Iranian Liberal Democrat

Mr. Kadivar

I enjoyed your post with all of your links, I found them all very informative. Ba sepass!

Mr. Ali Mostofi, don't forget

Please remember that the writer of this article not long ago was saying Iran was colony of Britian. That is completly lie and insult to Iran's people and Iranin histoy. Colony means "Nokar" and this person has no clue of what he was saying. In fact, Reza shah's speech made 10 brits turn their pants in yellow. Colony.? what a none-sense.

Hindsight is always 20-20

Hindsight is always 20-20 folks. Some of you are very young and all of you really have missed a couple of very important points. Please correct me if I am wrong. Without wanting to appear arrogant, I will put my few cents. I got inspired here, so this is where it goes.

I was probably in the front line of the "massive catch up to the 20th Century rush", that HIM Shahanshah Aryamehr had the responsibility to achieve in a modern Iranian way. We in the oil business found and sold the oil, only to find it in the wrong hands.  Why?

False sense of Responsibility 

Let us look at the words "had the responsibility to". HIM had a problem which was manifested in his dealings with the media.  He fell for the concept of "defender of the world against USSR". He really believed that he was defending "the free world". The Communists in Iran, forced his hand, to spend money on military equipment, and in the process, caused economic chaos. That by the way, is the easiest way to ruin a country. Not only less money goes into other programs, but the wrong sort of people got far too much power. We all know what happened once he told the Americans that Iran's military was self-sufficient. The US did not like getting out of the area, and so he was ousted.

Politics of the Communists vs Politics of HIM 

Now let's look at the words "in a modern Iranian way". The Communists in Iran actually used HIM very cleverly, to destroy all sense of nationalism in Iran.  Obviously they do not care for nationhood, so for them to be percieved, as the number one threat to the culture of Iran, was a great achievement.  Ironically the military in Iran, really loved the fact that they were getting all this money, and probably loved the Communists for it.  And of course the Communists gave the HIM the feeling of fear, that moved him into politics. He thought that we needed a one party system to preserve the national character. Ironically that is what IRI is doing now. 

Modernization vs Politics

Now let us look at the word "massive rush". We in the technology sector of Iran, were always taught, that needing toilets, medicine, and books, has no politics. So the slang went "what are you on about?" And so the need for politicians was ruled out.  People in The West argue about finer points of public expenditure, but the main allocations are common to all parties.  So the conclusion was that politics is a waste of time in developing countries. The one party system is encouraged, so that democracy will not be abused, and non-cultural choices are not made by politicians. The fearful scenario was that, some wacko politician will be elected, who will say things that will ruin Iran's national heritage. Why allow that, when the business of supplying toilets, medicine and books was more important? And in fact the very first national election that did take place, was elegantly abused by the Ayatollahs, and IR began to try destroy the culture of Iran. But they failed. So HIM's fear was too much.

20-20

In hindsight, we need to learn that politics must not be involved in cultural matters and vice-versa. Nationalism means culture, What the HIM stood for, and what the new HIM stands for, is the personification of the Iranian culture. Democracy is a process that can be abused.  Sure it gives people the right to express, but the elected have to have policies should not include changing the history or geographical heritage of Iran. The Parliament cannot ever vote to change the name of Iran to Islamic Republic or the Flag, or the national anthem. A Communist will abuse democracy and delete Iran.

HIM did over react to the fear of the Communists in Iran. He was not ready for street violence. This "fantastic military" failed at the crucial time. The Generals of Iran took charge after Bakhtiar left, but Bagheri and Qarabaghi, fell for Fardoost's rant. They did not consult the judiciary, to decide whether the rioting in the streets, was a threat on the security of the country, as Fardoost had stated. We ended up with a coup d'etat as the military of Iran lost all sense of culture and did not keep the peace in the streets. This new street war was never really repeated anywhere, even in the present day Egypt, as the Egyptian military had learnt from Iran's experience.

