MONARCHY

On Monarchy

by aynak on Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:16 AM PST

 

Dear Areyo:

Thanks for the civil exchange, I think we have fundamentally different
views on the path to democracy and by extension role of monarchy (which I
believe is also currently ruling Iran, and has been doing that for our
entire history).   There is not much I can do, to convince you
otherwise, as in my view the problem is systemic to one man rule.  If
we  need a Monarch/human with super power/Faar etc, we are already
deviating from a model I have in mind.   In principle I don't think a
person under whatever pretext calling himself with an unearned title can
help promote the socieity I am seeking.  Doesn't matter we call it
Khamaneh-ee/Reza Shah/NaserDeen shah etc.   You obviously believe
otherwise, or think can work your way through it.

Let's just leave with one agreement, namely that this article by Boghrat
fails in many way, as it fulfills easily in several of the basic
fallacy/incorrect reasoning.

Regards.

 

 

 

Dear Areyo Barzan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Feb 03, 2012 09:39 AM PST

 

Thank you for your kind words I appreciate it. You analysis of people like Aynak sounds very accurate.

Imagine working all your life to overthrow the Monarachy just to admit it was a giant mistake. It takes a big person to admit such a monumental mistake. People would much rather dig in their heels and say they were right. No matter what the price.

Thankfully people who did this matter less by the day. Before long they will be history. We do not need them and it is a mistake to hold things up for them. Because all they will do it try to derail the process; maybe even subconsciously.

I wondered about why IRI has lasted this far. The best I can think of is that we needed at least one generation to pass. The people who brought IRI by and large refuse to admit their mistake. People who did not fight back were to demoralized to do anything. Many such as myself thought Iranians back home really wanted IRI. It was only since the last "Presidential" election that the real degree of popular anger was proven to me. Perhaps it is the reason Reza Pahlavi was inactive until now. 

But I feel this is absolutely the right time to move. America wants IRI gone one way or another. The Obama administration test floated MEK but I beleive realized it was a flop. Now the Americans turn to Reza Pahlavi.

RP must ignore all the naysayer. From so called "Democrats" to "Mossadeghi" and the rest. They have a vested interest in making him fail as they had before. Just get whoever wants to join and go; do not worry about the rest.

Dear VPK

by areyo barzan on Fri Feb 03, 2012 08:25 AM PST

 Very good argument I could not put it better myself 

Well done and My hat off to you sir

 

However I believe I do now understand what might be going on in here. Many of our friends have participated in1979 national suicide ignoring Dr Bakhtiar’s warning.

 

It is now a bit difficult for them to accept that they could also have a democracy under a constitutional monarchy as that would mean for them to admit to their error of pressing ahead with the revolution after premiership of Bakhtiar.

 

They still have difficulty to accept the fact that if they listened to Dr Bakhtiar then they might not have had to go trough the past 33 years of hell

 

At I explained in one of my past articles this is another one of our problems as a nation that we have difficulty with accepting our errors so to avoid that we stubbornly press with our erroneous way. As long as we do not have to open our eye and admit liability for our cock ups we are happy and the hell with the rest

 

Thank you

Dear Aynak

by areyo barzan on Fri Feb 03, 2012 08:18 AM PST

I am sorry but I believe that you need to go back and read my last posting again.

In answer to your first question I stated that

 

“I do also believe in order to assist us to get into a democracy the title of Reza Pahlavi (being HM, Prince or Mr) is irrelevant. No argument there”

 

I do not know what do you interpret my answer but I thought it was an agreement to your point.

 

However in case you or any one else were going to take my answer and run with it or to treat it as a licence to deny the right of choice to those who want a Parliamentary Monarchy. I made my position much more transparent by clearing any ambiguity and eliminating any chance of misinterpretation when I continued

 

“But giving up a title and asking not to be addressed with that title is one thing while defaulting on an obligation to advocates of constitutional Monarchy is quiet another”

 

That means we do not have the right to ask RP not to pursue the goal of becoming a king to those who want him to be their king, as that would be an undemocratic breach of the rights of Iranians who are advocating a Constitutional Monarchy. All we can do is to try and change their mind toward a presidential system.

 

But if you are asking why should we need to have a king and monarchy at all or why the monarchists are monarchists any way. Then you’re asking the wrong person. As I told you before I am NOT a monarchist. I am sure if you talk to an advocate of parliamentary monarchy they have got their own nationalistic historical, political, social and even physiological reasons and as much as you are entitled to your opinion they are entitled to theirs. But that is out of our main subject of debate here.

 

I on the other hand support RP’s campaign to get rid of IRI and pave the way to a free fare referendum where you and I can both decide what type of democracy (monarchy or republic) we want

 

My concern here is that no group should have an unfair advantage over the other and all should be able to put their case across to our people. At the end of the day it would be the Iranian nation who will make the final decision. Furthermore, just because I think that there is no value in the institution of monarchy I can not deny the choice from other people who thing otherwise and still call my self a democrat.

