ideal;
it merely focuses its jaundiced eye upon the sins (both real
and imagined) of the Pahlavi family and our relationship with the
West.
There is also the arrogance within the Republican camp in worshipping
the god Reason as if it were an unforgiving Aztec totem that
allows little tolerance for human imperfection. A self-righteousness
(similar
to that visible within the pious Mohammedans) implying that a
Republic is the only form of government acceptable in the world,
and anything
else is but a delusional manifestation of an ignorant populace.
For both Islamic and Republican revolutionaries the Pahlavis
are hated because their existence contradicts the mistaken theories
so passionately held by a significant portion of these so called “intellectuals”. The Communist propaganda in Iran was focused on equality and
fraternity. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi implemented a system of
liberal socialism
focused on work creation for the poor in every domain of economic
development, sometimes at the expense of the very wealthy landowners
and other centuries old vested interests who had a portion of
their properties nationalized. Their ultimate ideals became a reality
under HIM Shahanshah Aryamehr.
With regard to the position and authority of religious leaders,
His Imperial Majesty supported the dignity and the freedom
of religion and the renovation of shrines. The Shia faith and general
respect
for the clergy dwarfed what it had been in the whole history
of Iran. Our laws of trade, marriage, family relations, heritage
etc.
were all based on Islamic law. Their ultimate ideals became
a
reality under HIM Shahanshah Aryamehr.
The rapid development of the country, from educational institutions
to military strength, to healthcare and leisure and the push for
a real and meaningful benefit from the sale of Iran’s hydrocarbon
resources that manifested itself in the 1974 oil price rise was
the real nationalization of Iran’s oil industry. The ultimate
ideals of the nationalist became a reality under HIM Shahanshah
Aryamehr.
What the revolutionaries tout in theory, the Pahlavi era experience
refuted in practice. What the Islamic reformist, like Khatami,
dreams to achieve in a future Iran, was already achieved in the
Monarchial Iran a quarter of a century ago.
The Pahlavi regimes critics compare Imperial Iran with utopia
and find Imperial Iran lacking. This method of analysis guarantees
the results that those who employ it desire. Compare anything
to
an ideal and it's going to fall short. Compare Imperial Iran
to places that actually existed and we look rather spectacular.
Once one goes down the road of utopianism then human progress
is always measured by its failings rather than its successes. Without
souls and a God, we must be judged by secular perfectionism in
the here and now. Thus, these grim judges love humanity and the
people of Iran in the abstract, but hate us, the Iranian people,
who so disappoint them, in the concrete. “How could Iranians
possibly want the Pahlavi’s back again, they sulk.”
What is weird about these anti-monarchist groups is their utter
incoherence. The pretext used to be national liberation and the
need for democracy. But now? How do you hate a young heir to
the throne that tries to put consensual government in his place?
How
can you argue against a National Referendum under international
Observation that honours the will of the majority, for whoever
should have the social credibility to win the confidence of the
majority?
Jealousy, and in some cases a criminally pathological envy of
the wealthy, without doubt, explains the hatred of intellectuals
toward
the Sovereign and the more affluent moguls and professionals of
Iran, who are not so subtle like our university "intellectuals",
but far wealthy for it. Also it is worth considering, is anti-monarchism
imported from abroad; or is it is indigenous to Iran. And what
institutions
within Iranian society are responsible for fostering anti-monarchism?
Other
nations suppress their vices and exaggerate their virtues. Opponents
of the Pahlavi regime inflate their nation's sins and
downplay their nation's positive achievements. Why is it that
the best articulated opposition to the existence of monarchy
in Iran
comes from the media of the United Kingdom, a monarchy itself
with a historic rivalry with Iran for the political leadership
of Middle
East and Central Asian space? Why do Iranians so accurately
repeat the original arguments and politics of Communist Russia,
another
country that has historically rivaled Iran for dominance in
the Persian Cultural space?
The paradox of extremist political movements is that although
they are notoriously intolerant of even minor deviations in adherence
to doctrine among followers, they are otherwise indiscriminate
in who they accept into their movement. This is why such movements
provide a haven for so many misfits. One who finds a hard time
fitting-in into the mainstream society finds ready-made friends,
a social life, and meaning upon joining “The Cause”.
This characterization applies to a great many followers of extremist
groups on the Left, as well as the Right.
Anti-monarchists and those who are actually frightened of the
Pahlavis are not Empirical thinkers; but this is very often only
a symptom,
a manifestation of a deeper pathology. Remember that one's senses
of frustration need not have any factual basis; it is a matter
of perceived rather than real grievance. Another thought: accommodation
or the failure to challenge such animus against the supporters
of the continuation of Shahanshahi in Iran is an enabling and
emboldening act. Most of the anti-monarchists thrive because the
rest of us
do not challenge their lunatic views. And so in some ways their
ranting brings them real material and psychic rewards.
Finally, to end on a positive note, it is important to re-iterate
why am I not against our tradition of Shahanshahi? I am not anti-Imperial
Iran because I consider most of these people irrational, with groundless
disposition or set of beliefs; because I credit the Pahlavi Dynasty
with many great accomplishments, because I am not anti-capitalist
and anti-Western – important component parts of being against
the ancien regime; because I do not believe that there is a utopian
blueprint ahead that can be realized, because as a social group
monarchist can agree to disagree without fear of retribution. Also
because many of the flaws of the Pahlavi Dynasty are not peculiar
to it....
Despite its brief tenure, the modern Monarchy’s accomplishments
are unsurpassed within the context of Iranian history. It managed
to create a modern state, secularize the judiciary and the educational
system, preserve Iran’s territorial integrity in two World
Wars, saved Iran from British colonialism and Russian communism,
transform Iran’s near dead economy to the most vibrant in
the middle east etc. etc. etc. etc.
The modern ‘Constitutional’ Monarchy’s
most enduring legacy was to incorporate elements of economic and
social progress
within the ancient fabric of a lethargic and underdeveloped society
through the creation of a new entity: The professional middle class.
Education and particularly specialized knowledge, professional
accomplishment and a disdain for religious fanaticism became the
new paradigm. Individualism and competitive spirit superseded the
intense concern with piety or family status and paved the way for
the middle class’s social and economic advancement. As a
result, the men who rose to the pinnacle of power under the Pahlavi
state were neither aristocrats nor influential Mullahs but the
educated sons of the middle class.
If anything, the success of the Pahlavi state in modernizing
Iran’s
economy and infrastructure is actually proof that Cyrus the Greats
model of governance was capable of meeting the challenge of Western
Modernity and is thus proof that the system of Shahanshahi is by
no measure obsolete.
Finally, examine the laws and culture of the Imperial Iran and
then consider the contemporary alternatives. Review the 1906
Constitution and the history of the modern constitutional monarchy
of Iran and
learn how the aspiration to be moral was central to our experience.
Take a look at our people and see the different religions, customs,
races, and languages in Imperial Iran, and ask whether such a
mix without factional violence is possible anywhere else in our
region,
and why not?
All the above explains the baffling phenomenon why most anti-monarchist,
having completed their studies abroad on Pahlavi Foundation scholarships,
in fact preferred to live nowhere else but precisely in Imperial
Iran! and many departed for the "westoxified" West soon
after having helped destroy the Pahlavi regime and replaced it
with Khomeini's Islamic Republic..
December is Donate
to Iranian.com Month
* Send
this page to your friends
|
