Musings of a former chicken

New Iranian generation

"Siavash, you know nothing about the new generation of Iranians, thus no point in arguing about it" Arj

But I do know the universality of human condition. As you and your brother who applied to lead university enjoy and attract to western values or rather freedom and their way of life style, so does everybody else. Humanity is universal and human needs are human needs regardless of their skin color or religion affiliation. We are all the same and we all have basic needs.

Dear Arj

One last attempt then I give up. First Amendment protects you against government prosecution not retaliation by employer. Not does it protect you against boycott or being black listed. It was not meant to.

No one goes the jail for political views but yes they might lose their job. There are other anti-discrimination laws for that. But far more limited in scope. Regarding the goal of Dutch laws I know their goal but it is bunk.

Their argument is always used to silence people they don't like.This is all I got to state on this matter. I presented my opinion. There is not much more to add. Thanks for reading.

Re free speech

Dear VPK, what I'm trying to say is that the 1st ammendment of the U.S. constitution protects the right to free speech, but in practical terms, that does not mean that there are no tabus or red tapes when it matters and comes to important issues (as I mentioned before; in the instances such as Israel's government and American military). Moreover, I do not necessarily agree with measures taken by many governments in Europe, but would like to set the record straight that the proposed measure to be taken by the Dutch government is not to protect Islam, but to protect Moslims from hate crimes -- there is a difference between a religion and people who are associated with it through birth (whether or not they believe in it) who may be subjected to abuse in a small society!

Arj Jan

I dont' know why you ignore my basic point on speech. To me sounds like you want to make your general complaints about America. But that is not my point. I am talking about a single issue.

That is freedom of speech In particular it is not about any of these:

• Insulting people say the president.
• Owning guns.
• Military induestrial complex.

Or any of the million problems with USA. It is about rights of people which you did not even touch. I will put it in bold so it does not get missed.

My problem is in supposedly free nations people are prosecuted for "political" or "historical" opinion. When you get Geert Wilders or Irving taken to court for being not "politically correct".

It is one thing to not publish them in main stream media. It is another to take them to court. No private paper is required to publish anything. But at least they get to put in on their web site or publish the book themselves.

Not in Europe which just as in ME is willing to put you away for "opinion". If you are fine with that you should be fine with Shah. Because what is the difference. He put away those who insulted the Shah. Holland puts away those who insult Islam.

Re free speech

Dear VPK, when I say "the shallowest cliche," it does not mean that you are a shallow person in any way, for you're not the one who invented that phrase! But that particular phrase (cliche) is one of the catch phrases of those who perpetuate myths about freedom of speech in the U.S.! Let me ellaborate; eversince I was a kid (over 3 decades ago, before 1979 revolution), I remember hearing the same cliche about the freedom of speech in the U.S. (i.e. being allowed to insult the president and...)! However, when I actually visited the U.S., I found quite a different society; a corporatocracy in which the president is supposed to be the most powerful person in charge, yet he is powerless when it comes to powerful lobbying of the corporate oligarchy!

He has to toe the line with the military industrial complex when it comes to defense budget (e.g. Lockheed Martin), or enveironment (oil and gas giants), financial (Wall st.) to the point that they not only control the political climate of the country, but they also determine its main policies! That's why the military lobby would never allow any critical views of the U.S. military policies reflected on the U.S. media -- look what happened to Cindy Shihan! By the same token, the pro-Israel lobby would not let criticsm of Israeli government reflected on the mainstream American media. Wall Street, while being the chief culprit in the financial fiasco and being the main beneficiary of the rescue funds, controls the news with regards to wistle blowing (see how long, over a decade, it took for their scam to be outed!) and insurance and pharmacutical companies control the helath care system (with 60 million Americans without health insurance -- wich is unheard of in a developed country!) to ensure its profitability and snuff any attempt at investigating their monopoly of the market... Now, if Americans take pride in their ability to call their president an a-hole and their right to carry guns without a permit, no skin off my back!