 

May be you should read my comments from the beginning again. What I am advocating here is unity of all factions who believe in principals of democracy to get rid of IRI and get us to a free fare referendum. The decision over the type of our democracy will be taken by our people at that referendum. It would be then and there when the advocates of all types of governmental system could put their case across and you can rightfully ask your question from advocates of monarchy. But I have never asked you or any one to negotiate with undemocratic dictators. Otherwise I would have included IRI in the equation as well and anyway those dictators are not interested in negotiation at all as they think they are the only one who is right and they can go it alone.

 

Also I would like to turn your question around and ask you what if our people select a presidential system at first and then change their mind later to want a parliamentary monarchy. Then what would be your suggestion. Are we willing to give them the freedom to choose again and if so what processes we put in place to achieve that? We can use the same process to convert the other way. However what we are discussing here are the details of the tenth step on the ladder while we have not yet had the courage to step on the first

 

On the other hand if you have issues over the person of RP and think he is a deceitful potential dictator then we would like to see your evidence? But if you believe that his followers might turn him into one then as I told you this concern could more or less be raised about all other political groups and factions and the only way around that problem is plurality.

 

For the time being however, RP seems to be committed to democracy and a free referendum. To me that is a good starting point to the negotiation. But if any where along the way he changes course so can we but we can only be effective if we area part of the process.

 

Furthermore you seem to still be sticking to the old negative campaign. It is very easy to ask what good a parliamentary monarchy can do that a Republic can not.

 

What if I turned the question around and asked you: what good any other systems or other leaders hiding in the shadows can do that RP and Monarchy can not do.

 

At least he has the courage to be transparent and upfront which is more than what I can say for the others. If we are concerned about dictatorship, then the world is full of dictators under different names and titles. “President” Assad of Syria and king Fahad of Saudi are two perfect examples.

 

Now if you are going to rebuff my example and refer me to the presidencies of Europe or US and their success. Then equally I can refer you to the Monarchies in UK, Spain and Norway. But if you then attempt to bring the historical differences between us and Europe into the equation then I would say that these historical differences would and should work both ways.

 

We can not accept and model ourselves along presidencies of Europe or US without considering our cultural and historical differences but when in comes to Parliamentary Monarchies cry about how different our history and culture is to them, as this would just be hypocrisy

 

As I told you before democracy can not be given to or taken from any nation. It has to be earned through democratic behaviour. As long as we get that right we can have a democracy under either a republic or a Parliamentary Monarchy. If we don’t on the other hand then one dictatorship will follow the other and the name or type would be merely relevant.

 

You might be obsessed with a name or empty slogan that even you yourself do not practically believe in or follow. But to me it is the essence and conduct that counts

 

In terms of any referendum I mentioned the principals of democracy plain and simple.

That is what a democracy is. If you really believe in one person one vote then you need to learn to respect that vote as well, especially when it is not going your way. There is a distinct difference between democracy and chaos.

 

If I believe in the essence of democracy then I can not kick the table over when I do not get my way and if I do not like these principals then that is my problem

 

If you think that you can disregard the principals of democracy just because you did not get what you wanted then you have got another thing coming my friend.

 

I am sorry to be the one to break the news, but in a democracy you don’t always get what you want and that is life. Democracy is not always clear cut it is complicated messy and confusing and in the end those who are trying to over simplify this process will end up becoming dictators and tyrants.

 

However if we are going to divert the subject of argument towards such topics as meaning and problems with democracy and its collision course with freedom then we can go on fighting over and discussing this subject for ever just as it has been debated in all academic and political institutions in the world since the time of Aristotle and still is.

 

Democracy is not always a clear cut issue and we will not always get what we want. But if we are still interested then we need accept its most basic principal which is “Majority Rule”. Furthermore as it was put so rightly by VPK to prevent that majority to legally suppress the rest we will have the basic none breach-able rights and principals written into the constitution.

 

As long as we keep up with these principals,  for the rest of complicated day to day issues we will have a parliament who will meet every day to go through and resolve all the exceptional and complicated dilemmas and of course we will have regular elections and votes to determine who leads the country and into what direction

 

If democracy was not such a complicated beast then no country would have needed a parliament, as they could have legislated their laws once and gone home. But the fact that these parliaments work on daily basis to legislate and resolve the new arising issues shows how complicated democracy could be

 

Or could it be the case we only want and tolerate democracy to the point that it serves our interest and any thing beyond that we would be the first one to denounce everything from top to bottom

Aynak

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Thu Feb 02, 2012 05:14 PM PST

 

I think you are wrong about democracy and have it confused with freedom. No democracy does not mean freedom. You hijab example is perfect because it will indeed be democratic.

That is why there are basic rights guaranteed for people. This is why America has a Bill of Rights. Just to prevent majority from democratically oppressing people. Democracy is not a well defined thing.

It may be based on simple or super majorities. I may be based on representatives; direct votes or a combination. You are just dictating your idea to other people. Many basic rights are a good idea but not a requirement. There are only some rights such as to vote; and speech which are required.

There is nothing wrong with having a King in democracy. If people at some point decide against it the could vote to dissolve. With whatever process the constitution provides.

You do not like the idea so you want to dictate your will on others. Basically by redefining democracy to mean what Aynak wants. I might then make up my own version of democracy. This is nonsense.

