Parliamentary Monarchy

Share/Save/Bookmark

Parliamentary Monarchy
by IRANdokht
29-Oct-2009
 

A friend of mine is starting to bring up the Pahlavi family more frequently as an example of how well Iranians used to have it. He’s now sending more emails about them and reminders of their different anniversaries and special dates: the Shah and the Queen’s birthdays have been one after the other and tomorrow it’ll be The Prince’s birthday. I still recall how pro-democracy my friend used to be so I had to ask what was it about the monarchy that he thought resembled democracy?

I have nothing against the monarchists especially my dearest friends and the ones who have recently opened up about their true feelings on the subject. Personally I don't hold a grudge against the Pahlavi family either, especially Reza Pahlavi who was a teenager in 1979 and cannot possibly be held accountable for any of the policies of the time, good or bad.

After many conversations, it's become clear that some of these friends are seriously trying to prove that a monarchy is actually democratic! No surprise there, most people in Iran and around the world want a democratic system. Democracy is probably the most popular form of government. Nobody advertises their ideals by saying: we’re fighting to have a hard core dictatorship in our country.

Unfortunately the idea of a King and a Queen and a Royal family seems the opposite of “democracy”, so lately all I am hearing is the catch phrase: “Parliamentary Monarchy System”.

What does that really mean? In a Parliamentary Monarchy, there is an elected parliament and an elected president or prime minister like in England (which they love to bring up as an example) so what's the King's role? Is it a purely symbolic role for nostalgic reasons? What would such a King actually provide for the country besides putting a huge burden on the nation to financially support a very high maintenance family that does nothing?

Try asking a “Parliamentary Monarchists” that question. They will most likely inform you that Monarchy is a part of our glorious 2500 year history. They have already adopted all the great kings of Persia as solely their own heritage anyway, so they will bring up Cyrus the Great and the brave Xerxes to prove their point.

But wait a second, was a Parliamentary Monarchy ever part of our history? As far as I know our kings have always had the ultimate power and were never "symbolic", even the most admired Cyrus the great was not a symbolic parliamentary and democratically elected King (whatever that means).

My monarchist friends are speaking of a referendum where they would have the option to elect Prince Reza Pahlavi to claim the throne that is his “birth right”... but which one of our kings had ever been elected in a referendum? How does that become a continuance of our heritage?

Ok, maybe the traditional way that new Kings took over the throne is not applicable in this day and age anymore. Is that why Reza Pahlavi wants to have a referendum and ask people if they want him to be their king? Then what happens if people change their mind a few years later and don't want him as the king anymore? Will there be another referendum to have someone else be the King?

A friend actually corrected me and said that Reza Pahlavi wants to be part of the referendum as an Iranian citizen not the heir to the throne. So Reza Pahlavi wants to be an elected president? Why is it that the people who surround him call themselves “monarchists” then? Are the monarchists really trying this hard to have the chance to include their Prince in a presidential election??

I believe Reza should start clarifying his position to his fans first and then to the rest of us, and the monarchists should stop beating around the bush and come out and say it: "I want a King and Queen, just like we used to have them, whether it's democratic or not". For the sake of argument, lets not even get to issues of why would anyone think that certain people have a richer blood and deserve to be in commanding roles and the whole idea of monarchy that is completely incomprehensible to me. I won't even go there, but I need some clarification because this is a very confusing game they are playing. I think it's time they come out clean and speak their true intentions.

Do you Reza Pahlavi want a democratic referendum in Iran? Will you be participating in such referendum and throwing your hat in? In which role would you be participating: Future King or Elected President? Do you believe in Democracy? If “elected” the parliamentary King, how much would you like to be paid by the nation of Iran? How many of the Royal Family and your relatives would have to be financially supported and provided for by the people of Iran?  What will you be doing for Iran in return?

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by IRANdokhtCommentsDate
Iran's Oscar Victory Over Israel?
9
Mar 02, 2012
Abadani Mouse
16
Feb 10, 2011
Ambassador of Death
9
Aug 24, 2010
more from IRANdokht
 
Red Wine

Irandokht Jan

by Red Wine on

Another one ...