-----------------------------------

Siavash, you know nothing about the new generation of Iranians, thus no point in arguing about it! My father's generation are nearly all dead, you and I are half way there too, but the new generation of Iranians are not those who Shah "ariamehr"ruled! They do not put up with dictatorship. They no longer believe in the virtue of "martyrdom" and are not willing to die, either for or against IRI, or for RP. However, they have managed to resist domination of IRI and its imposition of dictatorship, and eventually will topple it. If anything, it's RP who ought to prove that he will be a worthy servant so people may trust him with a role in Iran's future!

P.S. It's really amusing that you claim Iranians invented the notion of "kingdom." For it makes one wonder as to how nations whose histories predate Iranians (e.g. Phoenicians, Sumerians, Egyptians...) ran their countries! Perhaps they just settled for a prime minister!!!

Clarifying "Padeshahi" for Arj

".........you use England as an example for the same people you consider not educate or cultured enough, as an example of monarchy!" Arj

   Seems you missed part of my previous comment. The part that I explained about "EUTHOPIA" I presumed that you know the meaning of Euthopia. If you don't, please let me know, so I explain it in detail.

  Can we have monarchy ?

yes, we can have monarchy like what we had during shah days. Our people are well familiar with that kind of political system in compare to other political systems such as democratic Republic of Mao in China or Democratic societies in southern states of USSR such as Tajikestan, Turkamanistan.  Crown Reza is well educated, well mannered, healthy, alive and can lead our nation to re-establishing monarchy and through effort of our people to become one day like monarchy system in U.K.

 We want democratic establishment like U.K. can we have democratic system like U.K righ after mullahs fall down ?

We can have monarchy but is not going to be like democratic system in U.K.

Why not?

Because we are not ready to be a democratic society like U.K at this time. (You addressed this issue in a form of question from  VPK). it all rooted on the Iranian family structure. I explained it in detail. please read it again and again. It is because the way we grown up. The way our society had been shaped. Most importantly, the level of education and the rate of illiteracy.

Can we reach to that goal in short period of time (my term)  or over night (Arj's term) or is Reza Pahlavi a magician?

it depends how much people devote their time, their efforts to achieve that goal under monarchy system. No, Reza Pahlavi is not a magician to turn it to democratic society over night. it is our people work, not establishment job.   

     Now, Mr. Arj, what part is ambiguous in the above discussion?  Please let me know if it is stil unclear for you.

Yes, our ancestors introduced monarchy for the first time to the history of mankind. The notion of kingdom did not exist before Iran was formed as a nation. That is right. According to bible Persians were the first world rulers.  

Arj

You may think prosecuting a politician for his ideas is fine I don't. Shallow: if I criticize Islam I could go to jail! You have a very strange idea of freedom. No wonder we ended up with IRI.

I also find your attitude condescending and "talking down" to people. Anyway you do what you want. I pick America over Europe and do value freedom of speech. It is not a symbolic right. If you do not see it then I am sorry.

Re "freedom of speech"

With all due respect dear VPK, are you kidding?! If not, this is one of the shallowest cliches I've ever heard! What is the point of being able to call the U.S. president a SOB or not being denied the right to deny the Holocaust, while at the same time criticizing the U.S. army (i.e. crimes it's committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, e.g. Abughraib, the rapings of underage Iraqi girls in front of their families, carpet bombings of wedding ceremonies in Afghanistan...) is considered tabu, or the mere mention of Israeli government in a critical manner would be labeled as "anti-semitic" and career ending?! 

At least in europe, while denying Holocaust (due to its slanderous nature, for accusing the victims of a proven genocidal crime of lying) is outlawed, people (from the ordinary citizen to the president) are allowed and do criticize Israel if they feel compelled! While the cost of U.S. aid to Israel on american tax-payers amounts to $10 to $20 per day, not only no politician, but even no ordinary U.S. citizen would dare to criticize the Israeli government! Forget about the internet (especially obscure sites that don't even count as media, let alone main stream!), but have you ever imagined if a U.S. presidential candidate or incumbent could even think of launching his/her campaign without appearing in an AIPAC meeting to seek approval and legitimacy?! Can you even imagine such an arbitrary ritual in any European election?! Now , the average American can keep cherishing his/her symbolic right to "free speech" and even Holocaust-denial all they want, what counts is what happens in reality!

