A question to people that want democracy for Iran?


by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

I find too many Iranians living in the west are solely influenced by western propaganda, which I define as media being produced by the UK/Israel/France/Germany/USA and their junior affiliates, Poland, Italy, Spain etc.

Look at the information we know for sure...

Iran used to give loans in the Billions to Germany, USA, UK, France during Shahs time. Iran could not spend the wealth it was creating quickly enough, it was cash rich.

Those same countries, western democracies, portrayed the shah a despot, crook, tyrant, megalomaiNIAC, corrupt etc, etc, etc.

So the same Iran and Shah they could not hold back economically or rob, by using manipulation, deceit and coercion they destroyed. The style of effective Propaganda was specifically designed for Iranians and their village gossip way of dealing with life.

What is clear is the Shah would not sign off on corruption and never accepted a No as far as technology or development for Iranians by any nation.

Today these same countries USA/Germany/France/UK with the IMF give loans/debt to democratic goverments they have can have a big influence on, and their leaders are not called corrupt megalomaniacs, but great countries... what a joke..

Look at the level of debt their democratic governments have incurred.

Greece "$485 Billion Dollars"

Ireland "$1,045 Billion Dollars"

Spain "$1,100 Billion Dollars"

Italy "$1,100 Billion Dollars"

And Iranians want to pursue a DEMOCRATIC future.... what a dirty , even perverse joke in comparison to what Ira was honestly during the time of the late shah, today we see arguments are won with out right lies. So you don't have the ability to choose based on the truth. You can only choose based on deceit and manipulation. Is that what you think will serve Iranians?

It is no wonder these countries and their leaders are not called despotic tyranies, even when we know they participated in secret torture chambers by of the CIA. Is this the type of free worlds mass media we want for Iran? These periferal countries do not serve their own people but serve the USA/Germany/France/UK, all nuclear super powers. During the Shahs time Iran was poised to overtake all of these countries except for the USA economically speaking.

No wonder the USA and it's partners wanted the IRI for Iran and now lead Iranians to seeking more democracy for IRAN. Democracy is code for control and foreign domination. As Russia discovered under Yeltsin, which is why the russian secret service brought Putin and now yet again the so called free world media is used to attack putin "saying he is corrupt" but the truth is the exact opposite as we can see from russia's success.

Iranians used to chant Freedom, Independence, Islamic Republic, clearly we were independent and free, it was those things that the west stole from us by removing the Shah at our own deceived hands. It was exactly because we had a king that was involved in politics upto the neck that Iran did not suffer the same fate as all these countries and Iran under the shah served Iranians and was independent. It was progressing because he served honestly and without corruption, unfortunately the Iranian people due to disingenuous reporting on issues of human rights stopped trusting the Shah.

My view based on what information I have is Iran needs a Shah that should have his hands in politics and that we leave Irans politics to polticians seeking power at our own peril. That is assuming we are serious on how to make Iran a Champion leading country, like it was under the Shah.

Those that want a multi-party system without an arbitror like the Shah are talikng based on what information. Shouldn't responsible people look at both sides of the equation, not just what it is that Iranians say they want, but also looking at what that desire will create in reality. Isn't it dangerous to ignore key information, regarding what a democracy will really give birth to in Iran.

I strongly doubt a parliamentary democracy like the UK will create a leading country, a winning country, a country rich in splendour like Iran was in the late 60's and early 70's, especially because that is the easiest way to be dominated, when strong democratic institutions do not exist. I feel people don't have information and are influenced by propaganda make stupid decisions. Sadly they put their lives behind those decisions. But I'd like other knowledge and expertise on this subject of restoring freedom and justice for Iranians.

Here is a great video on the extent of corruption and domination in the democracies some of us want to become like.


Recently by amirparvizforsecularmonarchyCommentsDate
The Wests Mission Accomplished in Iran, Iraq and Libya. Now Syria. Part 2. (4 parts)
Nov 29, 2012
Nov 22, 2012
Let Us Unite, With Humanity.
Nov 10, 2012
more from amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

VPK that makes some sense.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

but it pushes us back towards relying more on a democratic formula which is fundamentally not going to work with worlds games.

people follow the royal concept and the patriotic concept,

as for current king, in practice he really can do nothing for now, 

sadly he is still making mistakes based on the people he is surrounded with, which was really never the case with his father although his father was criticized for that.



Salman, alimostofi, intelligence services bring power because...

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

they have ability to find and have access to coveted knowledge, coveted info,

Your views are correct in an ideal way, but not in practice for Iran.