The Future

It is easy to sit around the coffee table and point fingers, as we do. But look at who is benefiting from all this. My view has always been the people who are making the most money after a situation, as Machiavelli said, had something to do with it. The military people benefited from all this, and their new customers were the IRGC.  The US military industry is very happy with selling its hardware and it needs customers. There are no moral principles, as the Ofer saga shows. No one is exempted. The Ayatollahs will be there, as long as they are the bogey men.  The last thing the US wants is a peaceful civilzed Iran, led by whizzes likes Naderi of NASA.  They need a dumb ass madman. But if the demand for military hardware is increased elsewhere with the Arab Spring, then maybe they will ignore the Ayatollahs and we can have our civilization back. Until then they will continue to refer to Iran in the media when they should be using the phrase Hezbollah in Iran. As long as Reuters AP BBC AFP and others continue to abuse the word "Iran", the perception of Iran as a bogey man and a pariah state will remain. The UN needs to know that the representative from Iran is actually the representative from Hezbollah in Iran. Once the press use this terminology them the future will look bright.

Sorry about this long comment, and I will shut up now. Thanks for reading this.

Ali Mostofi

//www.alimostofi.com

Lets not blame only IRI and Khomeini for the tyranny in Iran

To Ignore the Support Khomeini received from the worlds FREE Democracies would be totally Dishonest.

To The USA/UK/France/Germany without who's neo-colonialist activities
Khomeini would be an impossibility as would maintaining the IRI.

It is this type of Islam that the West wants for Iran, the entire middle east and north Africa. The Green movement, while supported by secular elements, was more the Wests attempts at bringing into power their own group of Muslims to run the show than those in power they can not control.

A fair comment would be to Curse All the so called Free Democracies for their Domination of Iran at the expense of Human Rights.

responses

Ali jaan,

Thanks for your comments. It is ok to disagree. From my observations, first the democrats began in June 1977. Several open letters signed by democrats circulated in 1977. In 1977 the Khomeini forces were not involved in the struggle. Later on the leftists joined. Only in early 1978 after the article in Etelaat insulting Khomeini (written by the order of the Shah, and then the Shah made it even more harsh).

There is strong consensus that Khomeini and his supporters joined the revolution later. See:

The best scholarly work on the genesis of the revolution:

Ahmad Ashraf and Ali Banuazizi, "The State, Classes and Modes of Mobilization in the Iranian Revolution," State, Culture and Society, vol. 1, no. 3, 1985, pp. 3-40.

Also see:

Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions, pp. 496-529

Ramy Nima, The Wrath of Allah, pp. 35-75.

Khomeini was a monarchist and supported the Shah until 1963. In his book Kashef al Asrar, Khomeini explicitly supports monarchy as the form of government. Khomeini’s idol was Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri, who during the Constitutional Revolution strongly supported the absolute monarchy and for which was hanged by the constitutionalists. They wanted Sharia under the rule of an absolute monarch. Of course, Khomeini later on lied and fooled everyone and hid his support for Sheikh Fazolollah Nouri until after 1979.

Best,

Masoud

======================　

R2-D2 jaan,

Thank you my friend.

Best regards,

Masoud

======================================　

Shazdeh jaan,

Welcomed back my friend. You were missed here. There is no doubt that Khomeini was a zillions times worse than the Shah. The point is that we deserve better. We deserve a free and democratic Iran.  And many of the Shah's policies caused the revolution and lead to Khomeini's victory.  We have to be realistic and honest and analyze the situation objectively, so that we can learn and use them to succesfully overthrow the fundamentalist regime and establish a democratic system.  If we do not learn from the past, we will repeat them again and again.  Part of the problem is the lack of hafezeh tarikhi (historical memory) among our people.  Our scholars, historians, intellectuals, political activists should have known about the reactionary nature of Khomeini.  That failure caused the problems in 1978-1979. 

Best,

Masoud

===================================　

Dear Kaveh,

Actually, relative deprivation occurs when people observe that some gain material stuff that the people regard as illegitimate. When all are deprived, there is no relative deprivation (under such absolute deprivation, ironically we do not observe revolutions in the modern period). Under relative deprivation, all (or most) gain, but some gain more than others illegitimately (or perceived to be illegitimate).

When all are deprived or when the economy is growing, we do not observe successful revolutions. Rather when we observe the confluence of several factors such as declining economy AFTER a good economy mixed with relative depravation, many get discontented. Systems enjoying basic legitimacy can weather the problem. But when the system suffers from acute crisis of legitimacy, the little crisis can lead to revolution.

Best,

Masoud

==========================　

Dear hirre,

I think in terms of real GDP per capita, 1974 was the highest we had. Current GDP really does not matter much due to inflation. Also PPP does not make sense in Iran after the revolution due to a variety of factors such as different exchange rates and the false data released by the regime (which many IGOs have to use for their data).