---------------------------------

Siavash, I can't see your point, for you seem to contradict it by your own statements! You claim that we can not be a democracy like England, because our people lack the culture and education and are behind the British people in those regards. Yet, you use England as an example for the same people you consider not educate or cultured enough, as an example of monarchy! And your reason is that Crown Reza will lead us there -- as if he magically is going to educated and culture our people overnight!!! Are you serious?! Can't you see the contradiction?! To avoid redundancy, I refer you to my preious posts below, where I already addressed the issue!

P.S. Nonetheless, I am interested in your response as to how you claim that "Iranians invented monarchy!" Do you mean that the notion of kingdom did not exist before Iran was formed as a nation? If so, how did we invent it?!

Dear Arj

Freedom of speech is not off topic to me anyway. I must disagree about USA. Here there are many web sites that openly challenge the Holocaust. Nobody is prosecuted for it. That in sharp contrast to Europe.

Remember in Netherlands they prosecuted Geert Wilders for "insulting Islam". Another British historian David Irving was arrested in Austria for his research. Please note I am not a Holocaust denier and fully acknowledge it happened. But am making a point that in Europe these laws put people in jail for an opinion. It is wrong and very tyrannical. I do not consider much of Europe "free" because of these.

The Burka ban is a different issue altogether. It is not banning speech. It is banning people going around in a mask. That is both a security risk and a form of repression. As you said a Muslim woman may wear a scarf and meet her religious needs. 

Arj's question

" ......because I was subjected to a personal attack, democracy is a bad thing?! "Arj

No, democracy is very good thing. No doubt about it. Yes, it is unethical to have personal attack. If you read my previous comment carefully, I mentioned about configration of our society which is "one man show". Iran social context is NOT based on team playing since we face our family of origin as a child. The same principal applies till we go to work and try to contribute to the society. It is alll about one man decision. In family (father) in classroom (mobser) in work place (kar farma).

It is top-dog, under dog configration. Top dog orders, under dog follows. No team play, never asked or respect the opinion of the under dog.

   How many times you father ask you about your opinion when he was making decision for the family.? One man show.  No one ever discussed about these issues, instead, they keep whining about 1 party of Rastakhiz.

 Let's focus on something that is more important than persoanl attack and it the making mental image or "Modeling" for future establishment. Let's talk about the fact that Shariati's model was "Ali's live style". Ali also referred as a "Socialist" by MEK during 70's which leaded khomaini came to power. The fact that Ali's life style model or creating that mental image gave vessel and blood to the Islamic government to come to live.

The model that I am referring is Padeshahi or "monarchy" such as U.K. The right of individual has been respected. It is true democratic country under "monarchy".

     Each ideology has EUTHOPIA. No ideology can ever exist without Euthopia. The Euthopia is an incentive for people to gain it through hard work. I am suggesting  U.K. We had to promote crown REZA PAHLAVI to reach that Euthopia. If Reza Pahlavi take the office, is it going to be like England democratic? of course, NOT.

 Why not? because our people are not that educated. Our people were not grow up like Brits. Remember it was one man show.

 If we keep the monarchy as an establishment, can we go to that direction as U.K did some centuries ago? yes, we have to work on it and eventually with help of crwon Reza Pahlavi, we will achieve that goal.

Payandeh Iran

Re freedom of speech!

