Four reasons why Khamenei is like the Shah.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

DM
by DM
25-Aug-2009
 

1.  Can’t even control rigged elections.

Prior to 1975, the Shah allowed two political parties—Mardom and Iran-e Novin—to compete in elections. Iranians called them the “yes” and “yes, sir” parties and elections were tightly choreographed. But then the Mardom Party won a few local elections they weren’t supposed to. The Shah worried it would become a focal point for real opposition, so he panicked and forced a one-party system on the nation, despite having previously written, “If I were a dictator rather than a constitutional monarch then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party such as Hitler organized...” The result was an unmitigated disaster that further undermined his legitimacy. 

Fast forward to Khamenei. One would think having the power to disqualify any political candidate at will would guarantee presidential election results that met with his satisfaction. Not so. In 1997, Khatami was an unwelcome surprise. In 2005, Ahmadinejad did well the first round only because of last-minute ballot stuffing designed to block a reform-oriented Karroubi presidency. And in 2009 Khamenei thought he was safe because he got Khatami not to run—the reformists would never rally around an old has-been like Mousavi…But of course, they did, so the regime panicked and cheated.

Why allow yourself to get saddled with Khatami and repeatedly resort to last-minute cheating when you can stack the deck before the game starts? To be sure there are complicated, behind-the-scenes power struggles going on, but Iran scholar Ervand Abrahamian also reminds us that, “One should never underestimate the role of stupidity in history.”

2.  False confessions.       

In the early 1970s, the Shah launched a crackdown on leftist opposition groups. Captured dissidents were usually tortured until they died or “confessed”. The “confessions” were typically videotaped stage-managed affairs in which the prisoner would admit to great wrongdoing, condemn their previous actions, and profess undying admiration for the Shah. The lucky ones got off with just being forced to write what at the time were called “shit-eating-letters”. Ayatollah Khomeini condemned the practice, and when he took power, allowed a prohibition against forced confessions to be written into the new constitution—and then promptly started torturing people and extracting forced confessions. 

Khamenei is currently continuing this wretched practice, the latest example of which being the patently false confessions offered by haggard-looking reformists at their show trials. 

3.  Evin Prison.           

The Shah ordered Evin Prison built in 1971. It was surrounded by high walls, modeled after US maximum security prisons, and situated in what were then the lightly-populated foothills of the Alborz Mountains overlooking northern Tehran (the city has since expanded so that it meets the prison). Originally designed for 320 inmates, by 1977 it had been expanded to hold 1500. Political prisoners were common, as was torture at the hands of SAVAK, the Shah’s domestic intelligence organization.

The 1979 revolution did nothing to check the growth of Evin—only the politics of the prisoners inside changed—and by 1983 the prison held 15,000 inmates. For political prisoners, Khamenei has continued the tradition of using Evin as a destination of first resort. The torture methods used in the time of the Shah are still in use today, but SAVAK is now called VEVAK. 

4.  Legitimacy questioned from the start.

After Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran in 1941, the Allies forced the Shah’s father to abdicate. This paved the way for the weaker and more malleable son to claim the crown, but in a way that clearly undermined his legitimacy.                                 

As for Khamenei, he was a mere hojjatoleslam when appointed Supreme Leader, two notches below the rank of a Grand Ayatollah—which is what the constitution said you had to be to qualify for the position. The problem was none of the real Grand Ayatollahs wanted the job as offered, so the constitution was quickly changed to allow for someone with Khamenei’s questionable religious credentials to serve. From the start, many, including in the clergy, viewed this move and Khamenei with considerable suspicion.

This list was by no means meant to be exhaustive. I welcome more comparisons in the comments.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by DMCommentsDate
Wicked Wisdom
113
Jan 28, 2010
This Revolution Might Take a While
15
Jan 13, 2010
Jumping the Shark
3
Dec 03, 2009
more from DM
 
DM

Darius--Thanks for

by DM on Tue Aug 25, 2009 09:16 AM PDT

Darius--Thanks for commenting. A convincing case can be made that the Shah treated his people better than IR does, but I think it's a stretch to claim that he genuinely respected their will. After all, the first video is from November of 1978. In September, the army shot hundreds or thousands depending on who you believe. He respected the peoples' will in the end only because the people gave him no choice but to do so.


  •  
Faramarz_Fateh

You left out the most important similarity

by Faramarz_Fateh on Tue Aug 25, 2009 08:15 AM PDT

The Shah, Khomeini and Khamenei are/were similar in that they were/are all gutless cowards.  And all 3 were self proclaimed Muslims.