Best,

Masoud

======================　

APFSM,

You do not make sense.

MK

Shahs time was the best period of Irans modern history

He deserved more supporters, the unwillingness of  more Iranians to support him was really the error of the past generations intellectuals, democrats and society in general.

What will be interesting is if the people live and learn and support their own national traditions and monarchy....

or if they continue to follow the US/UK/France/Germany approach for Iran, which is riddled with their national interests which 100% opposed and betrayed the Shah.

The Chariacature depicting Shah clubbing people is really not a honest depiction of him... after what he did for Iran.

Most people in Iran today say that Shahs time was no comparison to IRI, he was no crook, no dictator, no megalomaniac, no torturer... these lies didn't exactly serve us in 1979.  And most Iranians know it .

Masoud, you are right

The problem was that development came too late and was not efficient enough in earlier years. Iran was economically at its peak during the 70's but the people didn't feel it because real development takes time (also in dictatorial systems development comes very late, if not at all).

People were ultimately angry of shah's political arrogance. My father was one opposition leader during that period. If we look at their politics 30 years ago it was all about gaining power and that power by itself would fix the other problems. The few people that had serious budget proposals on how to distribute resources were lost in the turmoil. Basically the democratic candidates were "lost" between the communists and the fundamentalists. Both are dangerous alternatives for economy planning. The shah didn't see any alternative that were going to be of benefit for Iran. The people, according to him, were lured into either supporting communism or fundamentalism which in practice was the case during that period of time.

  Dear Masoud, Thank

Dear Masoud,

Thank you for your detailed response. I accept your response as being factual, but may disagree to the level of their relevance, or importance, as a contributing factor to the '79 revolution. I also hope to provide some context to the trends and the events you mention.

First, I very much agree that Iran was lucky to have the "billions" and "billions" of petro-dollars because of the global political events, but also because of the efforts of the Shah.

The socio-economic price of this windfall was even more severe than what we observe in the current rapidly growing economies of Asia, precisely because, as you indicated, of the much shorter timeline and total lack of infrastructure in Iran, in late 60s early 70s.

Again, this is endemic of any rapidly growing economy. Although, one may criticize the regime, and the Shah himself, for not managing some aspects of this growth better, but we know for certain that there was some level of meritocracy within the regime and the government to implement what was best for the people and national interest. The key point is that the path was open for anyone, or any organization to develop and prosper, if they could overcome the local cultural and corruption barriers. This is the most likely reason for the entire society to always look toward the West for solutions and ideas, with encouragement from the regime.

In short, the inflation, shortages and other economic imbalances were part and parcel of the rapid economic growth that may occur anywhere and anytime. They key point (again) is that the regime had steered the country (political, economic and culturally) in the right direction for the population to prosper in the shortest time possible. All of which was accomplished by utilizing available and inadequate human resources that were often unfit for many of these tasks.

A great deal of the cultural ills, such as the lashing of the shopkeeper (this must have been a very isolated instance since the regime would not condone Qajar/Islamic style behavior, nonetheless, this has been the norm for sometime) were inherent disciplinary behavior within the population and local officials.

Regarding your colleagues observations on the causes of revolutions, the general argument is valid, but not for the reasons you indicated. The "relative depravation" has been a permanent reality for all Iranians until Pahlavis and the onset of the petro-dollars. The problem was to satisfy the "heightened expectation" of 30 million people, virtually overnight! What do you mean by "The decline in oil price and the extremely horrible economic planning by the Shah caused great economic hardships." ? Compared to when? When in the history, the people in Iran had less economic hardship than the Shah's time ?

The transformation from a medieval feudal system to industrial state will require some effort on everyone's part to be productive and contribute, in some way, to the overall system, in order to maintain the desired standard of living. This should not be confused with economic hardship, especially for a society that was "cushioned" by the petro-dollars. Not being able to cope with 'growing pains' is no excuse for economic hardship. Being a landowner in far-out provinces 70 years ago was an easier and more comfortable life for many. But, they had no modern comfort, nor minimal health care.

You also conclude the lack of legitimacy for Shah's downfall. I'm not sure what it means and how you mean it. However, I'm sure that his downfall had a great deal to do with the pre-existing historic conditions; that is a majority under Shiaa Islam spell.