Dear VPK, I don't intend to stray from the issue at hand here, but IMHO, passing such laws (that are designed to curb hate-crime-related activities, especially with regards to genocide) through a democratic porcess is way more democratic than, for instance the claim of free speech in U.S., that on paper sanctions freedom of speech, but in practice, it makes it a death wish (both financially and socially) to openly speak one's mind on what are considered tabu subjects! I give you an example, let alone denial of Hohocaust (which is anti-semitic by nature), but when was the last time you saw or heard someone criticize Israel in the U.S. media and having not witnessed his/her livelihood totally whiped out?! Is that freedom of speech?! I give you another example; in 2001, Bill Maher made a critical observation with regards to the U.S. military, and that was it for his career on American national TV (he was fired from ABC, went through a period of depression, and eventually after numerous public apologies landed on HBO)!

These are two examples that prove the system in France to be less disingenuous than one In the U.S., for by legally distinguishing anti-semetic and hate speech (such as Holocaust denial) from legitimate criticism of Israel, it actually helps improve free speech -- as we can see, criticism of Israel is not considered tabu (even among European politicians) as it is in the U.S.! Another example is France's banning of Burqa which helps distinguish between the observing Moslim women (who simply wear a head scarf) and the lunatic fringe who wear masks and burqas in utter defiance of public laws that require identification of individuals in security-sensitive locations!

America

In America I get to say anything I want. I get to call the President a Fu*** As**H*** but not on IC :-) I get to publish any book I want. I get to download Kasravi books on Islam  and Shia-gari, No prosecution. 

If some Islamist jacka** goes after me I got the law to protect me. That is what I love about America. It is deeply in the mindset of the people. It is the First Amendment and to me the single most important right of human beings.

Dear Arj

France has laws criminalizing speech for example: holocaust denial. They are about to criminalize denial of Armenian genocide. I personally do not deny either one. But I am for freedom of speech. 

It is wrong to ban opinions or speech. French government is idiotic in this action. I will never accept the right of a government to ban *any* kind of speech. I deeply respect both the Jewish and Armenian people. But will never support banning the rights of those who want to express other ideas.

That is where French government is going wrong.

Re democracy vs freedom

Dear VPK, democracy is a vehicle to bring about freedom and liberty, it's not the goal, hence it can not be a substitute or a competetive entity to it! And about lack of freedom in France, I'm intrigued as to what kind of freedom do you believe you'd be denied under the French system that you're afforded in America?!

--------------------------------

Siavash, you either are running in circles or do not want to get my point! My point is that political rivals in British parliament brutally attack each others' opinions and political convictions. However, personal attacks are not condoned not only in the British political system, but any democratic system! That does not mean personal attacks don't exist! When you are referring to my exchanges in response to another commenter's personal attacks on this site, you can clearly see that I adamently expressed my disinterest in continuing such exchanges! So, how else was I expected to react? What does that have to do with my support for democracy? Are you suggesting that because I was subjected to a personal attack, democracy is a bad thing?! I'm not an elite and do not represent democracy! I'm only a person who has a passion for and is learning about it! Personal attacks occur even under a democratic system, but the major difference is that in a democratic system it's condemned as unethical, and does not have a place in the mainstream political discourse!

Model for democracy

"attacking each other's opinins (not to be confused with personal attacks) is not at odds with the principles of democracy" Arj

It appeared to me as personal attack rahter than opinion attack. That was the reason you brought up subject of your girl friend. yes, I am familiar with the discussion in Brits parliment. Now, U.K is a model for monarchy with respect of democracy and at the same time preserve Bill of right as VPK was talking about it. What is wrong to go with crown Reza Pahlavi and heading to that direction? Educate our people to the level that respect each other opinions and establishe bill of right. I am sure when you talk about future of Iran you also have a model in your mind. Idealogy without Euthopia doesn't exist, I think to have a model and try to achieve that model is helping people to accomplish their goal. For you, if I am not mistaking, the model is something to degrade monarchy system as to blow it's deficiency in compare to progressive country. You compeletely forget we were third world country and what we accomplished under smart leadership of shah was way more than comparable countries such as Egypt, Syria.