I remember the Shah going to Mecca for Haj.  The site of him in white towels (longs) pretending to pray, pandering to the Mullahs made me wanna vomit. 


  •  
Darius Kadivar

One Respected the Will of the People, the other didn't

by Darius Kadivar on Tue Aug 25, 2009 08:20 AM PDT

One ( The Shah)  Respected the Will of the People, the other ( Khamenei) didn't ! 

Judge for Yourselves ...

Shah (1978)

(full Speech Here)

Khamenei (2009)


  •  
Abarmard

To make it more useful

by Abarmard on Tue Aug 25, 2009 07:24 AM PDT

It is better to list what it is that both differ/people like about. We can learn more by realizing positives/possibilities.


  •  
DM

Response to cost-of-progress

by DM on Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:20 AM PDT

Thanks for your comment.

The greater point, which I didn't state but hope can be inferred from the Khamenei-Shah comparison, is that, given that exchanging one dictatorship for another didn't work in the past, that exchanging a hardline Islamist dictatorship for one more friendly (whether led by Rafsanjani/Mousavi or whomever), in the end isn't a solution either. Given enough time, most dictatorship tend to revert to type. 

I am in full agreement with you that religion and state should be separtated. What I would like to see is a democracy that reflects Iran's true values and legal traditions.


  •  
Cost-of-Progress

Not Sure What Purpose This Serves, but

by Cost-of-Progress on Tue Aug 25, 2009 06:48 AM PDT

regardless of who the "shah" is, it is up to the people to demand their rights. Unfortuantely, in societies like our sweet motherland, and for a long long time, it has been religion that has provided the main "teachings" to the masses. Consequently, the demanded rights have been confused with what religion, in our case Islam, has prescribed for us for 14 centuries.

I was merely a teen during the Shah years and cannot be (fairly) labled as a monarchist. I do not advocate a return to the old system as I believe it will never work. I do believe that Shah had good intentions for Iran and wanted to virtually overnight transform a highly traditional, (generally) deeply religious nation into a more progressive society.  You can argue this point til the cows come home, but I believe it to be accurate.

IT DID NOT WORK!

I do believe that if we work to separate Religion and State and are able to sustain it, we can have a prosperous and progressive nation and claim our rightful place in the communities of nations and be respected by them.

That is a tall order, but that is what I want for Iran.


  •  
capt_ayhab

2 riali

by capt_ayhab on Tue Aug 25, 2009 06:43 AM PDT

Perhaps a 5th resemblance can be added. Both believed in ONE PARTY system; Rastakhize meli VS Hokomat e Eslami.

Nice post DM, enjoyed it.

-YT 


  •  
DM

Thanks Q, and a response to Mr. Fozolie

by DM on Tue Aug 25, 2009 05:35 AM PDT

Thank you for commenting, Mr. Fozolie--I certianly agree with you that the mullahs have never hidden the fact that they do not believe in secular government, but I think you're off base when you write they haven't hidden the fact that they don't believe in freedom. Khomeini himself said (around the time the constitution was formed) something to the effect that that elections and freedom wouldn't be a problem because everyone would always support the Islamic government anyway. I'm not saying I think the mullahs ever were truly prepared to give people real freedom--they weren't then and they're not now--but they most certainly have tried to hide that fact. Why else hold sham elections? Why go through the ruse if they aren't trying to hide something.

Also, the point wasn't to draw an absolute moral equivalency between the Islamists and the Shah. One could draw up a long, long list highlighting all the differences between the regimes. The point, howeve, is that both the Shah and Khamenei are dictators and dictators are apt to act in similar ways (false confessions, torture, rigged elections, etc.) regardless of the ideology that brought them to power.


  •  
fozolie

These comparisons are beyond silly

by fozolie on Tue Aug 25, 2009 05:14 AM PDT

For once I find myself in agreement with FR. Mollahs have never hiddent the fact that they do not believe in a secular government or freedom, Irainan people were gullible enough to have believed otherwise. Mollahs always wanted HOKOMAT e ESLAMI or ISLAMIC RULE.  The repressiont they have unleased and their crimes are unprecedented.

Mr. Fozolie


  •  
Q

DM It's good!

by Q on Tue Aug 25, 2009 05:03 AM PDT

very funny.

Although, I have to say in the area of elections, he surpassed the Shah, but not by much of course!

Keep up the good work, and don't let any fossilized Monarchists get you down. It was good writing.


  •  
Farah Rusta

I have a question DM joon

by Farah Rusta on Tue Aug 25, 2009 04:49 AM PDT

What did you eat last night ? Because it takes more than a skewed mind to come up with such BS.

So it must be the food.

 

FR


  •  
« first‹ previous12