For the record

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

benross
by benross
08-Mar-2010
 

This is healthy debate in a very unhealthy blog, lamenting the inability to freely trash others in IC. I did not want it to stay there, for a blogger who does not deserve it.

capt_ayhab:

 

Here is what I like to happen:

…

I like to crap on Reza Pahlavi without being called an IR baseeji.

…

benross:

Why? on what ground? about something he said? or just for the heck of it? and if so, doesn't it constitute defamation? it should be illegal in U.S too don't you think?

But I fully understand what you mean. YOU WANT A COMEBACK!

No body. No more room for your crap.

MM:

I tend to agree with you cap

Do not know how, but Shajarian said it best in his video song

ایران ای سرای امید

راه ما، راه حق، راه بهروزیست.

اتحاد، اتحاد، رمز پیروزیست.

Otherwise, your best bet to keep the seat of your pants clean is by the way of poetry on IC, and hope that, even there, the critics are easy on you

benross:

ام‌ام محترم؛

می‌بخشی ام‌ام ولی این راه به جایی نمی‌برد. شاید نان قرض دادن به هر کسی که به رضا پهلوی آشغال می‌پاشد تنها روزنهٔ امید پروژهٔ «جمهوری» بی‌عاقبت شما باشد اما لطفاً آن رازیر شعار فریبندهٔ «اتحاد» پنهان نکنید.

این جماعت از لجن پراکنی بر رضا پهلوی برای خود دکان باز کرده‌اند. دور نرفته‌ام اگر بگویم که پروژهٔ «جمهوری» شما هم، نه بر مبنای یک ارزیابی مستقل و دانشگاهی در مورد آن شکل حکومتی که مناسب ایران است، بلکه بر زمینهٔ همین عقدهٔ قدیمی شکل گرفته است. این عقدهٔ قدیمی اما، هیچ ربطی به دیکتاتوری بودن سنت پادشاهی در ایران ندارد. به این مربوط می‌شود که از قبول گناه در مورد گهی که خورده‌ایم و نظام پادشاهی را در خدمت آخوندها سرنگون کردیم خودداری می‌کنیم. تصادفی نیست که آهنگی هم که از شجریان در مورد «اتحاد» انتخاب کرده‌ای مربوط به زمانی می‌شود که در بزرگداشت انقلاب اسلامی سروده شده بود و مانند شما و همهٔ مردم فریب آخوندها را خورده بود.

اگر این عقده نبود، اگر این انصراف از پذیرش این گناه تاریخی نبود، ترجیح دادن نظام جمهوری بر نظام پادشاهی دموکراتیک یک عقیده بود مانند دیگر عقایدی که می‌تواند وجود داشته باشد و من کمترین حساسیتی به آن ندارم. اما خر نیستم و می‌دانم که در چارچوب کنونی این اولویت تنها برای سرهم بندی کردن حس گناه اجتماعی، سرپوش گذاشتن بر آن، مغلطه بافی از قماش «انقلاب خوب بود ولی منحرف شد» مورد دارد و نه هیچ چیز دیگر.

اشکال ندارد اگر گمان می‌کنید انقلاب خوب بود. اما اگر خوب بود، همان انقلاب اسلامی است که خوب بود و امروز هم سر و مر و گنده بر ایران حاکمیت می‌کند. به رژیم بپیوندید، یا حتی به رفورمیست‌های رژیم بپیوندید و بیش از این آب را گل‌آلود نکنید.

اگر هم سرانجام اعتراف کردیم که اشتباه کردیم، پس بر می‌گردیم سر اول خط. زمانی که یک قانون اساسی مشروطهٔ پادشاهی داشتیم و از آنچه که بود، یا آنطور که به اجرا گذاشته شده بود راضی نبودیم. پس ابتدا آن را به رسمیت می‌شناسیم و سپس در یک فضای آزاد به تغییر و تحول آن، چه جمهوری و چه مشروطه، اقدام خواهیم کرد.

این گفتمان به روشنایی روز است و جایی برای آشغال پراکنی باقی نمی‌گذارد. چه با اتحاد و چه بی اتحاد.

MM:

And, benross's answer is: Let's have a referendum!