    The role model for our people in 1979 mess was Ali's life. Many people believed Ali was a socialist at his time and wanted to revive that concept. That notion was promoted by MEK. I had many friends from MEK in those days who supported Khomaini to come to power. They were organized underground militia who perceived Ali's life as a role model. I was receiving their flyers almost every week during 70's. Even Shariati promoted that concept in his writing and in his speech in 60's. I remember it was in 1968 following Shariati's speech in Hosaineyah Ershad and provoking people against shah every one was on street chanting against shah on Jadeh Ghadem e Shimran. It was a mess. I remember that day very vividly. He was talking about Ali versus monarch sush as Namrood who was oppressive legendary king. Ali became symbol of fight against shah and monarchy system. That was one of the main reason majority of people voted "Yes"  to Islamic republic, not one word more, not one word less as khomainie was saying in those days.

I still think all shah's opponents (if they are still alive),  should come forward and apology from our nation.

Right HTG

Democracy [Mardom Saalaary] is not a panacea

We told them so right now for the record. Once we get "Mardom Salari" I hope it don't end up to be "Kajdom Salari". So much for democracy and the Christmas wine is getting to my head.

Democracy [Mardom Saalaary] is not a panacea

As such it won't be able to solve all of our problems over night.

At best,- if and when we're able to establish democratic rule in Iran and institutionalize democracy in our social structures-, it will give the people an opportunity to express themselves, state their ideas and move accordingly.

Back in '79 we all thought only if shah and the US go away and we have independence all our problems will be solved. After three decades we see how simplified such a conception was. 

Back then getting rid of shah and US was seen as the panacea, to solve all problems.

Now we see and think of democracy as THE panacea to solve all of our social ills.

Needless to say we need, democracy (people's participation in their lives), social justice , independence, lots and lots of good luck, and a few other elements, to bring about peace and prosperity to Iran.

Democracy throughout the world has existed due to the struggles of the popular classes: workers, middle-class and their supporters. The ultimate outcome of struggle for democracy in each society depends on the balance of forces in that country.

No struggle is guranteed success in advance.

This democracy thing!

Once again I will post my question on Democracy. Please give my your opinion and do not ignore the question. Why do you want Democracy; it is a good thing and does it mean freedom? I tell you what I think

• Democracy is no guarantee of freedom. All it means is majority vote. Not freedom of speech; not freedom of people. Those are given by things like Bill of Rights. They are only good if enforced. As HTG pointed out even in America some of those rights are under attack right now. 
• Democracy does not prevent "tyranny of majority". Without basic rights majority may vote to impose "Sharia"; "Stoning" or any other barbaric law. In fact this just may happen in Egypt. That is why I mistrust pure democracy without other basic right guarantees.
• Democracy does not go against Monarchy. Dear Arj how will you feel if Iranian people get democracy aka majority vote. Then vote to restore the Monarchy? With RP as the King? 

Re democray and freedom

Dear VPK. as I stated before; you have every right to support whomever or whatever system you please. Moreover, I did not refer to you as a monarchist (although there is nothing wrong with being one!) and don't consider you as one! Even if you were, I'd respect your choice, yet at the same time, would disagree with your opinion 100%! For I'd like to reserve the right to be able to express my opinion, even if it's in stark contrast to yours! So, no need for explanations in that regard! However, while I agree with your point regarding social and political freedoms, I do not set the bar as low as you do. For IMHO, IRI is on its last leg, and it's only a matter of time for it to be a dark footnote in our nation's history. Hence, social freedoms ensue as the very basic rights of every nation, for they are not mutually exclusive with democracy!

 ---------------------------------

Dear Siavash, attacking each other's opinins (not to be confused with personal attacks) is not at odds with the principles of democracy. But indeed, it's manifestation of democracy! That is why I wonder if you have ever watched a session of British parliament in which calling somone's attitudes "Stalinist" would be the tamest of rhetorics! And with regards to bringing up GB as an example, it was YOU who brought up the comparison, as you stated: "U.K is the most democratic country in the world. U.K  runs by monarchy. Brits are proud of their political system. Is that the same as what Basij or Hezbollahs are saying? I doubt it." Why would you draw such a comparison if you think our societies are so different?! If you think it helps the case for monarchy, it doesn't!

