Sic Semper Tyrannis

astute & concise observation Ari

I think short of pre renaissance theocratic rule of middle ages in Europe, nothing can be compared to the IRR asfal ol safelin. They are something to behold:

One day khomeini went to Tehran zoo just as it was closing. Khomeini said that's ok, I'm not in a rush to see the animals so I'll come back tomorrow. The zoo keeper said; Ya emam I have to keep the zoo open or the animals will stampede. They have heard about you and are excited. They won't wait until tomorrow to see you. 

OKtaby

Anonymous Observer

Ari Jaan

Now clergy is on its own, dependent for survival on Iran's quarrels with outsiders.

I agree, and have been saying so for a while.  IRI needs war and conflict to survive, and that is why it quietly stirs up trouble. 

DK

Very interesting observation here:

That is why basically eversince the 18th century most Monarchies actually evolved much faster towards a democratic forms of government than Presidential Republics which emerged from Revolutions and where any wannabe PResident would become dictator for life.

A look at all the South American Dictatorships in the 70's or at nearly All the Middle Eastern States today with the exception of Isreal ( an Imported Democracy ) have all established Presidential dictatorial dynasties. Often a Military General or officer would do a Coup and then put on Civil Clothes and declare himself President.

Very well said.  Examples:  Spain, England, Denmark, etc. 

Absolutism

Monarchy or Republic are not the issue here what is really at the heart of this issue is the Absolutism be it Islamic Republic or Royal Monarchy government. Absolutism it has its roots in our history and culture, we are not alone in the area with that same disease. We easily accept and bow to the absolute rulers. We must shed from our nation’s psyche the cultural of oppressiveness (Farhangh-e Estebdaadi) otherwise we end up were we are now. Sag Zard Baraadar-e Shoghaal!

dariushabadi, benrosss & vildemose

I will summarize my response to all three of you.  Hopefully, it will make sense.  First, I see the VF system as a hereditary system.  As vildemose correctly points out, the "election" process, just like the concept of VF itself, is a farce.  At the time, Khomeini died, Montazeri was supposedly the most qualified candidate for the VF position.  But as it has been written and explored by many observers and writers, and as it is backed up by evidence, Khomeini opposed that appointment, and instead handpicked Khamenei, who was not even an Ayatollah at the time, to replace him in the position of VF.  And then, the handpicked "Assembly of Experts" (see vildemose's comments) rubber stamped that selection.  So, how is that not a "hereditary" system?  Just because an authoritarian succession is not by bloodline, it does not take away is hereditary nature.

But let's even say that there is some sort of a process by which VF is "elected" by some sort of a totally neutral body.  The end result, nonetheless, is a monarch.  You will have one person who will have every power that a monarch has and who occupies the position for life without any oversight whatsoever...an absolute ruler.   How is that any different than a king?

Very interesting subject

Will be back to comment.  In the meantime, welcome back our dear Captain Ayhab under your new username "Darveesh".  Gee, the least you could do is change the way you try to belittle people!

And "Sargord": funny that a despicable regime supporter calls others "anti-Iran".  You should try comedy. 

Shah-clergy a real internal dynamic

Au contraire Mon Cher ... ( Regarding Heriditary Notion )

In my opinion The Hereditary Nature makes the Monarchy precisely Less subject to dictatorship and more flexible.

I could explain in more detail but it's too late for me on this side of the atlantic to brainstorm.

But very briefly ... 

MAinly because the Monarchy is Not Cult Ridden but rather is Oligarchy Ridden.

As such if the King's Son is ill or unfit to reign they look for another family member, either immediate ( like son or daughter) or distant family like cousins brother or sister etc ...

So the relationship between the Monarch and his subjects often relies on an emotional and sentimental bond. One can deem this entirely artificial but one cannot deny it's reality. In Great Britain this emotional bond endures thanks to Public Relations, Charity duties and State Publicity. In Absolute Monarchies this Publicity is simply called Propaganda.

Whatever the means the Result is the same. What ties the nation to it's Royal Family is an emotional bond. Whether everyone believes in it or not is irrelevent, what matters is if they pretend it exists and as long as the Status quo is not turned upside down by Revolution, society maintains it as a "natural" concept of national unity which you are not to question or insult because it is deemed as undissociatable from the national Flag. 

That is why basically eversince the 18th century most Monarchies actually evolved much faster towards a democratic forms of government than Presidential Republics which emerged from Revolutions and where any wannabe PResident would become dictator for life.

A look at all the South American Dictatorships in the 70's or at nearly All the Middle Eastern States today with the exception of Isreal ( an Imported Democracy ) have all established Presidential dictatorial dynasties. Often a Military General or officer would do a Coup and then put on Civil Clothes and declare himself President.

In the past Whether Right Wing like Peron in Argentins, Pinochet in Chili, or Left Wing with Fidel Castro in Cuba, Nasser in Egypt etc ... 

Today in Egypt with the Mobaraks, Syria with the Assad's, Tunisia with Ben Ali or Lybia with Quaddaffi and his son ...