For what? ........we will decide later.

what kind of regime? ........trust me, I will work on it after I am given power.

no thanks. We went thru that routine in 1979.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The Phantom Of The Opera:

زمانی که یک قانون اساسی مشروطهٔ پادشاهی داشتیم

تحقیق در ماهیت انقلاب و بحث شیرین چه کسی‌ باید ...ه بخورد بماند

برای وقتی‌ دیگر. این پیشنهاد که بیایید، قانون اساسی‌ مشروطه سلطنتی را

بپذیرید، تا بعدا، سر فرصت، اگر خواستید جمهوریش کنید بر کدام محمل قانونی

و مهمتر از آن پتانسیل اجتماعی استوار است؟

benross:

بماند برای بعد؟

سی سال است که آن را به «بعد» سپرده‌ایم. ورشکستگی اپوزیسیون رژیم اسلامی در تمام این سی‌سال درهمین منشأ دارد. این را آخوندها بهتر از هرکسی می‌دانند. اما در مورد پایگاه اجتماعی این فرایافت، صرفنظر از اینکه خود شخص پادشاه از طرفداران بسیاری برخوردار است، اما پایگاه اجتماعی واقعی آن در همین عنصر نفی نتیجهٔ رفراندم جمهوری اسلامی (همان فریب اجتماعی که اعتراف به آن را من اساسی می‌دانم) و بازگشت به فرایند دموکراتیکی است که مثلاً دورهٔ شاپور بختیار پیش پای ما گذاشته بود. آن دوره با به رسمیت شناختن قانون اساسی مشروطهٔ پادشاهی مشروعیت تاریخی یافته است.

اما در پاسخ به ام‌ام، راستش من نمی‌دانم چه بگویم. من دارم از قانون اساسی مشروطه پادشاهی ایران صحبت می‌کنم. یک سند تاریخی که در همه‌جا در دسترس است و عصارهٔ زنده -با تمام معایبش- از یک جنبش تاریخی اجتماعی برای تجدد است. من بر خلاف شما چیزی را از خودم سرهم بندی نکرده‌ام. این سند را یک تبعیدی سرهم بندی نکرده است. این ثمرهٔ تلاش بزرگترین اندیشمندان و مبارزان تاریخ مشروطیت است. آیا واقعاً شما آن را با چرکنویس خودتان مقایسه می‌کنید؟ من وعدهٔ سر خرمن می‌دهم یا شما؟ من وعدهٔ بازگشت به تاریخ تجدد در ایران را می‌دهم. فرایندی که در ادامهٔ خود، در آزادی و در پیشگاه مردم، می‌تواند قانون اساسی جدیدی را تدوین نماید. این وعدهٔ سر خرمن است؟

اما اگر این به اندازهٔ کافی برای شما روشن نیست، این را اضافه می‌کنم که رژیمی که من به شما وعده می‌دهم (نه من، بلکه تاریخ) رژیم مبتنی بر قانون اساسی مشروطهٔ پادشاهی است، و پروژهٔ سیاسی که برای آن قائل هستم تدارک یک مجلس مؤسسان برای تدوین قانون اساسی جدید ایران است. شما هم آنگاه چرکنویس خود را به پیشگاه مردم عرضه کنید.

MM:

جناب آقای بن راس،

با اینکه اون سند تاریخی شما بهتر از جمحوری اسلامی است، ولی در حقیقت مردم بر زد آن سند تاریخی به خیابان ریختند.

تا موقعی که آن سند تاریخی شما از آزار روحانیون و شاه در مقابل مردم دفاع نکند آن سند تاریخی شما ارزش کاغذی را دارد که روش چاپ شده است.

لطفئا به مردم بگویید که این دفعه، چطور سند تاریخی شما حق مردم را حفظ خواهد کرد و بعد ....

benross:

ام‌ام محترم، اگر بحث بر سر نوشته‌های «سند» بود و نه آن چیزی که از نظر تاریخی نمایندگی می‌کند، این بحث موردی نمی‌داشت. شما اگر در رفراندم بر علیه آن رأی داده‌اید، به هرکاری که مشغولید ادامه دهید. اما لطفاً از جانب مردم سخن نگویید. مردم، تک تک آنها، وضع و حال خود را با عملکرد خود در رفراندم رژیم اسلامی مقایسه می‌کنند و خودشان از کارکرد خودشان نتیجه می‌گیرند. برداشت من این است که اکثریت قاطع آنان چنین نتیجه گرفته اند که فریب خورده‌اند. شما اگر می‌خواهید از آن فریب برای خود اعتبار درست کنید، اختیار خود را دارید. اما مردم به صرف اینکه شما از سوی آنها در مورد نقش تاریخی رفراندم تعبیر و تفسیر می‌کنید به سوی شما نخواهند آمد. آنها خوب می‌دانند که فریب خوده‌اند و هرکس می‌خواهد بر مبنای آن فریب برای خود دکان باز کند بی‌اعتبار می‌شود.