Assume Iran puts in a constitution which allows for parliamentary monarchy. This presumably passes with a super majority. Then if a group don't like it they could try to legally change it. Just as done in the USA. It is not simple and takes work. Meanwhile they must abide by the constitution. They may be upset and rant which is fine. But I have seen how they acted in the past when they did not get their way. They get violent and when punished whine about their rights.

Sorry, but you did not answer my questions

by aynak on Thu Feb 02, 2012 05:09 PM PST

 

Dear Areyo,

The two questions I asked, and your answers were less than satisifactory:

1:What service/job can Prince Reza Pahlavi perform for Iran, that he can not do as ordinary citizen?   Given that he is already well known, what added value does he bring to the table as a king for *IRAN* not as as priviilage for  himself/ or those who want a king to worship?   Your answer was why should he give up something that's rightfuly his.   That whole notion of a king is under question, and now you are haggling over his claim to rightful ownership.

 

2:As far as the dilemma I posed:  "Suppose RP gets 60% vote and others not in favor of Monarchy 40%", I don't think you really addressed that.   You offer to have a permanent position with a slight majority (even grand majority would not change that, but just wanted to test your own grasp of the complication).   The paradox that you either are ignoring or not understanding is, when you use a tool like --ELECTION-- as a means to settle a difference which is the democratic way, you CAN NOT stop using it, or just use it once, for such important and contentious position.   i.e that would otherwise be Khomane and permanant Valeeh Fagheeh.   I hope you spend time understanding the contradiction in what I pointed out here, rather than .

I think there is a huge misunderstanding of democratic principles here, where one says:  Oh, in order to be democratic you have to sit with everyone?!   No.   You can only sit with everyone who understands and abides by democratic principle.   To me that entails:   routine/frequent polls and elections.

Let's take the issue of Forced Hejab:   Say the majority of people in a poll say we want to force Hejab on women.   That's not democratic, even though it is popular.   Even less democratic would be to do this poll once and use the result for ever to keep enforcing an undemocratic rule.

Going back to Saltanat, there is a group of people that simply do not want a king or Valeeh Fagheeh, becuase their very essence overrides the baisc democrtatic principle:

All humans are equal.   One person one vote.

 

 

 

Silence!?

by areyo barzan on Thu Feb 02, 2012 08:08 AM PST

Dear Aynak

 

Does your silence or lack of response to the points in my latest posting mean that we are finally in agreement?

 

I hope for the day that all of us can sit around the same negotiation table as equal partners where the interests of Iran and Iranian Nation comes first and foremost, before the interests of any party, leader or ideological dogma

Dear Rain bow and Mrs Boghrat

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Thu Feb 02, 2012 06:50 AM PST

 

You are both right but as I said this is reality. I will add a few things below:

Regarding Shah:

Yes he got to be very over protective. Why: because post 1953 Mossadeghis plotted. They formed all kinds of groups with a single goal of revenge. Plus the Marxists where just waiting for an chance to force their ideology on people. The thing about MEK types was they really did not care what people wanted. At least this is the way people I knew were. I remember one telling me: "people are stupid and we know what is right".With this kind of groups he sort of got pushed into being dictatorial.

I know some blame his authoritarianism on people around him. Maybe there is truth to it but people opposing him were just as much a factor. 

Regarding Reza Pahlavi:

People who did not like Shah also don't like Reza Pahlavi. They say he will become a dictator. Regardless of people like me saying we want him to organize opposition. Not to be the ruler of Iran! As if it is up to me to declare the ruler of Iran. 

 

Mrs boghrat you are right

by rain bow movment on Thu Feb 02, 2012 06:01 AM PST

It's sad to see some of our country man or woman attaking the writer for telling the fact,in any organization there are opportunistic peopl that taking advantage of their position with no exception during the shah's time.

shah was a real patriot Iranian ,he was so obssesd by over taking of communism, he changed to becom like an over portecting over controling father, he was right in some sence as tudeh party were a russian agents(occupying afghanestan with coopration of afghan communist party proved the russian intention).

while most of Iranian arguing among themselves for 33 years that who should lead the nation to tumbleing down the IR,the murderous velayate vagheeh laughing at us.

get united befor is too late .

Responses

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Feb 01, 2012 03:33 PM PST

 

Dear JustAnIranian: I agree with you but we never get 100% of Iranians in the West. There are and will always be people who disagree. It is their right and nothing we may do about it. Might as well get as many as possible and be happy.

By the way I see no point it trying to figure out the motives. For one they do not all have the same motives. Besides it makes no difference; just be glad for what we got. Otherwise it will be all bickering and fighting. This does not require 100%.

The need for a united opposition

by JustAnIranian on Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:27 PM PST

I believe that after Bashar's fall in Syria, a military attack on the Islamic Republic will be more probable - unless there is a revolution for bread.  There will come a time of vacuum of power. 

And chaos will lead to nothing except the survival of the fittest. Last time it was Khomeini that survived.

Nobody is trying to go and save Iran on a white horse, but a united opposition will be needed more than ever at that time.  

We all care for our country, or we would not be spending our time writing these comments. We need to put our differences aside and try to work towards a united opposition.

duplication - to be deleted

by ahosseini on Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:56 AM PST

..