Dear Arj

Please I do not mean to offend you and did read your post. If you read my post you know I was not so "happy" with the Shah. I said that I would far preferred a "free" system. Meaning  political as well as social freedom. For some reason I think you are mixing me up with Monarchists. I am not a Monarchist. Your arguments against Shah are best made to them. By the way no one will resurrect the Shahi system. Most staunch Monarchists want a "figurehead" king.

Iran used to have social but no political freedom. Now it has neither one. Do you disagree? I say if you want to change things make it for the better. I am happy right now to go from no freedom to social freedom. I rather got to both social and political but one is better than none. Maybe you want both and that is your prerogative. But I got my prerogative and I will settle for one. I am not a young man and have seen idealism ruin many a good thing.

One more thing. I want freedom more than democracy. France has democracy but banns free speech all the time as "hate speech". Before democracy I want a bill of rights that guarantees my rights. Otherwise I end up being trampled by the majority. 

Jenab Siavash

You're corerect. It was my logical conclusion that if a people have put up with despotism and tyranny for 5000 years, they must have some genetic disorder in them!!! Call it Hooshang's projection onto Siavash's statement!

And you are correct to remind us of the very undemocratic practices, actively existing and reproducing themselves, on basically every level of our culture and society: from our families to class rooms to IC to...

I have no illusions about the balance of forces being in favour of a democratic life and culture in a future Iran. The balance of forces has always been against it. However as weak as the chances for a democratic Iran might be, for me and many other people I know, it's the only option worth fighting for and spending your whole life developing it.

If I've inadvertently offended you, advance apologies are in order.

And a big happy holidays to all democratic monarchists and all othere freinds and foes on IC. Cheers

G.Rahamanian, H.T.G. Arj and VPk Concerns and views

 "You falsely assume that this site is a democratic institution." G.Rahmanian

No, what I am saying is the fact that people on I.C can't tolerate each other opinion and it is funny they keep talking about democracy. I used Roozbeh argue with Arj as an example. Arj accused him as having "stalinist attitude" if I am not mistaking. Now, these people are elit of our society, what do you expect from a shepard or similar type person who lives in remote area of the country and he can't even write his name in Farsi.? At the same time I agree that I.C group is NOT representative of average Iranian.  

 Basically what Siavash is telling everyone in here is that: we have had a genetic disorder  for 5000 years, to live under despotic kings, and all human societies have always been under top-down control. And no other way out of it.

Thanks H.T.G for his effort to translate my words, but that was NOT what I said. It is a misunderstanding for H.T.G and Arj as well.

I never said we are genetically have disorder for 5000 years. As VPK said please don't put words in my mouth. It is not right and it is not also democratic, as you wish our society to be in the future. I said we have over 5000 years history of monarchy. Our ancestors introduced monarchy for the first time to the history of mankind. I never insult Persian kings. In fact, even useless king such as opium addict Qjar shah known as Mozafar e din shah, who signed oil concession with Brits merchant D'arcy, has more repect in my heart than stinky mullahs. I also never said "no way out". I have always emphazied on "EDUCATION". The factor never addressed in Arj's writing as he keep talking about democracy. Arj unrightly compare Iran with progressive and democratic countries and comes to his conclusion that ruling kings and their establishments were not democratic. No regard for education level in Iran. No regard to Iranian mentality versus European people's mentality. Swiss celeberated 400 years of it's establishment back in 70's. At the same time, we had many people who saw picture of Iman on the surface of moon. Up to 1935 Tehran university was established, the highest level of education was high school. Almost 95% of our people couldn't write even their names. Forget college education. They couldn't even write their names in Farsi. The "way out" is EDUCATION. I tried to explain the Iranian's family structure which has been compleletely UNdemocratic. The role of peer pressure which was also UNdemocratic as we grown up. Arj never addressed those issues in his writings. He never said how many times his opinion had been valued and appreciated by his own family members. Forget Roozbeh G. and other people here.  How many times his opinion was valued by his peers or "Mobsere class"? Mobser class had roller in his hand as far as I remember. Something like Chomagh in these days. Arj never said if he ever worked as a team with his peers or if he ever asked his sons or his daughter for their opinions and ideas before he made any decision for the family. He never attempted to find out if ever Iranians worked as a good team player or respected each other opinions in the school or work place. The only thing Arj  remembers from all these primary and secondary institutes in Iran is the fact that the establishment didn't have any other party beside Rastakhiz.!!!