I hope you like it :=) .


IRANdokht

به به

IRANdokht


به به مرسی‌ شراب سرخ عزیز و گرامی‌

محبت کردید

IRANdokht


میرزاقشمشم

Irandokht

by میرزاقشمشم on

What did I do?


Red Wine

زنگ تفریح - استاد مرتضی‌ حنانه

Red Wine


صد هزار کرور خدا را شکر به شما دوستان که عجب نفسی دارید... از صحبت‌های شما موارد تازه یاد میگیریم...

زنگ تفریح این کلیپ را میگذاریم تا خسته گی شما به دور رود.


IRANdokht

sorry Mirza

by IRANdokht on

This blog is not a playground and you won't be shutting it down like the other one. 

Thank you

IRANdokht


میرزاقشمشم

Expc, where r u?

by میرزاقشمشم on

Let's talk


capt_ayhab

Ms. IRANdokht

by capt_ayhab on

Thank you for clarification, and you had summarized it perfectly.

I think though Mr. Ganbari should provide tangible proof of those adjectives he has used. 

As to Nixon reference, Even though RP lacks many qualities, and might be accused of many things, but the poor guy is not a criminal, where Nixon is one.

Thanks for you clarification

Respectfully

 

-YT 


IRANdokht

Dear Capt

by IRANdokht on

The quote that you wrote in your comment was from my response to Mr Ghanbari. I summarized what I saw him write about RP and wrote that sentence which started the nasty tone from Mr Ghanbari in return.

Here's his first comment that I summarized in that sentence:

//iranian.com/main/comment/reply/85687/22...

As you see Mr Ghanbari is making it clear that he admires and respects Mr Pahlavi in a few different places:

"Reza Pahlavi is the most genuine Iranian who I  have ever seen in whole my life."

"Reza Pahlavi is the only Iranian who has  completely been clear with his aspirations for his country and his people."

"He is a man of moderation and acclaimed human values."

"Reza Pahlavi is a real treasure"

"Reza Pahlavi is the true source of inspiration and encouragement"

"I am in favour of this man as a sincere and genuine person who his words are of a great value for me."

"he is a respectable compatrit"

and then he follows it with:

"He is not goin to be my choice as my king or my president or my prime minister;"

and quickly after that he adds:

"he is going to be  my voice  and my courage."

and the comments just get more and more confusing after that one, all the way to the last one where he becomes critical of my character and too personal and then quickly he apologizes for insulting me.

I am just glad I am not the only one who's confused about the Nixon reference in the other comment!

:o)

IRANdokht


capt_ayhab

Few Quations Re Mr. Ghanbari

by capt_ayhab on

Although I have not been commenting on this thread with exception of couple of short ones, but I have been following the debate.

Firstly  I commend every contributors for their civil and logical approach to this subject. Well done ladies and gentlemen.

Secondly I have few questions regarding a certain comment by Mr. Ghanbari. 

1. What is the relevance of Mr. Nixon's interview to this subject matter. And why is it that a criminal like him who has broken the trust of his office and hence was forced to resign is being used as role model for monarchy?

2. The gentleman mentions 4 adjectives in describing Reza Pahlavi,  by saying[Would you please explain why such noble, courageous, inspirational, and admirable man is not your choice?"]

Mr. Ghanbari, can you kindly cite specific act of bravery which makes him a [courageous] man.

Also kindly can you cite any data that demonstrates how this man is being admired? What actions has he taken that people admire him for?In addition, can you cite an occasion that Reza pahlavi has inspired number of people.

With all due respect sir, this is what I call courage and bravery:

//ndn3.newsweek.com/media/59/iran-protester-s...

 

Much Obliged

 

-YT 


mostafa ghanbari

Dear Irandokht

by mostafa ghanbari on

mg

If you had  truly understood and taken in even one of the comments on your post in  an honest and logical way, then I would have been badly offended by your reply to my last comment.

Be honest  with yourself and go through all the comments you have already received and see how you are great with sophistication and  sophistry!