Anglphile

by ahosseini on Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:57 AM PST

Did I bring Khomaini to power? Why do you say that?It is not about an individual. you give power to any individual, the power will corrupt that person. I tell you when Khamenaei, montazeri, rafsanjani, Rajavi, Negahdar came out of the prison, they were real heroes. Those who know Khamenaei in those days talk very highly of him. Rajavi and Negahdar were adored by the young population. None of these people were monsters we see today. They turned into monsters because we had no means of controlling them. Heros turned to zeros. Now you are expecting a "shahzadeh" to be better than these people. I have my doubts. Does Reza Pahlavi ever consult any of you guys? He keeps saying he goes along with whatever people say. If he goes along with what people say, then he should have some means getting you guys who support him to make some kind of contributions in terms of setting up the constitution, long term and short term plans. He has learned to make good speeches. Rajavi was 100 times better in making false promises. A leader who believes in democracy, will behave in a democratic way in opposiition and when running a country. One question, who is going to bring Reza Pahlavi to power? Popular uprising or military attack? Do you really think the people pour into streets of Tehran and other major cities and call for monarchy. If you believe in this you are certainly daydreaming. If by military attack then all these talk is are irrelevant. The US army will decideI think sanctions in this scale will end in a disastrous military attack. I think they will divide the country into hostile nations and will rule in a brutal way for years to come. Some of people seem to be very happy about such a scenario and it looks these people are preparing themselves for the big jobs.  It is a frightening situation.

Believe in a democracy that leaders and representatives are controlled by members at all times.

Not a Monarchist - a realist

by JustAnIranian on Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:01 AM PST

There is no unity without Reza Pahlavi! Nobody is talking about another dictatorship. The cruelest dictator is already in Tehran. The days of dictatorship are gone! Reza Pahlavi will never be a dictator. He can't be another dictator! He has lived in a free country for 33 years and he knows democracy very well.

I am not a monarchist. And anyway, what I am is not important. People of Iran need to be free to choose whether they want this family to be the royal family of Iran or not.

Nobody knows what they will choose. I think - like Areyo Barzan - different opposition groups need to talk to him. That is called TOLERANCE.

And I know - and I think he knows very well - that he has supporters inside Iran.

For those of you who refuse this, I ask you to look at his homepage on Facebook. At this moment that I am writing this text, he has 63,416 people that have liked him. I bet most of these people are inside Iran. This number has been growing steadily for the last few weeks. It was 50,000 when I first found this page around three weeks ago. 

Please, be realistic. This man is known in all the corners of Iran. All the villages. All the corners that have no access to internet.  

Zaboonam moo daravord

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:20 AM PST

 

How do I get my point across and how many times need I repeat. My idea for Pahlavi is to be an organizer for opposition. Where did I say another "Guardian". Maybe other people said it but not me. No person with a brain wants that.

خراب کردی کارو حسینی‌

anglophile
Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:14 AM PST

 

 

 

بابا دیگه قرار نبود دست خودتو رو کنی‌ دادشم. همه این خواستها یی اینجا لیست دادی همونهایی هستند که وقتی‌ شما خمینی رو سرکار آوردی قرار بود تامین کنه پس حالا که نومید شدی به محمد رضا شاه وصلش میکنی‌؟ تقصیر ما چیه که شما هر که بهت  وعده میده فورا قبول می‌کنی؟

 

 

 

"partially failed attempt..."!!! LOL

by anglophile on Thu Feb 02, 2012 08:28 AM PST

"After disillusionment with the concept of constitutional monarchy, similar frustrations led our nation to adopt similar measures to do away with monarchy (a lesson learned from the millenium-long experiences of Europeans) in a partially failed attempt at establishing a republican system." - Arj This must be the quote of the month, if not the year. May I ask our good friend to further elaborate on the part that did not "partially fail"! Also on his other deliberations i.e.: "This failure does not mean that we have to revert back to monarchy, but ratrher see why and in what way we failed to adopt a republican system!" - Arj may I remind our resident republican historian (LOL) that one of the lessons he has not learned from the millenium-long experiences of Europeans is that long ago there was a country named Britain (LOL) wherein lived a man called Oliver Cromwell who like our republican historian's one time hero, Khomeini, was an anti monarchist, religious fundamentalist, and a republican too (more LOL). His "partiallly failed" (LOL again) attempt at establishing a republic was compensated by bringing back the monarchy, this time constitutionally.  Obviously our republican historian learns only those bits of the millenium-long experiences of Europeans that suit his angenda. Historical cherry-picking eh? (LOL).     

هنوز دیر نشده

ahosseini
Wed Feb 01, 2012 09:45 AM PST

سوُالی بسیار جالب از مردم فلک زده ایران

اگرفقرمیخواستید! اگردرد میخواستید! اگرنکبت میخواستید! اگراعدام میخواستید! اگرتجاوزمیخواستید! اگرکوفت میخواستید! اگرتحریم میخواستید! اگرتوهین میخواستید! اگربیکاری میخواستید! اگرگرانی میخواستید! اگربدبختی میخواستید! اگرشکنجه میخواستید! اگربدهی جهانی میخواستید! اگرکشتارعزیزانتان را میخواستید!

اگر اعتياد وکنار خيابان خوابی می خواستيد!

اگر جنگ عليه ايران می خواستيد!