Also, it did not occur to me until 2 years ago in the aftermath of the IRI elections. The generation that brought us the '79 disaster knew very little about 1953, JM, Mossadegh et. Al, they were all born after '53 coup. Monarchy and the Shah was quite legitimate for them, until the declaration of martial law in September 1978. The foolish response, on the part of the security officials at the time, cost us everything. The intimidation by arraying tanks, soldiers and helicopters in residential neighborhoods, and the initial massacre of demonstrators that numbered only a few hundred, brought out the rage of the entire generation. On the other hand, there was almost total lack of will to control a messy situation on the government side, which lead to anti regime demonstrations later that numbered in hundreds of thousands and the eventual collapse.

Had there been more foresight on everyone's part, many things could have been done differently, certainly, Shah was no exception. However, I do believe, the blow came by the foolish behavior of the security authorities in September '78.

Also, I do take exception with some of your points such as the poetry nights at Goethe institute as being way down the bottom of the important event's list for the '79 revolution. More importantly, the fact that you hold the "Shah" responsible for any attempted violence on JM activists is highly suspicious. Why would SAVAK bomb their office, or home when they could take them in any time ? I also know this was not the case for Sanjabi's house and Foroohar (despite being jailed briefly long time before '78). Bazargan is a different story, he was an Islamist and collaborated with them and even traveled to Lebanon (Tyre), certainly an Islamist rival target.

So back tot he topic of your blog J , anyway, Rastakhiz did not harm anything or anyone, what anyone make of it, it is their right and their opinion. But, please remember that those democratic people who were slightly offended at the notion of the single party system were such a small minority (yours included) that it would not have mattered, the potential benefit of steering reactionary public in a more positive direction, was limitless.

Have a pleasant weekend.

Shah's dog was better than Khomeini

Bad Stories for Bad Kids

I was in highschool right then

and I was born right around the dates mentioned.

Like I said, I did not have to join, nor was I ever asked to join.

It's water under the bridge anyway. Not sure if its mandatory to join Hezbollah now - the current single party system.

and oh, yeah, my family was swimming in money back then, didn't know what to do with all the dough....hee haaw. 

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Masoud Jaan

Thank you once again for your informative response -

I'm fairly familiar with both the US and UK Political systems - I spent six (6) years in UK as a student, and have lived for the past thirty (30) years in US -

However, I have to be honest with you, that I'm not as well-versed with the French Political system - I'll read up on it to familiarize myself, and if you like, please write a brief comment as to your understanding of it -

After my studies, I'll get back to you so that we can continue this discussion -

Many Tks Again,

R D

Now I remember

We used to call the thugs Falange, reference to extremists in Lebanon. Now  that MG has inserted the complete  chant that they had, I remember it. Their talk of Rohoollah and everything.

Masoud jaan

Thank you for your explanations.

For the record, I don't come from a wealthy family. I would cathegorize my family as upper middle class, an average Iranian family, with no ties to the royal court or high officials, or the elite.

My family was also apolitical. Nobody in my family was involved in politics. Hence, we were left alone. My dad worked 10 hours/day, and we owned our own( moderate) home. Summers we went to the Caspian Sea. No summer home. We'd rent a cabin.

We all need to tell our own stories. I am tired of hearing everyone, speak on the behalf of "the masses". So I am telling you my story.I am sure many had it differently.

I look back now, and I read, and I come to one conclusion: The Revolution was Khomeini's Revolution from Day 1. It was Mashrooeeyat's revenge, against Mashrooteeyat. Bakhtiar and a few others saw it, most of us didn't. What was badly needed, was a sweeping reform, not a devestating revolution.

I always enjoy reading your comments.

Yours,

Ali P.

hirre

Dear hirre,

You are wrong. Politics is about power. Power includes the ability of deciding about the distribution of resources (from whom to whom).

In democracy, there are rules (majority wins while respects the rights of the minority). Those who win an election (the majority of the people) decide. In a dictatorship, the tyrant decides.

For example, in 2008 election Obama won. Therefore, the universal healthcare. Had McCain won, there would not be a universal healthcare. On education. The same, Obama helped with loans and grants. A McCain victory would mean less money for education.

Issues such as jobs, inflation rate, clean water, education, healthcare, foreign policy, military spending are POLITICAL. The question is whether these policies should be decided democratically or by a tyrant.