ضمناً جای تعجب است که حتی کسانی که شما برایشان عجولانه تعارف تکه پاره می‌کنید، منجمله همین کاپیتان ویروس زده، اقبال این را نداشته‌اند که فعالانه از قانون اساسی شما هواداری کنند و به دورش جمع شوند. ترجیح داده‌اند که به ایرانیان دات کام بازگردند تا به لجن‌پراکنی های دیرآشنای خود ادامه دهند!

MM:

So, your answer is to go back to the old system without any laws that safeguard against the abuses that provoked the people to rebel, to begin with? Again, this is like the Islamist IRI saying that; hey look, we have a much better system than Cambodia's PotPol regime, therefore we should stay with IRI.

All I asked you, before referendum amongst systems, is remove the provisions that gave powers of abuse whether to the clergy or the Shah, and you say; let's go back to the old system, as is. Sorry, my answer is no, as many others.

benross:

So, your answer is to go back to the old system

Yes it is. And of-course to prepare a constituent assembly.

And the laws to safeguard the abuse were there. They were not followed, or followed with different interpretation. Do you really think putting articles in your constitution, typing it with bold face, and underlining it 3 times, will stop individuals to interpret them differently or ignore them totally?!

BTW, which article in the monarchy constitution you didn't like, that prompted you to vote against it in the referendum, and which article in Islamic laws you liked that you voted for it? honest?

You have no way other than putting the whole issue in historical context, and the regrets that followed afterward. There is no point in arguing about this or that article. If you think it is, you are delusional. People are not.

But I'm sure you can gather people who think like you as you did before. It won't amount to anything if you evaluate your progress so far. Even devoted anti-monarchists in this site didn't come to rescue. Because it is based on a sense of self satisfying guilt ridden stubburness that I DID THE RIGHT THING OVERTHROWING THE OLD REGIME. I DON'T FEEL GUILTY.

You had your chance to tell Shpoor Bakhtiar, what you want from the constitution. I'm giving you another one.

Bavafa:

Cap; I totally agree and think it is a shame that how a few create such division among us by provoking each other to resort to labeling each other or be force to defend a situation that does not exist.

MM; See we have lots more in agreement then otherwise. I totally agree with your comment here.

benross:

جمع دوستان طبق معمول جمع است!

شما که جمعتان جمع است، چرا بخاری بر نمی خیزد؟ این گناه من است یا وجدان گناهکار خودتان؟ به ام‌ام لطفاً توضیح دهید که برای پروژهٔ قانون اساسی‌اش چه فعالیت‌هایی داشته اید و چگونه صدای خود را به داخل کشور رسانده‌اید.

این را می‌گویم زیرا می‌دانم که از بحث کردن در مورد پروژهٔ سیاسی پیشنهادی من آگاهانه طفره خواهید رفت همانگونه که تاکنون رفته‌اید. اما زنگ تفریح به پایان رسیده است.

MM:

Hi Mehrdad - benross is set in his thinking

We had similar arguements with benross in a different blog on concepts of separation of church and state as well as the charter of human rights. After living here in the west for so long (!), benross had a very hard time grasping those prinicples too, and he was telling us that they were impossible to achieve in Iran.

He just wants everyone to forget what has happened in the last 31 yerars and go back to 1977-1978 years. I have to agree that would not be bad compared to now, but he must realize that back in those days there were no political freedoms, but plenty of social freedoms, whereas now Iran has neither political freedoms nor social freedoms. And, people want both.

MM:

benross - David ET has summarized the abusive parts for you

Dear benross,

The way to shift the power of decision-making from one person to a committee or majlis is to write it down, educate people, have a referendum to give it legitimicy and have the army/police/officials swear allegiance to the people and the constitution instead of the Shah or VF.

BTW, by the time the referendum came about, I was out of there because I saw the writing on the wall. Here are the sections from your historic constitution that are abusive from the Shah or the clergy respective, as summarized by David ET.