اگر غارت بانک ها و اموال همگانی می خواستيد!

اگر فراری شدن مغز ها را می خواستيد!

اگر آوارگی و بدبختی در کشور های بيگانه می خواستيد!

اگر دخالت بيگانه و خفت جهان سومی می خواستيد!

اگر بی قانونی و تجاوز به حقوق فردی می خواستيد!

اگر بی ارزش شدن پول و فقط و قحطی می خواستيد!

اگر بجای بهداشت، کثافت و بيماری وايدز می خواستيد!

اگرواگذاری دریای خزررا میخواستید! اگربی اعتباری وخفت جهانی را میخواستید! اگرزیرسلطه چین وشوروی را میخواستید! اگرواگذاری سرمایه ملی به عربها را میخواستید! اگرحجاب وتوسری خوری برای زنان را میخواستید! اگر دزدی اموال ملی وخروج ثروتهای نفتی را میخواستید!

چرا به خودم نگفتید؟

محمد رضاشاه پهلوی

Believe in a democracy that leaders and representatives are controlled by members at all times.

Re European monaichies

by Arj on Wed Feb 01, 2012 09:07 AM PST

European monarchies that are democratic in nature and in which monarch is a mere figure-head, should be observed within their historical context rather than as a 21st century phenomenon. That is such systems were not born overnight, but are the result of centuries (as far back as a millenium) old struggles, public uprisings and revolutions against despotic rules and tyranny. Some of these uprisings failed and their leaders and scores of public revolutionaries hanged maimed and tortured, while occasionally, one out of a few managed to curb the powers of a monarch albeit by the smallest of margins to bring the governance once step closer to the people and away from the the monarch!

In some societies such as Germany, France, Italy and many other European countries, after centuries of attempting to reform such systems, frustrated people decided to do away with monarchy alltogether -- as aynak has mentioned in posts below. After disillusionment with the concept of constitutional monarchy, similar frustrations led our nation to adopt similar measures to do away with monarchy (a lesson learned from the millenium-long experiences of Europeans) in a partially failed attempt at establishing a republican system. This failure does not mean that we have to revert back to monarchy, but ratrher see why and in what way we failed to adopt a republican system! For starters we can examine our reliance on a person as a "guardian" of the nation that saw Shah replaced by Khomeini, and by default, Khamenei!

However, the answer is not to replace Khamenei with another "guardian" (be it RP, a military junta or freign influence...), but rather start to believe in ourselves as a nation capable of deciding our fate without having some figurehead in Ivory tower second guessing our elected government's decisions!

Dear Aynak

by areyo barzan on Wed Feb 01, 2012 06:41 AM PST

First of all I would like to emphasize that I do not have any problem with the essence of your argument

 

With regards to the way monarchy was run in Europe and its difference to Iran (after Islam) the only thing I have got to say is that (with a few exceptions), they all were tyrants in their own way and no tyrant is better than the other.

 

What happened in Europe however as you mentioned was that the power was taken away from one a few who have often been above the law and put it in the hands of an elected body (Parliament, PM, president.). But the most important process was separation of the church (religion) and state. Each country did this according to its culture, its historical back ground and mostly on the merit of an informed choice made by its people or (like Spain and Germany) just trough a long process of trial and error.

 

Now I do not see the reason why we could not go trough the same process and select our type of democracy while establishing the institutions that will support and police it.

 

Just like you I am against the rule of one person and having that person (being Rajavi, RP, Khomeini, Khamene-ee or any one else) to be put above the law. You get no argument from me there.

 

However that is not the point I am making here. As you have mentioned yourself in your first posting, most of the time it is the conduct of people around that person and his followers and most importantly absence of an effective opposition that pushes him/her towards becoming a tyrant and as I told you this is a national disease not limited to the followers of RP.

 

The only way to get around this problem is plurality and that comes with all of us being involved in the process. And yes that would sometimes mean sitting around the negotiation table with people whom we do not like or even trust.

 

Furthermore I do also believe in order to assist us to get into a democracy the title of Reza Pahlavi (being HM, Prince or Mr) is irrelevant. No argument there

 

But giving up a title and asking not to be address with that title is one thing while defaulting on an obligation to advocates of constitutional Monarchy is quiet another

 

To me personally what matters more than his title is his conduct. The important thing is that at the moment he is committed to a referendum which will determine the future type of government in Iran. That is a good starting point. But having said that we need to constantly be on guard and scrutinize his conducts so that he does not go back on his words when the time comes to put that referendum in motion. That is why in my opinion the best way to do it is around a negotiation table as equal partners

 

Also in the answer to my comment of

"In reality however the decision on type of government is not something
that a nation needs to make in regular basis and every 5 years."

You stated.

“So in one referendum we will again decide for the next 50 years who to screw us?”

First of all from a person of your stature I expected a more rational answer and secondly my answer would be we need not to be!

 

If we make that decision in an informed and correct manner the results could last for a life time on the other hand if we don’t, then it doesn’t matter how often and how many times we make that same decision. We will always end up in the same mess.

 

And that is where the rule of people like you and I comes into the equation. Either we trust Iranian people and believe that having all the information they could and would make the right decision or we don’t and believe they need a care taker (Person or party) to take the best decision for them and should be hurdled like lamps.