So what types of info is it that you don't have or can't use due to personal views that would help you be understanding as to why we needed a shah and why he needed to be up to his eye-balls involved in poltics.  I know many many reasons why this was necessary and is still necessary, but what I don't know is what info you are lacking that can not help you be understanding towards the need for an autocrat for now.

please ask me and I can try and explain my core ideas, knowledge as I try and absorbe your knowledge and intel.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

The problem

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


with autocracy is that you need a good autocrat. If not you get Islamic Republic. Not to mention power gets to peoples head. Then they will get arrogant. Just see what happened to Egypt. 

In addition hereditary systems do not work. In our history we always have the same pattern. You get a Reza Shah who is great; then his son is unable to match him but is still pretty good. And his son's son Reza Pahlavi as much as I hate to say it is just not up to the job. The same with Cyrus who was great but by the time of Khashayar he just was not able to keep it up. Same with Khosrow Anushiravan a great leader. But Khosrow Parviz wrecked Iran and prepared it for the Arab invasion,

So if you do have an autocracy it has to be:

  • Not hereditary.
  • Make sure you get a good one.

Nevertheless you have some good points and make sense. Democracy has been used to put incompetent leaders drunks like Yeltsin. If West did not like the person they will fund the opponent. People like sheep flock to the idiot and that is it.



The culture of Iran is what

by alimostofi on

The culture of Iran is what is most important to us. The disbursement of taxes in social services is also important. Government is about these two processes. Ok I am simplifying but these two areas are where most of the arguments revolve around on. So how do you preserve the culture? The Royal Institution was created to do that. Parliament is there to argue over the way they want taxes spread out putting it in plain English. Now we all know that we can have people in both Parliament and the Royal Institution that are bad. The worst ones do not stay with their job spec, or don't't do their job spec. So you would get Parliament changing the name of Iran, and the King getting political. Right now the King is supposed to lead the march and get Iran back from the Hezbollah, but he is political.

Ali Mostofi



salman farsi

Why do you call it autocratic?

by salman farsi on

If the monarch is acting just as an arbiter with no political power then autocratic is meaningless. If monarch has no political power then why her/she cannot be replaced by an elected president with no power, head of state, while the real power is in the hands of the elected prime minister, heaf of government, like in Israel.


What is wrong with that brother?

 For an Islamic democracy


Monarchy or Parlamentary Democracy

by radius-of-the-persian-cat on

Dear Amir Parviz,   There is not much to contradict from your last post, I have to admit. My yesterdays comment requesting a free society for the iranian people is perhaps a very long term aim. It is nothing that can be guaranteed from the next morning after the ajatollahs are removed from power. My hope that Iran will face a future in Freedom, with same civil rights for everybody and a prosperous economy is shared by the majority of people here. But at the moment, it is like a dream, and even when the green movement overcomes the IRI regime, it will be a long and stony way to get there. In particular, one has to face the problem that all the supporters of IRI, the Basidj, Revolutionary Guards, Pazdaran, Sepah and all the others who currently benefit from the regime, that they might resist a new liberal society. It is hard to tell what it needs to make them loyal to a new, liberal gouvernment, if they loose all their priviliges. In the best case (what I hope) there really might be a peaceful transformation like in post-war germany or the eastern european countries after fall of communism. Here, the former elite lost its influence (theoretically, but in some countries just converted into the new economic players). Ideally, they should face trials, not neccesarrily to punish them, but to clear and document what had happened and what was their function and help them to finding a way into the new society.

In the worst case, the former elite could go in the underground and start an endless fight against the new system. Usually the risk for the later is very high if there is no new identification, just as in Iraq of Afghanistan, where the US-backed Hamid Kazai or el-Maliki are considered puppets of the foreign powers and democracy as we said yesterday just a tool to rule the country from the outside. This is the reason why so many support the Taliban or partisan and sectarian groups there. Nobody respects the new rulers. In particular, if you have a multi-ethnic society with religious and cultural heterogeneity, what is even more pronounced in Iran due to its rich and long history.

There is no way around a strong personality at the top, at least for the first years after the political changes. This personality must be respected by all ethnic groups and must protect minorities and all religious groups equally. And for this I could really follow your idea of a secular monarchy. I agree that a strong Shah would be the best guarantee to unify the country and protect freedom and civil rights for everybody. Otherwise he/she will face again resistance and illoyality from religious leaders, who in Iran like in any other country always believe that they have their own rights and values.