I have no reason not to believe that you  have a unique ability to observe and write, plus  a genuine and intuitive other self in your personalty. And I have every reason to believe that you are obstructively trying to ignore and suffocate the positive and creative inner forces in your inherently beautiful feminine soul.

And as you have not been able to  work out my comments, none whatsoever ,as a result of being ambiguous; So surely you can not understand this one as well and will not be possibly hurt. Nevertheless, I do apologize in advance for my somewhat rude words.

Peace be upon you.


capt_ayhab

my naghabel 2 zari

by capt_ayhab on

Even if we assume one in a trillion chance of Reza Pahlavi being able to get his name on the alleged ballet for referendum, question still remains whether he posses any leadership quality to lead the country after such fundamental change in its structure. Unless his usual pals in AIPAC are going to help him lead.

 

-YT 


Fouzul Bashi

Irandokht jan, if there were a referendum

by Fouzul Bashi on

If there were a referendum in Iran tomorrow, the day after tomorrow and many days after that, Reza would not figure in it ;)


jamshid

Irandokht

by jamshid on

"4 years ago people listened to this "voice of reason" and did not trust the IRI regime's election and boycotted it. Ahmadinejad won..."

And this time, they listened to the "other" voice of reason and trusted the IRI election and voted. Ahamdinejad still won. What does that tell you? You are just proving my point.

"You really think the election did not have anything to do with the green movement? "

When I am short in time, I sometimes browse through a comment too, skipping every few words. I think you've done the same with my comment, otherwise why would you ask the above question?

But to repeat, I wrote that the elections alone by themsleves did not create the green movement as we know it today. Today the green movement is no longer about Mousavi.

There were other factors involved such as fraud committed in plain day light and people disliking the regime. I am certain that there were other factors as well. Had these other factors been abscent, today the green movement could not even be called a movement.

So "voting" was not the one and only factor. It is too simplistic to claim otherwise.

Additionally, you are making it sound that supporters of voting could predict that there would be fraud and then protests. Quite the contrary, they always claimed the opposite, that the voting process was legitimate and there is no need for protests.

They were proven wrong. And only when people realized this, they poured into the streets, not the other way.

"At some point it may become clear to you that calling for boycott was the wrong way to go and a boycott would have resulted in another easy win for AN and no real resistance from the masses."

I repeat again that it was an easy win for Ahmadinejad anyway. Vote or boycott would have created the same result. The difference was only in the needless bloodshed and other violences that ensued.

Of course I do understand that some people may say the deaths were not needless. That's because the "real resistance from the masses" that followed might have exited and given hope to some people who are living in the safety of Western countries. It is always easy to have others pay the price and to die while we only watch, but it is not ethical.

The "voting" not only brought Ahamadinejad to office anyway, but also caused needless deaths and imprsionments that are still continuing. Again, I do understand that some among us consider those needless deaths as "the price we have to pay for freedom and for a movement", but some of us don't think that way.

The solution is not voting. The solution is solidarity and civil disobedience, including boycotting voting, which is what RP has been advocating. Whether we like it or not, RP was proven right and people don't trust voting any longer, but at a heavy price that people other than your or me paid. People who could have been alive today, something that for some is irrelevant.

"If there is a free referendum in Iran tomorrow, how many votes do you think Reza would have? "

Although you didn't answer my similar question, I will answer yours. The answer to your question depends on what are the people's choices in such refrundum? Is it either RP or the IRI and no other options? In this case, I think RP will win in a landslide.

But if it is RP vs. other legitimate candidates from Jebheye Melli or other republican parties, independents, melli mazhabis, etc., and if each candidate is given an equal share of ads, speech time and so on, then I think it could be anybody's guess. RP's chances would be reduced in this case, but he might still get a good chunk of the votes.


IRANdokht

Jamshid jan

by IRANdokht on

You're right we can go on and on about this as it's been done many times before even on this very site. 

4 years ago people listened to this "voice of reason" and did not trust the IRI regime's election and boycotted it. Ahmadinejad won and became the President while nobody could object to it and since the ones who opposed him didn't vote, there was no way anyone would be able to prove fraud.

This time people did not listen to the ones who insisted on boycotting again and when the same person won the fraudulent election millions ran to the streets in protest wearing green, carrying signs and shouting: where is my vote

You really think the election did not have anything to do with the green movement?