 

If we do not trust our nation, then every one knows where we stand (the point IRI and Co are standing today). But if we do, then our duty is to provide the information in a mutual and non bias manner. But most importantly we could not afford to stay out of the process and just criticise from outside without providing a viable alternative

 

As I told you before the problem with the mayhem of 1979 was that every one was following one Khomeini faithfully and blindly, without asking any questions or God forbid criticising.

 

However this time round it needs not be that way. That is why we need people like you to ask that tough question and not to be persuaded easily. At the end of the day that would be the only guarantee for our democracy to flourish. That is why I welcome and value your questions and scepticism, and put time and effort to provide answers

 

However there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve any goal. I have never asked you or anyone else to blindly follow RP or any other leader.

 

What I am asking for in here is negotiation, collaboration and yes when it is due constructive criticism and even a smack on the hand (but not insults and baseless accusations or blind dismissal)

 

This was why I told you that we need to stop with the negative and start with the positive campaign. We need to have viable alternatives and by that I do not mean endless text book theories and empty slogans. We need mandates organisations, and most importantly leadership with a name and a face from others.

 

I personally want someone whom I can question, just like you are doing here. You are able to put your question across to the advocates of monarchy or supporters of RP’s campaign (just like me) because you have a person (RP) to address and a mandate to scrutinize. That is the reason for the success of these people.

 

Now if we want a similar success we also need to provide a mandate and a person whose conducts, intentions, capability and past could be questioned and scrutinized.

 

Otherwise just dancing around an ideology or stating what you do not want instead of promoting what you want with solid backing, is not going to influence any opinions or get any one to change their mind.

 

And the last but not the least the answer to your question

 

What if we had a referendum and the result was 60% for Monarchy and 40% against?   What type of mandate would that royalty have?

 

First of all to me the way you put that question across is flawed and again it shows that you have not read my previous article. But as I mentioned before I do NOT want the next referendum be a Yes/No to monarchy as I do not believe that to be a true and fair referendum. The choice should be between all alternatives (like democratic Republic, Social Republic, Monarchy and others)

 

Secondly, Well my friend if by now you do not know the answer to you question or if you have any problem with accepting the answer, then I am afraid you do NOT know the first thing about democracy and its principals (Majority Rule).

 

Just pay attention on my last word here “majority rule”. What I am NOT saying here is “majority is right”. But right or wrong in the end we all need to yield to the demand of majority and that is the price for democracy.

 

Now if that majority have made an uninformed or erroneous decision then they have to leave with its consequences and that is what’s called life. Furthermore for that erroneous decision we should not only blame the decision makers but we should also blame those who did (or failed to effectively) influence such decision.

 

As one Winston Churchill put is so elegantly

 

“Democ­racy is the worst form of gov­ern­ment, except for all the oth­ers”

 

The alternative on the other hand would be the rule of a minority who “think” they know best and we all know what is that called

Arj

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Jan 31, 2012 06:25 PM PST

 

Thanks, I have read a ton of arguments on all sides. From the 100% anti-Shah to those who refuse to put any blame on him. I don't think there is a point to arguing with one another. You got your opinion as is your right.

The big issue happens to be if Reza Pahlavi is able to gather opposition. I say probably some but not all. That is not a problem as nobody is able to get everyone together. Much of it also depends on how much powerful backing he gets. 

Nobody will defeat IRI without help. I don't mean overt military but something is required. I guess in time we will see how much he gets. And if people are willing to work together with him to ditch the Islamic Republic. Or will someone different turn up.

Re Arj

by Arj on Tue Jan 31, 2012 01:54 PM PST

VPK, thanx for your response, but I have decided to refrain from engaging in pointless discussions, especially when it may tend to steer towards disrespectful exchanges, hence mere observations!

P.S. However, I refer you to our friend, aynak's comment below, in which the secluar, yet autocratic rules of Bashar Asad, Mobarak, Ben Ali et al (who just like Shah, have never bothered people with issues such as hejab, nudity, alcohol consumption and other forms of social freedom in the lieu of lack of political freedom) which were/are unequivocally rejected by the peoples of their respective countries are addressed! Perhaps 30 years from now peoples of Egypt and Syria have less social freedoms than they did/do now, or perhaps not -- thanks in part to lessons learned from Iran! Nonetheless, there's nothing that could stop these people from trying! That's the nature of social evolution and the laws of revolution, which BTW I did not invent and am baffled as to why it should be mine!