 Siavash

Re despotism

Dear VPK, I suggest you should carefully read my posts before making unfounded accusations such as "putting words in others' mouth!" However, come to think of it, IMO, monarchist do not think of people as much when it comes to Shah vis a vis people -- you know the usual rants; "Iranian people did not deserve Shahshah Pahlavi.." or "they should pay the price for rejecting and betraying HIM, ariamehr... !"

However, if you are happy with resurrecting Shah's regime, fine with me! For it's your choice. not to mention legal right to prefer whatever regime you wish! Nonetheless, when you try to bring up excuses to dismiss democracy as a viable alternative to IRI, or cast doubts over its feasibility as an option for Iranians, I find it not only my right to address the fallacies in your assertions, but my duty as an Iranian who believes in a democratic future for our nation!

Re despotism in disguise

Dear Arj and HTG it is unfair to put words in others mouths. Yes people may not be as dedicated to democracy as others. But it does not mean they hate Iranian people. I for one have a broad tolerance.

I perfer a really open and fair  system. But was able to put up with Shah. I am not able to put up with IRI. That does not mean preferred Shah to an  open system. Note I do not say "democracy" as without a bill of rights it is no better than dictatorship. 

It is really hard to get democracy right. The perfect example is 1979. Sometimes we need to settle for the best there is or end up with really bad. We had a chance for democracy under Shapur Bakhtiyar. Very few people really supported him. Because he was imperfect. Now that the IRI is under attack I worry idealism is going to again hold out for perfect. When they fail we end up with another version of IRI.

What all these authoritarian, dictatorial cuurents in Iran share

what they all ( Hezbollah, Shahollah, Stalinists,..) have in common is how they depise, disrespect, and basically hate Iranian people.

For most part Iranian peole have exact same feelings for them. Happy holiddays

Re despotism in disguise

Dear HTG, actually our fellow commenter, Siavash, is one of the more honest monarchists, the rest don't even admit their apathy for democracy!

----------------------------------

Dear Siavash, I never lived in England, but have visited there enough times to know that it's far from a magically perfect society. There are dysfunctional families as well as disorder, hooliganism and all kinds of other crimes in Englnad as there is everywhere else! Moreover, the rigidity and authoritarianism in British public education institutions has been examplary around the world for the past century or two -- to which Pink Floyd visually alludes in The Wall album! With regards to difference of opinions, democracy does not mean conforming to a single, state-sanctioned opinion (e.g. as in N. Korea), but rather utilizing these differences to the benefit of the whole society! Have you ever watched a session of the British parliament? If you haven't, I recommend you to watch one to see how the heated exchanges in there can barely be anything short of political version of a street brawl!

P.S. What do you mean by "inventing the system?" That Iranians invented monarchy?!

Basically what Siavash is telling everyone

Basically what Siavash is telling everyone in here is that: we have had a genetic disorder  for 5000 years, to live under despotic kings, and all human societies have always been under top-down control. And no other way out of it.

Even the most retarded Orientalists (who have a history of insulting people from Middle East) don't insult people's intelligence like this.

What our most dearest peasant Fascist forgets to recall is that: All democratic rights and laws in the West and East have been won due to, and thanks to workers' struggle to improve their lives. No one in any country has ever "given" away any freedom or rights to anyone. It has always been taken from the rulers by the people's militant actions.