Why do you think it's called a "green" movement? Even before the election, tens of thousands of green people would show up at Mousavi campaign rallies, how can you say the election had nothing to do with the green movement? 

At some point it may become clear to you (as it is for many already) that calling for boycott was the wrong way to go and a boycott would have resulted in another easy win for AN and no real resistance from the masses.

If RP and his entourage knew how to get people out on the streets to protest against the regime, they would have been able to do it in the past 30 years. People were ready, people were frustrated enough to run in the streets, there was just not one courageous person in the opposition for them to rally behind! Instead, they rallied behind Mousavi and Karrubi, not because these two were such revolutionaries, but because they were better than all their other options and they were there for the people. They had not sit this one out and pouted again, asking people not to get involved! People wanted to be involved, wanted to be heard and wanted to make a point. RP missed that boat and no amount of running after the greens and trying to swap their flags would help him gain credit for this green movement.

Jamshid jan

If there is a free referendum in Iran tomorrow, how many votes do you think Reza would have? 

IRANdokht


IRANdokht

Dear MG

by IRANdokht on

I am so very sorry my friend... I read your comment twice and I got more confused after the second time. There is some sort of disconnect that is not allowing me to understand what you mean. I have gone through all your comments word for word and still have no clue what you are really saying.

I was hoping that you'd reciprocate and express your views in a clear way this time, instead you're referring me to Nixon's interview and I couldn't even tell how you really feel about Nixon! 

Thank you for your participation nevertheless, 

IRANdokht


benross

Dear Vildemose

by benross on


My response became one of those long boring ones! I decided not to post it here because it is increasingly getting off topic. Perhaps I blog it separately. But I don't want to leave any confusion behind. So I give you a short answer for now. 

Are you trying to suggest that R.P. is not interested in becoming a king?? Am I right?

Not quite. Not that there is anything wrong with that (Seinfeld style!) but his lack of clarity leaves room for speculation. Kaveh Ahangar mentioned in his blog that he was cornered in a TV interview whether he accepts to become a republic president and not a king if people decided to choose a republic, and he said yes!... or something of that nature.

This doesn't explain what he really wants. It explain that if you don't spell it out yourself, others will spell it out for you.

All he says is that his job is finished when Iran is free and people had decided their regime. He never clarifies what job. This is the problem.


jamshid

Irandokht

by jamshid on

"Didn't RP ask people to boycott the election which resulted in the green movement? now his followers who didn't even vote in the election are dissing the greens as being reformists who accept the IRI constitution and calling them traitors."

You are implying that the election resulted in the green movement.  I disagree. The election by itself did not result in the green movement. It was fraud comitted in plain day light plus people disliking the regime that caused the green movement. Had the hardliners not committed fraud, or had Mousavi won, there would be no green movement as we know it today.

But to answer this question, we have to first examine the views of supporters and opponents of voting prior to June 12 events.

The supporters of voting advertised voting as a legitimate process under the IRI. Many of them wanted to calmly transfer the office of presidency to a reformsit such as Mousavi.

However, prior to June 12, none of them supported nor wanted demonstrations, protests or civil disobedience, which were traits of the opponents of voting.

The opponents of voting viewed the voting process under the IRI as a sham. They viewed voting as another mean for the regime to sustain its existance, and that when all is said and done, people's vote doesn't really count under this regime.

On June 12, the opponents of voting were proven to be right: People's vote does not really count under the IRI.

The demonstrations and protests that ensued were manifestations of people's frustration with the fraudulant voting process and with the advertisers of voting who brought them to the voting booths only to be defrauded. People kept saying, "Ok, I listened to you. I voted. So now where is my vote?"

These protests were NOT manifestations of the legitimacy of the voting process under the IRI, something that the supporters of voting tried hard to advertise.

But in my opinion, today, supporters of voting are fishing in the muddy waters and claiming that the protests were their bidding! Far from it, these protests were not their bidding, and quite the contrary, most of them were against protests, demonstrations, or god forbid, a revolution.