We can dig up more if you wish.

.................................................

IRAN CONSTITUTIONS: From Islamic Monarchy to Republic! (I & II)

//iranian.com/main/blog/david-et/iran-con...

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan:

Going back to 31 years ago is impossible. For one thing we don't 'have a time machine. If I could I would and by all means I rather have had the Shah or Bakhtiar than Khomeini. I have no guilt since I did not participate in the revolution and did not vote for the IRI. I was opposed to the revolution and was one of those who did not support the revolution from the first day. So I feel quite validated unfortunately. I did not trust Islamists then and I dont trust them now.

It is a different time now. The Shah is gone and RP has not got a very strong following. If we do get the upper hand we may as well go for the Secular Democrary. As for a referundum we better know what is in it before we go that way. Remember that the previous one brought us the hell of Islamic Republic and Khomeini's insanity.

benross:

Dear MM,

You can not, by stating the obvious, simply achieve a political project. I learned from my living in the west much more than you think. Not only about democratic structure of the society but way beyond it, about how to implement it in Iran. Unlike you, I didn't stop at copy catting some written statements in a constitution. I looked at it live, as it was functioning. And I observed how people interact with democratic structure and how they improve it. But I don't talk about these things, because we have not reached an stage where these issues are prevalent in our society. It has to be discussed in front of Iranian people, in total freedom. And we are not there yet. You want assurance that religion and state are separate, I can give you assurance as much as Shapoor Bakhtiar could. Isn't that enough?

You want the assurance that freedom is totally respected? I can give you assurance as much as Shpoor Bakhtiar could. Isn't that enough? And he did it, not necessarily as a monarchist, but as a constitutionalist, within the constitution that existed and is still the only legitimate constitution. What more do you want?

Now, that freedom, based on that constitution, has led the society to a deep crisis, several time in its history, in which the government of Bakhtiar was only the final one. The problem with the constitution is not that it is not giving enough freedom. Something that you might want to rectify in a made-up republican constitution. The problem is within the society to digest a stable democratic process. This issue can not be addressed by writing some clauses of a constitution in bold face. It can only be resolved in an open discussion within society in which, you, with your constitution draft, have something to contribute. But do you have access to a free Iran to share your ideas with people? Do you?

I'm showing you how to get there. With a referendum and reinstating the only legitimate constitution of Iranian history. Your problem is not with my project. You fully understand what it's all about. Your problem is dealing with your historic guilt. Deal with it.

MM:

benross - do not put a guilt-trip on me

Do not get uptight and cool your temper just because you are running out of rational arguements. And, Pleeeease, do not put a guilt-trip on me. I did not participate in the 1979 referendum because I did not like the way it was framed. I guess my only regret is for the people of Iran who lived under dictatorships in one way or another, and also wishing that some of my loved ones were still with me.

I already told you how we would frame the circumstances to get rid of dictatorships. Now, you tell us how you would guarantee that we will go back to the old dictatorship days and Islamic committees.

If you say you like the old ways, then goooooood luck and there is no give and take.

benross:

MM

As long as there is no confusion, feel free to do whatever you want. Keep me posted about your republican project. I'm sure all these monarchy haters in IC will advance your cause as they massively did so far.

30 years ago, there was a referendum between Islamic republic and monarchic constitution. The issue has not changed a bit since. For 30 years we didn't deal with it and as long as we don't deal with it, IRI stays. Guaranteed.

I thank you for your participation in this discussion. Many read this blog and things got clarified for many.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by benrossCommentsDate
پروژهٔ تجدد و مبارزهٔ ما
7
Jun 15, 2010
On territorial integrity
8
Jan 31, 2010
رضا پهلوی و جنبش نوین ملی ایران
5
Oct 04, 2009
more from benross
 
MM

my comments are clear - nothing to say to benross's RE-POSTS

by MM on Mon Mar 08, 2010 08:28 AM PST

Thanks DK,

At least we have been able to argue, agree on some points and then agree to disagree in others. 