It's simply inconceivable for Siavash to even imagine that Iranian people had had the most advanced Civil Society in the Middle East.

.........

Thanks mr siavash

Indeed there is going to be a loong and bumpy ride but ......

We'll get there eventualy hopefuly in my life time.

Maziar

Siavash:

You wrote: "People on I.C can't even tolerate each other's opinion. How do you expect Iran to be democratic once the mullahs are gone. I personally don't see any democratic society after mullahs being illaminated. Be honest with you, by reading your comments back and forth with Roozbeh or reading similar word exchange among Iranians on I.C, I personally don't think Iran is ready for any kind of democracy (as you have in mind)." There are two fundamental problems with your argument here. 1. You falsely assume that this site is a democratic institution. No one has elected those monitoring the site and they are not accountable to the writers or the readers. This site is a medium for us to present our ideas, arguments or counterarguments. It is the mere existence of this site in a democracy that allows us to do so. 2. Your assumption that people in democratic societies are not at each other's throat, so to speak, is also false. No democracy can guarantee proper conduct among all its citizen. I'm afraid your argument regarding Iranians not being ready for democracy is not convincing, at all.  That is the kind of argument supporters of the regime in Tehran would like to promote. It is the law that defines and protects citizens' rights. And citizens are expected to conform to the laws and respect each other's rights. If people could fully understand their rights and limits and were law-abiding citizens, there wouldn't be any need for law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, there's no room for metaphors such as tolerance in a democratic society. You are not doing me a favor by appreciating or, as you have put it, "tolerating" my rights and understanding your own limitations as a citizen. Again, it is the law that determines such rights and limitations.

Arj's question

"the majority of pro-Khomeini mob emphasized on his "religious convictions" as "mo'men" to dismiss the concerns of those who demanded checks and ballances on his power while Khomeini himself expressed his commitment to democracy " Arj

".... the monarchy in GB is functioning because the political system is democratic" Arj

I just read the paragraph that you wrote for VPK. Seems you answered your question in the above paragraphs. This is exactly what I was trying to explain by statistic and numbers. 

Family is the first institute that any child becomes familiar once the child was born. In that institute, the father makes a decision for the whole family. How many times your father ask you or your siblings for your opinion about certain issue as you were growing up?  How about your mother? was she ever been a good team player in the family? Have you ever worked as a team with your family of origin to solve the problems within the family? Has ever your opinion been valued in the family?

 The 2nd institute are peers and class mates. In the class, "Mobser" is the only one who made decision for the whole class. Has he ever asked you about your opinion ? Most likely he was appearing with the roller in his hand and dictating everybody to be quiet. He also was making decision where students should be sit. I doubt it he ever asked you your opinion about any issue in the class room. I also doubt it he ever valued anybody else opinion about anything.

How about work place?  In the work place the same principal applies.  There has alway been a person the top who was dictating his opinion to all workers in the factory.

That is the social context of our society. Now, in G.B the system is  democratic because the people who live in that country has democratic mentality. Unlike you and me, they grow up in democratic family who valued their opinions as they were growing up plus the level of education is way higher than Iran. Needless to say that you were exchanging words with Roozbeh regarding snake in the jean or your sexual orientation. Roozbeh is the elit of our society. The whole conversation turned to the personal attack to you rather that focusing on the issue. People on I.C can't even tolerate each other's opinion. How do you expect Iran to be democratic once the mullahs are gone. I personally don't see any democratic society after mullahs being illiminated. It doesn't matter if Reza Pahlavi comes to power or any secular democratic as many people are hoping. That is the same kind of hope Iranians had back in 1979. A big delusion. The form of establishment is not important, the people of Iran is important. Be honest with you, by reading your comments back and forth with Roozbeh or reading similar word exchange among Iranians on I.C,   I personally don't think Iran is ready for any kind of democracy (as you have in mind).

Sincerely,

Siavash