نه از آمدن پادشاهی وحشتی هست و نه از رفتن جمهوری اسلامي،

Roozbeh_Gilani
Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:09 AM PST

پاسخ به اين پرسش آنست: نه از آمدن پادشاهی وحشتی هست و نه از رفتن جمهوری اسلامي، بلکه خلقهای ايران از پياده شدن ديکتاتوری مجدد دگری نگران اند. خانم بقراط عزيز، شما پرسش تحريک کننده ای فرموده ايد و يک مشت ادعای بی استدلال کرده ايد. برای نمونه شما در همان جملات اول که يکی از آنها به شرح زير خواهد آمد، می فرمائيد:
"حقوق زنان واقليت‌های مذهبی درکنار تشکيل نهادهای مدرن، بر تارک خدمات دو پادشاه پهلوی مي‌درخشد. همان حقوقی که سالهاست از رژيمی گدايی مي‌شود که اتفاقا با همين هدف آمد که آنها را از ميان بردارد"!
هرانسان منصفی ازخود می پرسد، نيروهای دمکرات و ترقی خواه که در يک مبارزه خونين در برابر جمهوری اسلامی ايستاده اند، کجايش با يک گدائی برای گرفتن حقوق انسانها همانند است؟ بنده از شما نازنيم می پرسم، چرا وحشت می کنيد، واقعيت را به مردمان ملتهای ايران بفرمائيد؟ چرا کاری می کنيد که فقط کيهان لندن با علاقه مطالبتان را چاپ کنند يا ديگر سايتهای با گرايش به برتری طلبی و ناسيوناليستی مخفيانه؟! من اطمينان دارم شما يکی از زنان ژورناليست زبردست و با هوش هستيد. آيا مقام در آينده برايتان به آن اندازه مهم است که واقعيت را برايش زير پا بگذاريد؟! بدون شک بنده به وزير فرهنگی مانند مرحوم خانم فرخ روح پارسای و به وزير بودن وزارت اطلاعات وجهانگردی مانند مرحوم دکتر داريوش همايون و به حتا نخست وزيری آقای شاهزاده رضا پهلوی اگر ايشان پادشاه شوند، نه! خواهم گفت و با اطمينان اين شغل و مقامهای بالا نمی توانند بنده نوعی را از واقعيت گفتن دور نگهدارند، شما چطور؟ من اينگونه فکر می کنم که به احتمال قوی شما هم نبايد حاضر باشيد که واقعيت جامعه و دفاع از آن را برای شغل و مقام زير پا بگذاريد. الاهه خانم عزيز، شما از دست آوردهای مهمی در دوران پهلوی ها حرف زده ايد که يکی از آنها حقوق اقليتها هستند. عزيزم، کدام حقوق و آزادی زنان؟ همانی که امروز خواهران زينب و پذيرش چهار زن برای يک مرد را تحويل جامعه فلک زده مملکت داده است؟

//www.roshangari.net/as/sitedata/20120127010331/20120127010331.html

Arj

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 AM PST

 

I think we all know by now how you feel about Pahlavi. The results of your democracy are there for all of us to see. 

Are you implying  human rights breaches under Pahlavi and IRI are comparable. If so you are being very much unfair and biased. Yes Pahlavi had its violations but not 1/100 of IRI. There was one rule to heed: avoid politics. You could wear what you wanted. Do your business. Go to the beach and swim as a family and have fun. Nobody gave a damn if you were a good Muslim. Gay people did not get hanged. 

Maybe to you politics is all that matters but not to me. I did not want your revolution. Preferred the Pahlavi with its political repression. Got it now!

Dear Mehrdad

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:57 AM PST

 

I occasionally watch those shows. You know to me watching political TV is like torture. Pretty much I leave political shows out. Rarely Iranian political and never any other politics. Therefore I am spared that agony.

However I have no doubt you are right about them. Sadly we have more nuts than a bowl  of "aajil moskgel gosha". I do not agree with these people and call them radicals. But I will work with them. I call them radical Monarchists.

whining

by Siavash300 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:22 AM PST

"one that frankly dismiss democracy and argue for necessity of a "benevolent dictatorship" and rule of the iron fist to "modernize," which are the more honest of the two and are often referrred to as Shahollahis!" Arj

The word "allah" should be deleted from Farsi vocabulary because this word brought misery to our people and destruction to our country for 32 years. Worse than that, Putting the word "allah" next to "shah". That is insult to Iran's history.

     Allah is extracted from the mind of bare feet arab desert 1400 years ago and evacative of barbaric invasion of arabs to our homeland and massacre of our people by Khalid ibn Walid and Sad ibn Vagas. During their invasion they keep referring to "allah" will help them to defeat Persians. We have a beautiful word for creator in Farsi. It is PARVADEGAR.

On the contrary, Shah has been evacative of Persian empire and our great civilalization in the course of history.

Some people come on this site just whining without presenting any plan or presenting anything to save our people from this current disaster. Just whining.

               OUR GOAL: RESTORING MONARCHY

Aryo:Right to rule?

by aynak on Tue Jan 31, 2012 09:54 AM PST

 

Dear Aryo, whatever the history (and we know for instance the British Monarchy has no semblence of Iranian Monarchy as the former has historically come as a result of acceptance of big landlords, with full respect of ownership, where as Monarchy in Iran, (with the exception of Reza Shah), has been the overwhelming force and domination of one tribe/ethinic group over the greater land we call Iran.   So the simple thing to bear in mind, is at a minimum, in those European countries that do have monarchy, it has *WORKED* the past 100 years, and where it hasn't like Germany or France it has been changed for good.

In the case of Iran, our problem has really been concerntration of power in the hands of few.   The answer to that is really decentralization and the *limitation* of power in the hands of small group.