I think in the long run, it is far superior to have the people in a democratic system make these decisions. If the people make bad decisions, then in a democracy, they can VOTE OUT that party and elect another party in the next election. In a dictatorial system, what you see in Asad’s Syria or Qadzafai’s Libya or Iran under the Shah’s regime or VF regime, they ruling tyrants do not leave; they stay and KILL the people.

My point is that dictatorship is a bad system. And democracy is a superior system. If the Shah accepted democracy in 1945, or 1951-53, or 1961, or 1977, we would not be suffering under the hellish nightmare that we are suffering today. And today we are suffering because there is a dictatorship in Iran that refuses to allow free and democratic elections. If there was free and democratic elections in Iran, then our people would have VOTED for a decent and good government and not the savages that rule us today.

Best,

Masoud

Mash Ghasem jaan

Mash Ghasem jaan,

Thank you for your contributions.

Best regards,

Masoud

Back then...

Those who came into real conflicts with the shah was those who wanted to influence or comment politics direct or indirectly, which is natural in a democractical society. Normal people didn't have these problems. The only problems they really had was e.g. availability of education, healthcare, jobs, electricity, clean water etc... These problems are independent of the political system because they all have the same scientific solution. Different political systems only inflict how fast the development will take place and also in which magnitude.

The society did develop in the right direction back then, the problem was that people taught this would also apply to politics. The more they felt they had no political power, the more extreme they became. Hence Iran faced a political revolution. Not a revolution to improve education, heathcare and so on, but simply a revolution in order to try and gain political power aswell.

Kaveh

Dear Kaveh,

The economies of China and India are growing due to planning and exports (providing production and services etc). Iran’s economy in 1973-75 was growing due to massive oil windfall. The huge price rise was due to the Arab oil boycott. Iran is lucky to have oil. The economic success of China and India (and South Korea) are not due to luck; they are due to wise planning. The Shah was lucky to get BILLIONS and BILLIONS of oil money. His policies gave rise to socio-economic crisis.

The Shah used the money very very badly as did Ahmadinejad. There are much much better ways of spending the money. As I mentioned the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE have done so far more intelligently.

The problems with bottlenecks had to do with the fact that our ports did not have the capacity. So in some cases ships had to wait MONTHS. Their perishable cargo rotted. That is bad and avoidable. Do NOT have massive imports. First build ports, then increase the imports. There were also serious problems with storage of industrial equipment. They were left outside and huuuuuuuuuuuge amount of money basically rusted under the elements. Again, bad planning. First build the infrastructure (ports, roads, storage), then import the materials and foodstuff.

Of course one cannot avoid growing pains. But who lashes shop keepers for the inflation? Who publically humiliates shop keepers for inflation? Who closes down shops for the inflation? And who CAUSED the inflation??????? It is said (true or false I do not know) that one day someone told Reza Shah that the price of bread had risen. The story goes that he went to a nonwaee (bread bakery) and threw one or two bakers into the clay oven. The next day, the price of bread went back to the previous price. Perhaps, Mohammad Reza Shah wanted to use repressive measures against inflation (instead of what economists would suggest).

Political scientists have observed that most revolution occur to what is called "relative depravation" or "revolution of heightened expectation" when an economic prosperity is followed by economic decline (or inverted J curve). The massive spending created huge prosperity and the perception that these should continue. The decline in oil price and the extremely horrible economic planning by the Shah caused great economic hardships. The Iranian people did not observe such economic problems in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia in 1975-78. The reason was that because they boycotted oil sales, they did not have as much money. But also their leader then and after, SAVED huge amounts of the oil money in banks. And gradually spent them. None of the governments in the region fell in 1979.

Again, the PRIMARY problem with the Shah was his utter lack of legitimacy. Many other governments have suffered far worse economic conditions but they did not fall. When the people perceive their government to be legitimate they are willing to sacrifice a great deal for it. When a population considers the ruling system as illegitimate, then they will not sacrifice for its survival. The Shah was not regarded as legitimate by vast majority of the population.

So the economic problems which predated 1973-74 got a huge boost in late 1973-early 1975 due to the quadrupling of oil prices. Shah’s bad policies caused hyperinflation (more than 20%). His other policies increased unemployment. Add to this mix, the Shah’s weird violent manner of dealing with the inflation caused the people to hate the regime even more. And in November 1976, Carter gets elected on the talk of human rights. So, the Shah (being a puppet of the U.S.) freaks out. And at the same time, many in the opposition organize.