  •  
Darius Kadivar

1906 Constitution: RP2 and Bakhtiar Speaches Vs Khatami

by Darius Kadivar on Mon Mar 08, 2010 07:50 AM PST

Shapour Bakhtiar's Last Public Speach on the anniversary of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution and his blueprint for Regime Change:

14 khordad 1368 (5 august 1989) in Hamburg:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNBFTWXz5_Q

Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi speach on the anniversary of the Constitutional Revolution (2009) :

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

and Khatami's Take in regard to the Islamic Republic and It's Constitution :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0f1A9XypkI 

 


  •  
Darius Kadivar

Answer to VPK ...

by Darius Kadivar on Mon Mar 08, 2010 07:39 AM PST

In response to Darius jan from the capt's blog: 

I hear you VPK Jaan,

Agreed !

One of the reasons why I say a modern and democratic Constitution is never meant to be a definitive draft is precisely because it needs to be updated through amendments.

One of the reasons why the 1906 Constitution was not as secular ( although that is to be proven to me given that I am not an authority in Constitutional Law) may have been because many Clerics participated in the Constitutional Revolution. They even took many seats in Parliment as the photo here shows:

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY: First Public Gathering of the Iranian Majlis (1906)

But the core of the Constitutional Movement was secular :

HISTORY FORUM: Nader Naderpour on Iran's Constitutional Revolution and European Rennaissance (1996)

This secularism prevailed even more under the Pahlavi Kings at least in the political sphere:

HISTORY FORUM: Mashallah Ajoudani on Intellectuals and the Revolution

Except that in the case of Mohamed Reza Shah, his mysticism got into the way both as a political tool to keep the mullahs on his side and also partly because he believed in the crap that he was "divinely" chosen.

The British got rid of Charles the First precisely on that question by beheading him. It did not stop them to restore his son after Cromwell's death ( Cromwell who just like Khomeiny declared a Religious Republic with himself as a kind of Velayeteh Fagih with the title of "Lord Protector").

It should be noted ironically that the Belgian Constitution is even more Secular than the British Constitution for in de facto Queen Elizabeth as Head of the Anglican Church is a Velayeteh Fagih or Pope to the British Church.

In the case of the 1906 Constitution and certainly in an updated and revised version submitted to a referandum for approval, the secular criteria seems an obvious necessity to which at least Crown Prince Reza is commited all the more that there would be very little chance to see Iranians accept a Constitution where he would be presented as a Velayeteh Fagih or with any kind of religious prerogative let alone political one other than representation. He would however have a symbolic role as Head of State and the Army as is the case in all Constitutional Monarchies and that is also something to be debated and explained in full transparency because of the problems it generates in people's minds and quite legitimately so given our history of Coups and Counter Coups in our nation.

The King or Queen as Head of the Army is something that is a purely semantic notion in the same way as the term "subject" is in a Monarchy as opposed to "citizen" is in a Republic.

It is the Reigning King or Queen who names the Prime Minister upon election. This is very confusing given the distorted legacy of the Islamic Republic's Velayateh Fagih who appears as a Moral Judge who gives his benediction to the elected President as we saw in the last controversial elections.

This ambiguity must be debated and clarified as it is in Great Britain or any other Constitutional Monarchy in Europe:

HISTORY FORUM: How Truly Democratic is The British Monarchy ?

I don't claim to have the answers but simply mentioning the type of institutional questions to which we will be confronted if the people choose to restore the Monarchy and how they can be solved if these questions are debated in full transparency.

When Great Britain declared War on the Falklands it was in the name of the Queen and Not the People. The Queen had No comment to make except approve the Prime Minister ( Margaret Thatcher) decision to go to War with Argentina.

But all the military operations were under the full control of the government headed by the Prime Minister.

I present you the worse case scenarios not in an attempt to say this is what is going to happen but to show how things are normally run in such cases.

The King of Spain for instance who stood against the Military Coup in the 1980's when a crazy general took over the parliment was another situation where the King's Role was determinent.

ROYALTY: King Juan Carlos of Spain Greeted by Shahbanou at Sa'ad Abad Palace State Dinner (1978)

In Greece however the opposite happened with the then young King's hesitation in condemning the coup which led to the Military Junta that toppled the monarchy and he lost all credibility due to his ambiguous attitude:

RESTORATION: Greek Constitutional Monarchy Toppled by Military Coup (April 21st, 1967)

In Belgium recent political crisis the country had no prime Minister for 6 months and it was King Albert II who was asked to be in charge of running the country until the people elected a new Prime Minister. The king had no real power but had to recieve ambassadors, meet the ministers who worked with the former Prime Minister and make sure that the institutions were run properly and according to the Constitution until the parliment submits the choice of a new prime minister approved by the people. 

