From Islamic Monarchy to Republic! (conclusion)

Share/Save/Bookmark

From Islamic Monarchy to Republic! (conclusion)
by David ET
01-Jan-2009
 

Parts I & II,    Part III

Part IV: CONCLUSION 

Religious Hierarchy’s attempts to rule people directly or jointly with Royals and the Rich are nothing new to the human history.

Even predating Islam the corruptions and abuses of Zoroastrian priests in harmony with the last of Sasanid Royals lead to the fall of the Iranian civilization by the religiously empowered Bedouin Arabs next door.

Ever since the Arab occupation of Iran and the rule of Arab Caliphs of Bani–Umayyad and Bani-Abbas, the freedom seeking Iranian nationalists have been fighting in all fronts with the alien culture that had been forced upon them. Some nationalists saved the Persian Language and history from full integration in to Arabic by focusing on Iranian literature and history and some engaged in direct battles with the occupiers and some even entered their government to gain influence while majority of Iranians tried to simply passed their culture, traditions, history, literature and language from one generation to another.

Although Arab occupation ended after 200 years but their influence continued to remain by their advocates: The Mullahs.

The Shahs and Mullahs of Iran have often complemented each other by supporting and justifying their controls and powers over the people. Such cooperation reached its peak when the Safavid Dynasty took control of Iran and officially changed the religion of Iran to Shia version of Islam.

Taking the lead from the democratic and nationalist movements of Europe in the 19th century Iranians began to demand a curb on royal authority and the establishment of the rule of law as well as their concern over the foreign, and especially Russian influence. The Iranian revolution of 1906 lead to formation of the new constitution and the first elected parliament was the results of this movement. However the initial constitution which was quickly drafted was not complete enough.

Shortly after its draft, moderate Mozafaredin shah died and his son Mohammad Ali Shah who opposed the constitutional movement with the help of Russian-officered Brigade bombed the parliament building and arrested many of the elected deputies. However the democratic movement was too young and strong to be easily defeated and he was unable to keep the parliament closed, but instead the Royalists and Religious Clergy used their influence in drafting the remainder of the constitution in 1907 to their benefit. In the 1907 additions to constitution, the Royals and Religious inserted more power and control than was initially intended to. The Anglo-Russian powers also played an important role in opposition to the democratic constitutional movement in Iran

The battle for more power between The People, The Shahs and the Clergy essentially continued in to Pahlavi dynasty in one form or another until 1953 when the government of popularly elected Prime Minister Mossadegh who had challenged the extreme powers of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was toppled with the help of the United Stated Central Intelligence Agency.

The conspiracies of USA, the Soviet backed communist Tudeh party and the Islamic Clergy eventually lead to the fall of the last freely elected democratic government in Iran 55 years ago and to date this event continues to remain in the collective memory of Iranians.

Another milestone in the recent Iranian history was the opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini to the constitutional referendum of 1963 and progressive reforms by the late Shah (white revolution) in compliance with the initiatives of US president John F. Kennedy whom during the same time period promoted similar reforms in other developing countries such as those in Latin America.

The extremist clergy and the Islamists who were now being faced with modernizations such as land reforms (ending Feudalism) and equal rights for women, once again felt threatened and after events and riots of 1964 and with the exile of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iraq the foundation of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 was planted.

After 1953 Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi continuously violated the 1906/1907 monarchist constitution and at the same time, having deeper Shia’ religious convictions that his father, he maintained a ceremonial constitutional role for the more moderate mullahs. But such role was not enough for the clergy and they gradually strengthened their network of mullahs in mosques around the country.

This was also in line with the new US green belt policy of promoting Islamisation of Middle East in order to block their primary enemy of the time: The Soviet Union and communism.

The more secular and modern (but not independent )governments of Middle East which were initially formed and supported by the British Empire were now being faced with the spread of political Islam supported by USA. The Islamic Clergy and Jihadist were being empowered and those in Iran were not any exceptions. At the same time an intellectual Islamic ideology, newly formed by the educated Islamists was attracting some of the hungry for change Iranian intellectuals and youth who were trying to seek a common ground between their “learned” religious upbringings and the modern ideologies of left and the right. In the intolerant dictatorship of Shah there was no room for open discussions and examinations of different options, views and ideologies and is such vacuum of political practice and education, comparing to lack of political freedom, many utopian ideas presented seemed more ideal and appealing from a distance.

Meanwhile the nationalist, democratic and secular voices within Iran were being silenced by Shah’s secret service SAVAK which was trained by CIA fearing that that any kind of freedom may lead to the rise of communism in Iran but in fact except in small groups and parties, the Iranians due to their historical background, ancient civilization and religious convictions never had much inclination towards communism and they always preferred a more open, pro“west” and democratic society.