In conclusion, the primary cause was the revolution was the utter lack of legitimacy of the Shah. The Shah’s economic policies created great anger among major segments of the population (first the shop keepers, and then those who lost their jobs during the recession). The election of Carter made the JM middle class democratic opposition to organize (June 1977) to pressure the Shah to accept democratic reforms. The Shah REFUSED and instead used extreme violence against the JM modern middle class opposition. The Shah bombed the homes and offices of Dr. Sanjani, Bazargan, Matin-Daftari, Nazih, Forouhar, Lahiji, Moghadam Maraghei, Hajji Moinian and beat up JM members who were meeting in a private garden.

In late 1977 the leftist intellectuals entered the scene during the poetry night at Goethe Institute.

From January 1978, the religious factions entered the scene.

By mid-1978, there was a genuine popular revolution with almost all sectors of the Iranian society involved from millionaires, to highly educated upper middle class, to modern middle class, to traditional middle class, to lower middle class, to working classes, and recently rural to urban migrants.

Had the Shah enjoyed political legitimacy, nothing would have happened. Had the Shah had an iota of foresight, he would have accepted the JM demands of June 1977 and allow free elections, then those democratic demands would have allowed a peaceful transition to democracy. Had the Shah not follows his very bad economic policies then the people would not have been suffering from high inflation and higher unemployment. Had the Shah not used weird violent measures to counter inflation, there would not have been such intense feeling to get back at him.

And back to the topic of this blog. The establishment of the Rastakhiz Party also hugely antagonized the democratic Iranians.

Best,

Masoud

  Masoud Khan, In

Masoud Khan,

In response to Ali P., what you state as economic ills, or bad economic situation from 1973-1978 are actually the side effects of a rapid economic growth that every/any country would wish for. Injecting liquidity into the economy, bottle necks in communications, transportation and other shortages due to rapidly expanding economy is NORMAL. Without massive imports, there would have been massive shortages (supply and demand). There is no economic blue print for handling the "side-effects" of the rapidly growing (or any stage) economy.

All of what you describe is being experienced in the rapidly developing economies of China, India and other Asian countries. Iran was ahead of all these countries back then and was just beginning to learn how to deal with these side effects. These days, economists have learned to soften some of these effects by slowing the growth and using a multitude of economic parameters to control others, but there is no known, or unique solution to all these issues. As an academic, you must certainly be aware of this. This is hardly a criticism of the monarchy and/or the Pahlavis. How would you have solved these issues then ?

respectfully

On the origins of Hezb Ollah and Hezb Rastakhiz

According to late Gholam Hossain Sadei ( Alefba #1, Paris) the term Hezbollah, for the first time in Iran was uttered by religious thugs-chomagh beh dastan, in their clashes with Leftist students in front of Tehran University. They would chant: (as Faramarz reminded),

Hezb to hezb machal,

Rahbar to Lenin kachal

Hezb ma hezb khoda

Rahbar ma roh khoda

Hezb faght Hezbollah

Rahbar faght rohollah!

On the origins of Hezb Rastakhiz see Darioush Homayon and somka.

Paykar jaan

Paykar jaan,

Unfortunately, our politics has had more than its share of Shaaban Bi-mokh and hezbollahi types.

My hope it that hundreds of others who read these blogs learn something from this.  Being insulted by some thugs is a very small price to pay.

Best wishes,

Masoud

Anahid jaan

Anahid jaan,

Thank you.  You are several years younger than me.     

Best wishes,

Masoud

R2-D2 jaan

R2-D2 jaan,

Much political scholarship considers the most conducive constitutional framework for democracy is parliamentary system with president as ceremonial president (with the sole power to choose one or another party leader in case no party gets a majority of the seats in the parliament). There is some debate on this, but not whole lot.

We have to also consider OUR political culture. Because of our political culture at this point, I am afraid that we could not have a stable cabinet/prime minister due to the extreme segmentation of our politics. Therefore, I think the form for Iran should be either the French semi-presidential system or presidential system. They are most appropriate for Iran’s conditions and culture. In 2003, I discussed some aspect of my analysis here:

//www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/Kazemz...

The problems with Pahlavi monarchy is the utter lack of trust and legitimacy for them. Even worse, is that fact that overwhelming majority of our monarchists are terribly dictatorial and anti-democratic.