All the King did was Nod and say I name you as New Prime Minister and then got back to his normal symbolic duties outside the political decision makings. 

In Great Britain today the fact that Prince Charles has been able to express himself much more often than even his own mother on nearly all issues has created debates in england on his attitude as being unconstitutional and that if he ascends to Throne as King he will have to considerably reduce his public stance on political issues of interest to him like the environment, public spendings, or healthcare:

RESTORATION: Prince Charles, The Meddling Prince (5 Parts) 

He has become and easy target for the Republican minority in Great Britain who would like to abolish the monarchy all together.

Some also feel that maybe his son would be Crowned instead of Charles because he is still young and has not truly expressed any controversial political comments to date which preserves him more than his own father.

But such questions however legitimate become less mysterious and ambiguous and often find adequate solutions when debated openly and in transparency in parliment and in public spheres.

The Key Question is the Constitution and our understanding of how it works and how it can be improved to reinforce the rights of the citizen/subject.

 


  •  
Darius Kadivar

My Two Cents

by Darius Kadivar on Mon Mar 08, 2010 05:58 AM PST

VPK, Benross and MM you all 3 have legitimate arguments 

Without wanting to interfere in this debate on Capt's blog but given the debate between you three on the issue of the monarchy vs Republic and their respective constitutions ...

May I just remind everyone that the Constitution of 1906 was drafted upon the Constitution of Belgium's Monarchy:

RESTORATION: Belgium King Baudouin takes Oath Amidst Republican Animosity (31st July ,1950)

itself inspired by the British Constitution and it's Bill of Rights:

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'

I think what needs to be understood is that a Constitution is not a definitive final draft as such. It outlines a number of fundemental rights that should remain unchanged ( or as the French would say are "immuable") such as the laws that protect the Rights of the individual which today are known as the Universal Human Rights and in Secular States the Separation of State and Church.

A Democratic Constitution is then built Upon these fundemental laws but can evolve through amendments voted by an Elected Parliment from one generation to another based on the social realities of the time.

I think it is important to realize that a Constitution is not a definitive rigid draft as such but something that evolves and is flexible while maintaining the fundemental laws upon which it was built intact.

One of the major debates in Republican France today under Sarkozy's Presidency has been that Sarkozy's Presidential style "a l'Americaine" has proved problematic with the Republican Constitution of our current 5th Republic where the President should appear as above politics and delegates current affairs to his Prime Minister.

However Sarkozy tried to change this status quo shortly after being elected President by centralizing all powers and interfering in all matters leaving the Prime Minister impotent and insignificant like the American Vice Presidents usally are. The Result has been that Sarkozy's popularity which at the time of his election was superior to any other President of the 5th Republic including De Gaulle slumped in a matter of months after Sarkozy took office.

The Debate in France's political establishment today is whether or not France should adopt a Parlimentary System of Government like most other European Nations ( irrelevant of whether they are Republics or Constitutional Monarchies) where the President has only a Symbolic role while the Prime Minister is actively involved in the affairs of the State and therefore equally takes all the Praise or all the Critics based on his or her success' without jeapordizing the President's Status as protector of the Constitution and therefore hurting the State's institutions.

If tomorrow the French choose to revise the Constition it will have to be with a Referandum as it has been for the current  draft known as the 5th Constitution. However the Fundemental laws that initially define the democratic nature of the Constitution will not and cannot be changed based on the Referendum's result.

This explains why a Constitution is never a definitive draft but one that evolves. It is concieved as something Alive whose  heart beats at the pulse of the Nation at large.

This is true for all other Democratic Systems of Government be them Monarchies like Great Britain, or Belgium as it is for the French Republic or the German Federal Republic.

It appears to me that the existing Constitution of 1906 can serve as a fundemental text but needs to be updated in a new or revised draft that would satisfy the political needs of our times.

The Belgian Constitution contemporary of the 1906 must have evolved since over the decades. As a Constitutionalst myself I am not certain that the 1906 Constitution of Iran would be fit to our times in it's entirerty but it could serve as a framework towards a much more transparent Constitution that reinforces the citizen's rights while clearly defining the roles of the King the Prime Minister and Parliment. If Iranians choose a Republic instead the Constitution of 1906 remains a fundemental text nevertheless and could also be used in many aspects of the new draft.