In comparison Jordan or Morrocco are authoritive monarchies but appear far more progressive in comparison. The King of Morrocco for instance pays taxes like the Queen of England.

One can find exceptions to the rule but in the case of the Middle East most Republics have been dissappointingly led to dictatorships of the worst kind: Saddam in Iraq or Khomeiny in IRan were far from a Step closer to democracy than their predecessors. On the contrary it Backfired to the Worst Effect.

pictory: Shah of Iran Greets Crown Prince of Iraq (1949)

My Humble Opinion, Shab Khosh !

DK

baba monarchy good, but dead, lets move on

shah said something of some value 30 some odds years ago -- maybe---.

queen of england in so  and such

king of spain is such and so

king of jordan......... well he is a king --- hehehe----

any king else?

any queen else----?

move along kids, life has passed you over and you are still in 50 years ago.

This how Khamenei was

This how Khamenei was Elected as Supreme leader of IRAN
//www.videonewslive.com/view/355977/this_how_khamenei_was_elected_as_supreme_leader_of_iran

A bunch of humming, oohing and aaahing, followed by fake protestations and false humility and what they call "an election". I've seen more earnest debate when schoolgirls choose a head cheerleader.
Assembly of experts my foot...

The Iranian Constitution is

The Iranian Constitution is a roadmap in which all roads lead to the Supreme Leader. It is a closed loope.

Elections for the Assembly of Experts are a rare occurrence — they are held every eight years and with minor pomp. As with other "elected bodies", all candidates must be approved by the "Guardian Council", with the additional requirement that they must also prove their mastery of Islamic law and jurisprudence. Very few fit the bill, even though the theological standards have been lowered a few times.

Who appoints the Guardian council? The Supreme Leader...lol

Iran supreme leader  The Iranian Constitution is a roadmap in which all roads lead to the Supreme Leader. He exercises control over all branches of the government and every division of the armed forces. He is appointed to the position for life, and his power is tied to age-old traditions of leadership in Shiite Islam. And yet, a single constitutional body can theoretically exercise ultimate power over the position of the Leader. That body is the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member council trusted with the responsibility to elect, and even dismiss, the Supreme Leader. Elections for the Assembly of Experts are a rare occurrence — they are held every eight years and with minor pomp. As with other elected bodies, all candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council, with the additional requirement that they must also prove their mastery of Islamic law and jurisprudence. Very few fit the bill, even though the theological standards have been lowered a few times. Both Rafsanjani and Mesbah Yazdi tried to get as many loyal candidates as they could into the Assembly. When the results were announced, it seemed that victory was with the so-called “pragmatic” camp associated with Rafsanjani.  Rafsanjani’s success was confirmed a year later when Ayatollah Meshkini, the elderly, de-facto chairman of the Assembly passed away, and Rafsanjani nominated himself for the position. Mesbah nominated himself as well, but then withdrew in favor of Jannati, a more popular cleric who is also the head of the Guardian Council. Out of the 80 votes cast, Rafsanjani won 46, thus becoming the chairman. When the Assembly held its next board election two years later, Rafsanjani performed even better, gaining 51 votes, while two members abstained.

In many ways it is not

Velayat faghih, the way we know it, was invented by Khomeini. According to Abrahamian research, prior to Khomeini it was a term used for taking guardianship (Velayat) of orphans and widows and generally those in need, by local head of clergy.

But monarchy is what Iran had for as long as the identity of Iran is defined... and still has it. You have a valid point about the hoopla. But the real issue I think is that how misrably Khomeini failed to replace monarchy by velayat faghih. How misrably he failed replace a part of our Iranian identity by an islamic identity.

I guess this blog speaks for itself.

The issue of freedom and democracy, is an issue of modernity (rejected by Islamic revolution) and has nothing to do with monarchy or republic.

monarchy is hereditary, VF is NOT

When Khamenei passes away, his son does NOT become Rahbar.

Instead the Assembly of Experts (which are directly voted in by the people ever 6 years) appoint the next Supreme Leader.

Shah needed a male heir. Khamenei does not. And the institution allows for multiple faqihs in shurayeh fuqahaa (council of the jurists).

So don't tell me they are the same institution. Shah was a complete dictator, Khamenei barely makes decrees, it is parliament, guardian council, etc. that makes laws.

And don't tell me Guardian Council is unelected -- it has 12 members, 6 of them are appointed by PARLIAMENT (that is elected by people) and 6 members from the supreme leader. Supreme Leader itself is indirectly elected by Assembly of Experts, who is voted in by the people.

Most of you do not how the system is structured, you still think in terms of Shah's regime. 

...

خدا نگهدار هر چی ادم میهن پرست باشد با امید ازادی ایران زمین

A VF does not Open Parliament ...

A Monarch ( Absolute or Not) Does ... It is a Royal Prerogative in all Monarchies Constitutional Or Not ! 

Queen of England Elizabeth II Open's Parliament:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRhWZ9RNn2s&feature=channel

The Shah's Speech To Iran's Parliament (Part I):

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5yJ6UMMJrA

Interesting debate will answer more thoroughly if I have time ...

Shah good, only if he was alive

happy now? lets move on to present time shall we?