In essence Shah and USA because of the fear of communism, China and Soviet Union had both created a monster that did not really exist in the Iranians minds and hearts. In order to fight their imaginary creation and with US support Shah continued to crush the voices of democracy seeking Iranians. In such atmosphere, the independent and more secular Iranian movements were not able nor given the opportunity to organize. In fact most democratic and secular forces had no opposition to a democratic monarchy and in such vacuum the only forces who continued to maintain a solid organization were the Mullahs.

Before his fall, in a message to the nation, late Shah of Iran, now having “heard the message” of Iranians, asked Dr Shapour Bakhtiar one of the democratic and nationalist Iranians who had previously been silenced, to become the prime minister. Trying to save the country from falling in to Chaos or in the hands of the mullahs and with deep nationalistic convictions, Dr. Bakhtiar accepted this role but by then it was 26 years too late and extremism and emotionalism already had taken over and his short lived democratic government did not last long.

The revolution of 1979 was the result of 26 years of denying Iranians of their human and political rights and although many political and social groups and individuals participated in its victory; the mullah’s network with their false promises of not getting involved in the government affairs after victory and using people’s religious fervor eventually took control.

At the heat of the victory of the revolution and in a quick shift of events the clergy in a referendum that offered no other options gained a 98% vote for an Islamic Republic and shortly after the constitution of Islamic Republic was formed.

Although the concept of supreme leader (Vali Faghih) was not addressed in the referendum but as part of clergy’s conspiracies within the forces of the revolution, they added it to the constitution and combined with all other clauses that subjected everything and everyone to the control of mullahs, under the pretext of compatibility with Islam they passed laws that helped them gradually crush all other voices.

10 years later mullahs made even more changes to the Islamic Republic constitution such as assigning the “absolute” powers the supreme leader.

Reviewing the two Monarchy and Republic constitutions one can trace their two common denominators:

1- The articles and clauses that attempted to transfer the power to The People
2- The articles and clauses that attempted to have the clergy and /or Royals control people’s destiny or decisions.

Reviewing history and the two Iranian revolutions of 1906 and 1979 and despite the Royal and Religious influences which twisted the drafts of the two resulting constitutions, one still can easily read the demands and hear the voices and cries for freedom and democracy within their texts and words and can also sense the bloods that were spilled to form such words and at the same time feel the terror and the deceit that are buried among the pages of the two documents.

The two constitutions of Iran are the witnesses to the battles of Ahura (Good) and Ahriman (Evil) in each of their clauses but most importantly one can still clearly see the evolutionary path from no constitution to constitutional monarchy and then to a republican constitution.

The next step for Iranians in their political evolution is to completely remove religion from the texts of their future constitution, which I will address in another article and another time.

ADDENDUM:

If Iranians and the world including US study the preamble of Islamic Republic Constitution more carefully, they would avoid any unrealistic reform expectations from the government of Islamic Republic of Iran and also can better understand the nature of the Islamic regime’s actions, tactics, strategies, policies and ultimate goals such as:

  • [Continuation of that (Islamic) revolution both inside and outside the country]
  • [prepare the way towards a united single (Islamic) world community]
  • [continuation of the progressive (Islamic) struggle for the rescue of deprived and oppressed nations throughout the world]
  • Use of [strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of WAR, to STRIKE TERROR into the hearts of the enemies of God and your enemies, and OTHERS BESIDE]
  • [rule of the world by the oppressed, and the complete overthrow of the arrogant ones]

 

In summary this is a regime with the goal of expansion of its Islamic extremism thought the world and preparing it for the “rule” of a single Islamic extremist government in the “world”.  A regime that in order to "overthrow" all other powers, has no hesitancy in instigating "terror in the hearts" of anyone who stands in their way and all “others beside" them. 

With such awareness, USA and Obama's administration can go to any future negotiation table, something that Europeans, Russians and Chinese have already been doing for the past 30 years!

 

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from David ET
 
David ET

Dear Niloufar

by David ET on

Happy New Year and thanks for the kind words

Your suggestion is great and I hope someone else takes that initiative, as I do not feel prepared enough to address those at this point...


Some explanations: The diagram was not created by me but despite not being perfect I still felt for a non-Iranian or a reader who is not much familiar it would serve more purpose than hurt the understanding. After all besides the "absolute" power of Rahbar which really counts everything else is fluid with IR and changes without respect to their own constitution and as they wish.