But a modern monarchy simply cannot work like the european courts hundred years ago or the persian empire under Xerxes or Darious, where autocracy was the most efficient form of ruling a country. I think an efficient parlament is essential to give the people the feeling that  the new system works in their own interest rather than in the particular interest of a dynasty. I think there are plenty of examples that a constitutionally monarchy as in skandinavian countries or UK or even Marocco can provide a long term stable society with the best ballance between personal freedom, responsibility for the whole country and certain degree of security. This is what I hope for a future Iran as well.


Autocratic Secular Monarchy

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Does any one feel there is Any reason why an Autocratic Secular Monarchy with an independent multiparty parliament for passing laws and an independent judiciary and independent universities and a free press, can not be a government by the people, of the people and for the people?

The head of state will not be electable, ie the shah or shahbanu, but prime minister and all others would be.  Shah would be an arbitror and could be able to be over ridden by parliaments/peoples will, so it would not be a rubber stamp system.  

Successful Examples in history are Austro-Hungarian System.  Rome from Augustus and 9 generations down.

What are your views?


Radius, that is another point of mine.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

I believe that what people really want is FREEDOM and this is what was stolen from Iranians as a result of the revolution, which is why it was such a true pity it occured. If we as Iranians pursue Democracy, then i believe we will lose our ability to have freedom.

Whereas, if we pursue a secular monarchy, the Institution by virtue of what it can accomplish against foreign domination and their exploitation of political parties in 3rd world countries like ours will unlike a democratic govt help people accomplish freedom.  Just like it existed and was growing every day during the 1970's with the late Shah.

Consider the Voice of America Show funded by the US goverment, Parazit, which at the begining says Azadi, Edalat, Democracy, Barabari, Jameheyeh madani.  I feel that as the US Government tries to popularize the concept of democracy for Iranians a people with no institutions for it, their aim is not to help us restore freedom for Iranians.  Which is a totally different subject.  The USA already undermined freedom from Iranians once before, when will Iranians learn? They are behind and support muslim fundamentalism.  

While I don't agree with alot of what this Journalist Mr Evans has to say, conclusions, I agree that his facts are accurate... //www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpHAe70ohEk .  The truth is it has been US foreign policy to maintainand expand fundamentalism, both parties liberals and republicans.

The goal of all Iranians should be freedom and justice first, this is more easily brought about by a sovereign, than groups of politicians attempting to share power.



Democracy or Secular Monarchy --- people don"t care

by radius-of-the-persian-cat on

Amir, I can understand your argument (resulting from carefully following the international politics) that "democracy" is probably the most often misused term in foreign politics. Whenever one party wants to mask its real intentions, it pretends that it is all for the sake of spreading democracy. (Therefore you find 70% of all the armies and parties involved in brutal civil wars in Africa calling  themself "democratic" or "liberation").

Your suggestion, however, that therefore democracy should be replaced  by secular monarchy as a better option for a future Iran, is not really conclusive (with or without the economic figures you provided). I think that the question of Democracy or Monarchy is very, very far away from what the people really experience in daily life. They usually remember that they have a democratic vote only one every 4 years when they are called to the ellection ballot and a week later see a new face on the news paper presented to them as the new head of gouvernment.

What really matters for people is freedom. This (or its absence)  is something they experience every day. Can they make their own choice how to organize life ?  Can they take the profession they want ? Can they write the books they dream of or play the music they want ? Can they eat and drink what they want, or is there a gouvernment that tells them that whisky is o.k. but canabis is illegal (or the other way around, you know whom I mean).  Can they make the movies they want, or do they have to bury their dreams and creativity, only to satisfy the proponents of a bigot religion ? 

I think there is a certain size limit for replies to others posts, I therefore start a new blog. Click here.

salman farsi

The answer as I said it before is: NO!

by salman farsi on

Hence they need to pass through the stage of Islamic democracy. You never know they may choose to stay in it for good :)