Here is one

The succession in Monarchy is organized orderly and handed down when the sovereign dies.  In Velayat, the many sons of the SOB will quarrel amongst each other, and then kill the Velayat himself to take over the reign.  Just like how Islam taught them to do.  In the process they will destroy a Nation to gain the seat.  

COP

Absolutely.  You're right on point!

PS- With the "desert" being the clusterf##k that Iran has become.   

AO Jon

In that case Iran went from a secular monarchy to a religious monarchy - Pretty much the only difference then, is in the "dressing", no pun intended.

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Divaneh & COP

Thank you my friends.  

COP Jaan:  Let's keep the focus on VF himself, and the utter failure of the 1979 devolution to bring about a change from monarchy to a democratic system.  We all know what mess the IRI has created of everything in Iran.  We know how everything from social freedoms to the economy to the military, etc. were a million times better under the Shah.  But when it comes to the structure of the IRI, i.e., the basic thing for which the devolution took place (changing the monarchical system of government) no such thing ever happened.  The end result was the appointment of another king.

And as far as anti-Iran, here's what anti-Iran is:

//iranian.com/main/blog/anonymous-observer/who-anti-iran 

Of course there's a difference

but the Islamic Regimes supporters cannot and will not fess up to it.

I will only state one of many:

1978: $1 = 7 Tomans

2010: 1$ = 1000 Tomans (actually a lot more than 1K toman)

And don't tell me it's because of sanctions - whose idiotic policies have forced the sanctions on Iran and her people??????????? 

Sargord Baazandeh: Anti-Iran are those who act as the mouthpiece for the anti Iran occupying regime in Iran now: be it the so called refromists, or otherwise.

As for my islamophobic - but realistic - rant of the day:

Islam and JUST governance are like oil and water; just ask the people along the Gulf Coast and soon the entire freaking plant if oil and water are compatible.

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

There are some differences

Well, I can think of a few,

VF does not wear a crown.

VF does not associate with the history of the country.

Monarchy does not tell you how to enter a toilet.

Monarchy kills in the name of country and VF kills in the name of god. 

You see Sarkar Barandeh, its not difficult to find some differences without attacking the messenger, even if they are superficial like mine.

HG and MM

HG--I did look at NIAC's blog.  You're right.  How funny and interesting.  And forget the "sarjookheh".  His favorite baseball team probably just lost and he's here to blow off steam.

MM- I agree.  The IRI is Shah's monarchy (a million times worst in its brutality) without Shah's sense of nationalism and without peopel's social freedoms.   

Mehrdad

Good point, and thanks for being fair.  "sargord" has yet to give us the differences.  Don't hold your breath for a response, though.  His comment was just a "drive by".  

political freedoms vs. social freedoms in two eras

While agreeing with AO, FVI and sorta with Mehrdad(!), there is one big difference overall:

During Monarchy, Iranians did not have political freedoms, but had plenty of social freedoms.  After 1979, Iranians not only did not gain political freedoms, but lost any social freedoms that had been gained for years beforehand.  That includes the discriminatory practices against women, minorities and other religions that have become so common in Iran now.

مشاهد ناشناس

عقدهٔ روحی که ولایت فقیه و طرفدارانش دربارهٔ فلسطین و اسرائیل دارند.  این راز بقای این دولته (البته بعد از خشونت). مگه نمیدونستی؟  باید یه سرباز قلابی‌ نیم ایرونی که شش سالگی از ایران اومده این رو بهت بگه.  وقت کردی وبسایت "نیاک" رو ببین (قسمت بلاگ)، ناظرین این بلاگ‌ها همیشه به نظر میاد فقط دو نفرند، یکی‌ "قندلی" همین سایت و یکی‌ دیگه به نام "ایرانی‌ امریکایی" (مثلا به قول امریکایی‌ها "گود کاپ، بد کاپ").

Sargord,

I believe that there are a few on IC that often skip the content of a message and go directly to attack the messenger and I have read of the same complaint from you many times.

Here you are doing exact same thing. Your claim of many difference are not supported by any facts, examples or reasoning but going on attack to the writer for his beliefs.

Lets hear it, beside superficial & ceremonial type changes between the two systems what has changed for the average Iranian in respect to quality of life, freedom, etc. And what has changed for Iran as a nation? Are we any more sovereign, respected or self sufficient?

Heck I am not a monarchist by a long shot but can not deny the fact Iran & Iranians were better off by a long shot under the dictatorial Shah then under the current dictatorial regime.

Mehrdad

Free

I agree with everything you say.  Read my comment below.  The atrocities committed by the IRI pales in comparison to what any king in modern Iranian history has done.  

which king?

Are we talking about pahlavi?

pahlavi did not force the women to live with 6th century era.

pahlavi did not brain wash kids to be terrorist.

pahlavi did not force you to join the rasta kheez party to live your life.

pahlavi did not order to rape,imprison,and etc

did not attacked your home and arrested you and beat you.

pahlavi did not supported the terrorist.

pahalvi only defending country against soviet and fanatic islamist.

no king or any one in our history has killed as many as this islamic regime.