On the [Islamic] note on couple of paragraphs within addendum, I too gave that much thought but then I also read the Persian texts before drawing any "conclusions" and within the CONTEXT of the introduction, the time of the writing and the writers, I concluded that the intent was all based on an Islamic definition of the universal words that were mentioned.

At the same time as I mentioned in the conclusion both constitutions -within their texts -simultaneously present the intent of the people and freedom seekers and the authorities.
Depending on the personality and the views of the Shah or the supreme leader they could even play a different role within the constitutions. Shah of Iran with his power and WITHIN the constitution could form a completely Islamic government if he wanted too and Vali Faghih within his power and IR constitution can actually form a very moderate Islamic government, but then that is a major flaw of both constitutions which leave so much power in the hands of one or few people.

FYI my next project will be an attempt to take the existing constitution and wipe the religion out of it!!! Just to see what it turns out to! Not as a suggestion for a permanent future constitution but as one step towards the secular constitution of future Iran or even may be an interim one until the final one get drafted “someday”.
Considering all the struggles and sacrifice that went in to having these constitutions, it may be the right step to start with what we have in hand as a starting point before or instead of starting from scratch. There are many good articles buried in the two documents that can be salvaged!

Thanks for taking the time to read through its sometime painful paragraphs. I have it in 18 pages of Microsoft word which I have emailed and if anyone is interested can send me a note and I will be happy to email them too.

I will gladly read your article and comment there.


Niloufar Parsi

David khan

by Niloufar Parsi on

thanks for sharing this very interesting article. Indeed, you have taken a highly effective approach to highlight several weaknesses in much of the ongoing discourse on iran, the shah and the islamic republic.

you have also aptly referred to foreign influences in the legal process, particularly in the constitutional revolution. i would suggest that an additional section on the direct relationship between the constitutions of the time and socio-political relations in iran would also do your work more justice. connecting the legal framework to realities on the ground (including the Real servitude of our people to shahs and mullahs through a multitude of age-old rituals and customs) would help the reader see the connection better. this approach could also be used to explain how and why a new constitution can be put together or come about to reflect the changing socio-political relations (if any).

a minor point: my reading of our political system - i am no expert on the constitution - tells me that the diagram on the political system in iran needs a couple of adjustments:

1. i suggest the expediency council should be located somewhere between the council of guardians and the majles rather than at the level of faqih. it has little more than an advisory role to the faqih if i am not mistaken.

2.  the council of experts should be located above the faqih as it has the power to hire and fire the faqih. (as an aside, the potential for an implosion of the system through the council of experts in underestimated, i believe.)

finally, i would be a little critical of some of the conclusions - and their implications - stated in your addendum. also, a couple of the insertions of 'islamic' in brackets do not look fully justified at first glance; specifically, those under the 2nd and 3rd bullet points. i would say that any romantic notion of a world islamic revolution went out of the window soon as khomeini 'drank his poison' and agreed to a ceasefire with iraq back in 1988. since then, the humiliated regime has been trying to find a face-saving way to make peace with the world (other than with its sworn enemies), but it has been repeatedly undermined internally and externally by those whose interests would be challenged. this is not meant as support for the regime, but my impression of events over the past 2 decades or so.

the implication of the views in the above paragraph is that evolutionary and/or non-violent reform may be possible - even if the regime collapses in a 'revolutionary' manner (i.e. of a velvet type).

thanks for drawing my attention to this concluding part. i can certainly see that we agree on the most important messages you convey, and it is a perspective that is not widely shared, if i am not mistaken.

for what it's worth, i too am a 'republican' when it comes to iranian politics, and i would also strongly support a highly decentralised federal system for iran. such a system would be most suited to iran's heterogeneous and multicultural makeup.

if the subject interests you, i would very much appreciate your thoughts on my article on democracy...

Peace!


default

Islamic World News Closing the book on the Bush era

by nonymous (not verified) on

Islamic World News
Closing the book on the Bush era

2. The Jewish State & Its Arabs by Hillel Halkin

3. Be People of Conscience. Speak Up Against Tyranny by Fedwa Wazwaz

4. The Crusades Are Critical History

5. Muslim women learn to swim: Lessons don't compromise their privacy or faith by Kelly Behling

6. Swimming in modesty: Muslim women head to a Cary pool as another cultural barrier falls by Yonat Shimron

7. Makkah and Madinah Real Estate Sector Buoyant Amid Global Financial Crisis - Alpha1Estates

8. Letter: Cult-like Islamists court condemnation of the world by Daniel Smith

9. Islamic scholars appeal for end to violence in Somalia

Compiled by Syed Asadullah
1 Comments More..//www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1088