You write two contradictory paragraphs, both flawed:

-- you and I really believe in what we are advocating and hence are able
to get enough vote then who cares what RP or his followers call him.
Also if we realty believe in what we preach and we are true advocates of
democracy we could not and should not try to force another group out of
the race just because they have more votes and followers and we would
not be able to compete. Wasn’t that what IRI did only two years ago?--

I am not forcing anyone out of a race.   I am expressing an opinion that given that a single person rule in Iran has historically shown its destructive nature, anyone proclaiming to be for democracy and citizens rights can not be calling himself a "Shah-Zadeh" and wanting for people to vote __ONCE__ to elect him for ever, and here is the contradictory part:

you write:

"In reality however the decision on type of government is not something
that a nation needs to make in regular basis and every 5 years."

So in one referendum we will again decide for the next 50 years who to screw us?

I will ask one more time this time in English:

What service can NOT Reza Pahlavi as a regular citizen of Iran who is well known provide that his royal highness Prince Reza Pahlavi can?

Unfortunately you also seem to be confused about meaning of democracy:   Electing a Monarchy is an OXYMORON.   It does not matter if Spain did it for whatever reason (and they still have not resolved the Basque separatist issues due to his presence), and I hope to leave yo with a simple question to ponder:

What if we had a referendum and the result was 60% for Monarchy and 40% against?   What type of mandate would that royalty have?

 

 

 

 

نمیدونستم الهه بقراط در انگلیس زندگی‌ میکنه!!!!

anglophile
Tue Jan 31, 2012 09:39 AM PST

داشتم افاضات بعضی‌ دوستان رو می‌خوندم که به این قسمت از الفاظ گهربار "عینک" رسیدم:

 

 

برعکس خانم بقراط شما از نفس مشروطه بی  خبرید که در انگلیس زندگی می کنید و

نقش پارلمان را در کلیه امور می بینید، و نقش --تشریفاتی-- سلطنت را هم،،

همینگونه، ولی کماکان از ارتباط تصیم گیری گروهی برای اداره دولت عاجز

هستید. 

 

فکر می‌کنم شماره عینک باید عوض بشه گمانم آستیگمات شده!

 

 

 

//fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%87_%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B7

VPK jaan: You ought to realize that…

by Bavafa on Tue Jan 31, 2012 08:53 AM PST

Not all of RP supporters have the same manner of logic and civility in their discussion and this notion is not limited to IC members.   Have you watched any of the pro monarchy TV programs that airs from LA?

  And perhaps I should have clarified my message by saying pro monarchy supporters  instead of RP supporters.  My point certainly was not at those supporters RP or Monarchy in general that are able to carry a civil and democratic-like discussion and their aim is at uniting opposition.

 

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

Hypocrisy vs damagogy!

by Arj on Tue Jan 31, 2012 09:15 AM PST

There are two types of Pahlavi supporters: one that frankly dismiss democracy and argue for necessity of a "benevolent dictatorship" and rule of the iron fist to "modernize," which are the more honest of the two and are often referrred to as Shahollahis! The other gruop (that come across as clueless at best, and  hypocrits at worst) however, try to defend the Pahlavi dynasty without entirely dismissing the notion of democracy. Hence, dancing around the notion of modernity (sans political development) and its "pre-eminince" over democracy -- as if the two are separate entities, let alone mutually exclusive! E. Boghrat has thus far seemed to be of the second group! Nonetheless, by such attempts at rewriting history and her trying to pass the Pahlavis as the legitimate heirs of Constitutional revolution, as she does above without having the authority to make a stance in that regard, she now comes across as a full-fledged demagogue!

Ms. Boghrat has been (duly) decrying the gross breach of human rights and lack of freedom under IRI for decades, alas to only defend the same breaches of human rights under Pahlavis as "fighting the black and red threats" (whatever that's supposed to mean!) and under the pretext of modernizing and defending women's rights! In other words, even in the wake of the "Arab Spring" -- in which Arabs, whose most modern social institutions are at best decades behind those of Iran, unequivocally rejected such authoritarian "modernizations" and "women's suffrage" that were forced from above under the Iron Fist of an autocrat -- Ms. Boghrat still insists on righteiousness of such failed, authoritarian reform attempts which without preparing the necessary socio-political infrastructures (i.e. a viable political system and functional civil society) were doomed to fail from the start! interestingly, while hastily alluding to the notion of cause and effect, Ms. Boghrat counts Pahlavis' authoritarian rule as oppsed to the constitutional role they were expected to play, as "a mistake" without examining it in the context of "cause and effect" that she throws in for no apparent reason! Not to mention in her attempts at vindicating Pahlavis, she also tries hard to pass IR (a de-facto monarchy in which the "president" is indeed to VF what prime minister was to Shah) as the epitome of a republican system! 

In the end, IMO, it's imperative on all of us with the slightest concern for the democratic future of Iran to condemn all acts of breaching of human and civil rights of our citizens, be it under the guise of modernization or in the name pf Allah! Only then can we define ourselves as a viable alternative to the tragedy we have going as a system under the current regime! For as a political alternative (with or without RP) we alienate those groups who are/were disenfranchised by our support of an undemocratic entity!  If for any reason -- that is in most part emotional attachments -- we try to justify the breach of our nation's basic rights under any circumstance, we are doomed to be ruled by the iron fist! The shape and nature of the glove may make a little difference but not significantly!