But then suddenly, many of them became pro-protest!

We can argue about this until tomorrow. But ultimately the argument is settled by asking ourselves if another election was held tomorrow, how many people do we think will vote? How many do we think will boycott it? Will they again listen to the supporters of voting? I think not, as it is now proven beyond doubt that the voting process under the IRI was a sham.

But the most important question is, did the supporters of voting really needed the June 12 events and the needless bloodshed that followed to be proven that they were wrong and that voting under the IRI is not legitimate?

I think, the June 12 events does not fault RP. In fact it absolve him and prove that he was right all along: People should not buy into the propaganda that voting under the IRI is a legitimate process.


mostafa ghanbari

Dear Irandokht

by mostafa ghanbari on

mg

 Dear Irandokht thank you for your detailed reply.

"Would you please explain why such noble,

courageous,inspirational,and admirable man is not your choice?"

This is your question referring to Reza  Pahlavi and my opinions about him.With regard to your adverse views towards Reza Pahlav's personality and his political trends, it is obvious that attributing the above mentioned adjectives to him is just an irony; but interestingly the question itself has the answer enclosed in it. So to make it clear, I  draw your attention to some parts of the Richard Nixon's last and historical interview:

 

" I let down my friends; I let down my country; I let down our system of government and dreams of all those people;I let the American people down and I have to carry this burden for the rest of my life. And most of all, I let down an opportunity that I had to proceed on great projects and programmes for building a lasting peace which then was my dream. I let down the opportunity of creating a generation of peace. When I  went to bed last night, I hoped, I almost prayed that I would not wake up again. A man in that top job has got have a heart, but his head must rule his heart; my head did not rule my heart. I was not a good butcher"

This is the bitter confession of a man- a leader  a president- who was morally acquitted by the American society as he was truly a man of great human values and good wills. But  his sincere efforts did not bear any remarkable fruit  at the end other than the disgrace and disappointment for his nation.

 

Surely, a man with  the size of Richard Nixon could have been a great help to his country and the world as well, if his unique quests had not been wasted in the frenzy of the position which was not consistent with his morale and abilities. 

So Dear Irandokht, let's have a holistic conclusion. My main point is the importance of consistency and  accuracy in choosing and setting the main pillars of the structure which is going to bear the massive weight of  the lofty democratic goals and make us a roof of justice ,security and freedom. Therein as my respect and interest for reza Pahlavi is not a blind and  irrational respect and interest, So I believe he can be one those pillars of that structure, but surely not one of the four or five main pillars since he lacks the needed strength and consistency. 

In your reply to me on the First of November you said:

"What I  know is that Ahmadinedjad has at least 10 million supporters. I do not know how many people would vote RP if there is a referendum tomorrow! But will it be more than 10 million?" 

But I say if we are a wise nation and free of bias and hindering opinions and have some realistic quests and know how to achieve them, so we must be very pleased if Reza Pahlavi can gather even 5 million of Iranian people around himself. Would not it be a great impact? Would not it be a powerful drive within the whole assembly? Would not it be a great uniting factor?

Dear Irandokht, in a Football team all the praises and applause go to the strickers and they are never blamed; while in fact it is the goalkeeper and the defenders who make them successful and great. So, do not you think Reza Pahlavi can be a member of the defenders of such team even as a good substitution?

 


IRANdokht

Magas-e bibaak aziz

by IRANdokht on

That detail is what I have never been ashamed of revealing even when it was cool to praise khomeini or see his face in the moon!

Now you know how ridiculous it is when the newly converted folk call me IRI sympathizer LOL  A lot of them have fought to bring the IRI to power and now kaaseyeh daghtar az aash shodan! 

Mmmm speaking of Aash... that's another green food I've been making a lot of, in this flu season ;-)

IRANdokht


vildemose

Dear Benross: Are you trying

by vildemose on

Dear Benross: Are you trying to suggest that R.P. is not interested in becoming a king?? Am I right?


kharmagas

Khanome Irandokht cheshmam roshan!

by kharmagas on

ID says: "I was one of the very few who ... supported Dr Bakhtiar at the time"

Bah bah Khanome Irandokht cheshmam roshan! You don't share your ghorme sabzi recipe and now I come to know about this! (*)

 

(*) just kidding, those of you who wanted to reform that system were wiser than rest of us.