 For an Islamic democracy




 من با شما موافقم که بجای کلی‌ گویی و کلمات قشنگ مثل دموکراسی‌  ،آزادی، جمهوری، و یا جمهوری دمکراتیک، باید واقع بین بود. اکثر ما ایرانیها هنوز یاد نگرفته ایم که حرف دیگران را بشنویم و بهترین آنرا انتخاب کنیم، و مصلحت کلّ جامعه را بر مصلحت شخصی‌ ترجیع دهیم. تجربه ایجاد جمهوری در کشور‌های همسایه مثل پاکستان، افغانستان، عراق نشان داده که موفق نبوده است. ترکیه سابقه طولانی‌تری دارد و نفت هم ندارد، ولی‌ اتیه آنهم معلوم نیست. شاه کمتر از بیست سال داشت وقتی‌ بعد از تبعید پدرش، به سلطنت رسید. در یکی‌ دو دههٔ اول اشتباهاتی کرد، ولی‌ بعدا مثل پدرش، کارهای بسیاری به نفع ایران کرد. دادن حق رای و حقوق مساوی به زنان، تحصیل مجّانی تا سطح عالی‌، مدرنیزه کردن ایران، و غیره، از جمله کارهای این پدر و پسر است. رژیم پادشاهی علاوه بر سابقه چند هزار ساله، نوعی ثبات برای ایران میاورد، ولی‌ باید از تجربه دیگر کشورها مثل انگلیس، سوئد، هلند، اسپانیا، تایلند و غیره، در ایجاد قوانین و مراکزتصمیم گیری استفاده کرد   


Roozbeh, I'm doing fine... I think

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Any views to share on the question?


Sheila the question

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Wanted to know some knowledge, from people that want to pursue democracy
for Iran 1st, on how iran could realistically pursue a democracy first,
with all the issues that make it less than likely to be a happy and
positive outcome, ie
the lack of institutions to bring it about?

Sheila K

I missed the question

by Sheila K on

You should start the writing with your question first. 

Sheila K

I missed the question

by Sheila K on

You should start the writing with your question first. 


As you asked, I actually have something to ask:

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

Are you OK?



by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

also it's clear to me that democracy is disingenuosly pursued by the west in order to dominate countries and solve their own economic problems, rather than make the lives of people better and uphold human rights.

The more time goes by, I realize the late Shah really had nothing to appologize for, one does not appologize for being betrayed, lied to or cheated.  I don't honestly believe he made any major mistakes.  The more we see how the USA functions today and their 'folly de grandeur' in Iraq/Afghanistan makes me wonder what was behind the propaganda they created against the shah.

Human Rights, Democracy, Peace... or War, Hedgemony, NeoColonialism



by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Wanted to know some knowledge, from people that want to pursue democracy for Iran 1st, on how iran could realistically pursue a democracy first, with all the issues that make it less than likely to be a happy and positive outcome, because of who our people are, where they are at and the lack of institutions to bring it about.

The text I wrote, since I am not for democracy first yet, was to highlight in practice what it means as I see it for countries, also to highlight where we honestly were and where we were going and could be again with an autocratic secular monarchy.

Darius Kadivar

amirparvizforsecularmonarchy Can you Repeat the Question ? ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

Valah Bekhoda Amir Jaan but Honestly apart from your excellent Video ( the conclusions of which I totally agree with ) I didn't quite understand the point you were making here ...

But then maybe it's just me ... 



This is Great, It seems no one wants Democracy For Iran 1st

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

I was getting worried.

What with the shah in exile wanting a democracy and people talking about democracy 1st. 

But since no one has anything to say, regarding the question put to people that want democracy for Iran 1st... which was... what knowledge they have regarding pursing democracy 1st for Iran, I am hopeful we are beyond that idea.





Janhanshah you would like to see Iran be a democracy in 1 go?

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

What knowledge do you have regarding your view of pursing democracy 1st for Iran?

How come you Don't agree with people like the late shah, who had access to much more real information than both of us, that it would not serve Iranian peoples interests in the short term as Iran had no capability to create effective institutions to handle a democracy?


1.13 he laughs and says that is a good question

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Key Information flash alert:

Germany/France and UK got all the money they leant to these other countries from the USA at 0.1% interest only, basically free.  The USA loans these core countries the $ to enslave the other countries in debt and in return purchase more from the USA with the profits as well as voting in the UN with the USA 100% of the time on its interests.

Key information #2, the real answer to the question of where they will get the money from to pay for all this is from Manufacturing.  And Sadly for All of us that means not clothes or food or homes, but weapons and starting wars.

The only way they can get out of it is by playing the people of the world that all they care about is democracy, saving lives and human rights, like libya.

So Far the 3 big EU powers have had to order an extra $20 billion in weapons for Libya campaign from USA, also they will have to sell weapons to the rebels in Libya $40 billion, credit is given based on future oil, and local defense industry spending in each country is up by a further $60 billion to themselves and the USA.

It's sick that most people in these democracies are not aware, do not have the info that the only way to get their balance sheets back to positive is via manufacturing that comes from war.

At a cost of $75 million per plane, War is the only way to pay to correct the corruption of theirs.