Given the strong historical relations between Europe and Iran in the past century I given the Parlimentary nature of Democratic States in Europe, I personally believe that the Constitutional Monarchy would best fit our own political mindsets rather than attempting to Re Invent the Wheel.

This is where the Restoration of the Monarchy can play a constructive role in filling the Gap created between the Political Elite and the People in the past 30 years of the current Theocracy that calls itself a Republic.

However the acceptable Conditions upon which the eventuality of such a Restoration would take place need to be clarified and defined without ambiguity.

Contrary to Benross ( even if I understand his reserves on this question) I believe that Iran's Former Crown Prince has been particularly clear in this regard which can be summed as this:

1) A referendum aimed at choosing which system of government we want for our future Democratic State.

2) If people choose a Republic: Reza Pahlavi Will Not run as President. He may accept any other political or advisory role if People wish him to participate in any capacity to the nation's political or civic life: Ambassador, Mayor of Tehran, Prime Minister or Minister of Ecology ... Whatever ...

3) If People choose to Restore the Monarchy in it's Constitutional Form Only. Then the Former Crown Prince will certainly accept to become King. Why should he Refuse ?  

So for those who think that Reza Pahlavi could become Iran's Next President, I believe that is a wishful thinking. But that does not mean that he cannot find common ground with Republicans for that matter.

As he has clearly stated he sees as his only goal the Freedom of Iran from the current religious theocracy and seeing Iranians go to the Polls. After that his own political future will ONLY depend on the People's choice.

As such and maybe this is what differs my assessment from those of Benross on Reza Pahlavi's strategy or would be role. And that is that I do not see him as a Leader but a Catalyst for regime change or one who can contribute to unifying Iranians on a common project for change and not merely a spearleader or Political figurehead.

To Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi's Credit, he seems to be better understood far more today than he did prior to the Election protests at least in the Diaspora. This may be due to a change of mood in regard to the realities of the clerical regime and it's unreformability but also the lack of charisma or credibility of the "selected" leaders of the green movement who continue to seek an alternative to revolution hoping to refom it from within.

However seeing the Crown Prince or anyother Political leadership for that matter merely Surfing on his or her "Popularity" is not enough and this is where I join Benross on the fact that more clarity should be brought to this debate over the conditions of regime change but also that of an eventual referendum.

There is clearly a vacum of leadership today which is growing day by day. I think that Iranians would benefit to see more unity and dialogue between the various political figureheads be them in Diaspora's exiled Democratic opposition, the Intelligenstia and those opposition forces within Iran today.

That demands an intellectual courage on behalf of everyone and symbolic gestures of solidarity to send a strong message both to the people but also to the current regime that Iranians will remain firmly united beyond political and ideological differences.

That is why I would like to see people like Akbar Ganji, Shirin Ebadi, Mohsen Kadivar, or Mohsen Sazegara show public support if not directly to Reza Pahlavi as Crown Prince but at least to Reza Pahlavi as an Iranian citizen and opposition figurehead.

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc... by DK

As others have to date:

 

RESPONDING TO REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc in the Making ...by DK

And joining ranks since:

IRANIAN SOLIDARNOSC: Defecting Revolutionary Guard's confession ... by DK

But seeing Ganji, Soroush, Ebadi and why not even Trita Parsi stubbornly Co play "Solitaire" instead of "Solidare" ( aka as in Solidarity) is truly counter Productive and will get us nowhere.

An Iranian Solidarnosc is Not just an Option but an Utmost Necessity today more than ever.

But that will depend on everyone's good will. Apart from Reza Pahlavi, I do not see this good will and transparency in others and particularly amongst our Republican Friends who still seem to demand apologies from Monarchists for being who they are and believing in what they want to believe. 

We cannot have a vibrant opposition or movement as a credible alternative to this horrible Theocracy by being exclusive instead of inclusive.

That is why We ALL Need to Get OUR PRIORITIES Straight ! 

Otherwise the Only People who will benefit from our divisions will be the Tyrants ruling Iran today just as they manipulatively did during the Gaza Crisis of no relevance to our struggle.

Let's Spill the tears That deserve to be Spilled and which matter to us and our People's Struggles First and Then think generously on how to help others.

Doing Otherwise would be the REAL Hypocrisy !

My Humble Opinion,

DK

 


  •