IRANdokht

Dear MG

by IRANdokht on

I am sorry if I got confused reading your comments. In my own defense, it seems like you contradicted yourself a few times, praising him and then explaining how he's not your choice as a leader was misinterpreted by me. Here's an excerpt of your comment and one source of my misunderstanding:

Reza Pahlavi is a real treasure for us in this crucial period in which we are going to stand up to our ever most powerful enemy.Reza Pahlavi is the true source of inspiration and encouragement if we fret ourselves and understand him. Let's not to be so hasty and prejudical with our ways of approaching the vital decisions for our future.
I am not in favour of Reza Pahlavi because of his title; I am in favour of this man as a sincere and genuine person who his words are of a great value for me. for me Reza Pahlavi is not the son of a king; he is a respectable compatrit . He is not goin to be my choice as my king or my president or my prime minister; he is going to be my voice and my courage.

So after having praised RP as the one who would stand up to our enemies, you end up saying he's not your choice of president or prime minister or king.

I apologize for being confused, would you please explain why such a noble, courageous, inspirational and admirable man is not your choice? Your comment after that one referred me to the traditional ways Iranians counteract. Maybe I have been away too long to be able to understand what you meant through all the ambiguity.

As for my feelings towards the IRI, if you had been kind to pay attention to my other comments, I have explained that there was a time that I wholeheartedly supported a constitutional monarchy presented by Dr Bakhtiar. But the majority of Iranians were too excited and motivated to go ahead with their false prophet Khomeini and fell into the trap of an Islamic theocracy. At this time, I believe that we have passed that opportunity and rooting for a constitutional monarchy is a step backwards. Now that we have passed that turn on the road we should look forward towards a secular republic.

I have always written and expressed my views in the most clear words. If something puzzles me I will admit in being confused. I am also quite aware that some folks tend to turn to accusations and labeling if they are asked to be clear about their agenda. You seem to be new on this site, so I believe you might have not read anything I have written, but I assure you that I not only do not support the IRI regime now, I never even supported or partaken in the 79 revolution. 

I hope I was clear and please return the favor in your next reply.

 

IRANdokht


mostafa ghanbari

Dear Irandokht

by mostafa ghanbari on

mg 

Dear Irandokht I beg your pardon... but I think
you have not read my comments carefully...

Have I supported Reza  Pahlavi and suggested him as our prominet herald for our new movement? Where ? which paragraph? have I mentioned even a single word in my both comments that impart or refer  to Reza Pahlavi as the nation's next ideal leader? Which paragraph? Which line? Which words?Have I predicted any number of possible supporters for Reza Pahlavi in Iran?

In both my comments I have just tried to put some emphasis on the vital importance of the comprehensive recognition and insightful way of approaching our goals; and more importantly the right way of using  all our possible means including Reza Pahlavi and many others who we have amazingly been denying during the past three decades; and in this I mentioned Reza Pahlavi just as an example.

If we try  to understand each other in such  simple communications,  then  surely we can find our favorite hero for our future adventures.

And lastly, could you please give me a smack of your  general opinion about the Islamic regime and Mullahs in a few lines?

Best wishes.


benross

Vildemose

by benross on

This is the terrible outcome of what I am talking about: You, not you 'personally' but you, as a typical intelligent person who never had any affiliation with monarchic option, criticizing him for letting down his family... and in his way of thinking, he has done all that just to gain the trust of people like you! This is what I am talking about.

You would think that after 20 years (that I know of) there has to be some clear idea about what Reza Pahlavi thinks about his inheritance. He may not want to have any part of this. Which is totally understandable. I often think about what I would have done in his place, and among different scenarios, the one crossing my mind the most was to do away with it and set myself free. But he has not done so.

I do not think this is about his old entourage. Those people can provide him wisdom and expertise and experience (and he can pick and choose). It is about him. (I'm getting personal here Reza!) He might even be a republican himself, as his grandfather was. That's okay. We don't want to force him to be a Shah like his grandfather, just because the society can't handle the end of the monarchy tradition. It can now. If need be (one would think!). This is not the issue. The issue is CLARITY.

From my standpoint, the agenda of the opposition is to restore constitutional monarchy and then prepare a constituent assembly. He can say I am the sworn crown prince, I restore the constitution and then I will advocate for a republican system. This also is quite okay with me. Whatever it is, just CLARIFY.


vildemose

dear benross

by vildemose on

My contention is that Reza Pahlavi should not down play the fact that he is the crown prince.

Mr. Pahlavi has not taken his crown princship seriously, has he? There are no evidence of that fact.

What are the true obligation of a King?? In my opinion he should get rid of his ingratiating dianosaur advisors. Has he acted like a benevolent king or pricne? Not yet but it's never too late...


IRANdokht

Dear Farah and Darius

by IRANdokht on

I agree with you both that 30 years ago our country's system should have been reformed rather than change the way it did. I was one of the very few who did not want an islamic republic and supported Dr Bakhtiar at the time. I am afraid we lost that chance when it was the right time for it. I actually do blame the failure of Dr Bakhtiar's government on Mohammad Reza Shah's slow response to the people's quest for democracy and freedom. 

In my humble opinion, at this point in time, there is no sense to be looking back or noving backwards to what would have been the better option 30 years ago, instead the reform that is needed now should be towards a secular republic. The goal changes as the circumstances change, if we do not adapt to the changes and focus accordingly, we might lose yet another chance for improving the political structure of our country.

Thank you once again

IRANdokht


Farah Rusta

Dear Irandokht

by Farah Rusta on

Thank you for your welcoming gesture and comment. 

I agree that my second question may prove to be confusing. As you know I favor a parliamentary monarchy almost along the lines Darius has so elaborately described here. A system akin to the British system is my favorite in which the Parliament is the ultimate sovereign and not the monarch. The monarch in such a system has more than a ceremonial rule. He or she is the final arbiter (in very exceptional cases) where the major parties cannot agree or reach a clear majority decision (a hung parliament) on a major issue (like entering the war). In such a situation, the monarch, on behalf of the nation and free from the party politics can advise the government. I have studied the role of the monarch in European countries and in all cases, particularly the British style, the role is pastoral (in Persian we may say: mamlekat bi sahaab nist).

The second question is related to this role. Do we deserve to have a representative symbol of the nation to symbolize our past historical heritage or do we want to break away from such a symbol?

I hope I made it clear now.

I truly believe in Darius's words when he says that it was not the revolution that was hijacked by the monarchical reform. I think we would have been far better off with a radical reformation of our constitutional monarchy (or should I say restoration of our constitutional monarchy) than removing it altogether.

regards

FR


Red Wine

...

by Red Wine on

در اینجا دوستان صحبت‌های جالبی‌ را مطرح می‌کند، ولی‌ ما که چشمان آب نمیخورد... در واقع فهم سیاسی ایرانی دچار اشکال است وگرنه راحت میشود خیال بافی‌ نمود و داستان سرأیی کرد !

بد جور ایران در مرز نابودی قرار گرفته است، هم شاه و هم شیخ و هم مردم نادان مقصرند و باید دید برای فردا چه باید کرد !

ممنون ایران دخت جان برای بلاگ.

 


IRANdokht

Darius jan

by IRANdokht on

I am still waiting, but I see how busy you are :o) and thanks for the educational and well written comments. 

IRANdokht


IRANdokht

Welcome aboard! :o)

by IRANdokht on

I liked your questions Ms Rusta!

I found your first question very thought provoking and your good explanation for why our system cannot resemble the British monarchy for example...   As for whether or not we "deserve" monarchy, I stumbled on that one: Does that mean that the monarchy system is such a great concept that we might have proven not being worthy of it? or does it mean that we may actually deserve a democratic system having fought and abolished the different dynasties one after another... 

I believe that after having fought for freedom and democracy continuously for at least over 100 years, we should have been closer to it than we currently are. What makes our struggle fruitless besides the meddling of the foreign elements?  What do you think? 

IRANdokht