For good or ill, OTHER groups simply do not trust the Pahlavis. For example, no other Iranian political party works with the monarchists. See how many official statements have been issued by various political parties about the death of Ezzatollah Sahabi and Haleh Sahabi. How many official statements were issued by non-monarchist parties when AliReza Pahlavi died? Zero. Even NAMIR (Dr. Bakhtiar’s party) did not issue an official statement. And I can tell you we all were very very sad about his suicide.

Therefore, in actual reality, there does not exist the necessary condition for the restoration of monarchy in Iran. To have legitimacy as the foundation of a political system, the ruling structure needs a super-majority, something around at least 70-75 percent of the population. Certainly, monarchist do not have this. Monarchists have something like 5 to 10 percent support among the people. RP could play a constructive role by renouncing monarchy, and establishing a conservative republican party. As long as he wants to be king, he will generate a lot of hostitlity and opposition.

My 2 cents.

Best regards,

Masoud

Ali jaan

Ali jaan,

The fact that you and I came from wealthy families made life very comfortable for us. 

I, too, got those oranges, bananas, and biscuits. Ahmadinejad distributes potatoes. Instead of looking at the crumps thrown by corrupt officials, we need to look at the major policies 1973-1977.

The quadrupling of oil prices increased oil income from around $4billion in 1972 to close to $20 billion later (due to Arab oil boycott of 1973-74 and that the Shah continued to sell oil to U.S., Israel, and South Africa). The Shah made a large number of mistakes (similar to what Ahmadinejad did in 2005-2009) including injecting massive amount of liquidity to the economy creating hyperinflation. Instead of admitting that he, the Shah, was directly responsible for the hyperinflation, he blamed the retailers and bazaar shop keepers. This is what the Shah wrote in Answer to History:

"The 14th Principle was put into effect in August 1975, At that time we were suffering an inflation rate of 20% which endangering our economy and social equilibrium. .... In order to punish crimes against this principle, special tribunals were instituted which passed judgment without appeal. During August and September of 1977, 8,000 people were tried for price control violations. We made every effort to mete out punishment at the top...."

The Shah did not write that from 1973-1977 campaign against inflation, the punishments included 40 lashes, closing of shops, prison terms, and exile to other cities for small shop keepers.

In conclusion, the economic situation was bad in 1975-1978. The Shah terribly badly used the huge oil income into massive imports. This caused bottlenecks in ports where ships stayed many many months and the foodstuff rotted, the industrial equipments rusted under rain kept outside, etc. The overheated economy in 1974-early 1975 dove into recession. The Shah was unwilling to cut military budget, so the budget for construction was cut and thus hugely increased unemployment.

Because the economic situation under VF regime is sooooooooooooooooo bad, that we can look at the economy in 1975-1978 and comparatively it looks great. But at THAT time compared to what the people experienced before, it was bad and was getting worse. Again, compared to the IRI economy, things were wonderful. The rulers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE did not commit the same major economic mistakes that the Shah committed.

Having said all these, the PRIMARY PROBLEM of the Shah was not economic. It was his utter lack of legitimacy (nationalist, democratic, social justice, traditional, religious). Many other ruling systems have survived far worse economic problems.

I hope that you at least admit that the Shah did say what I directly quoted him as saying. Or you are skeptical about that Shah actually saying the words I quoted him as saying? Rana has authored an excellent blog on how human brain process info contradictory to one’s interests or one’s group’s interests. In social science, we call it "tribalism," and in international relation we call it "cognitive dissonance" (and relatedly "selective perception" and "group think"). People tend to dismiss information that makes their own group look bad and uncritically accept information that makes other group look bad. When you have about 2-5 minutes read Rana’s article (the first segment):

//iranian.com/main/2011/may/self-social-perception

I do realize that I am providing information that challenges your preconception and that it is not easy to simply accept that the Shah did say that stuff and that stuff is terribly dictatorial and fascistic. You have wonderful memories of the 1970s. Many of us do. But we need to see the whole picture and learn the lessons of history so that we could help build a better future free from dictatorship, brutality, and misery (for all Iranians).

Best regards,

Masoud

جبهه ملی‌ = چوب هر دو سر به "طلا"

جناب کاظم زده، شما هر چی‌ که از طرف جبهه ملی‌ داد و بیداد کنی‌ و سعی‌ کنی‌ که تاریخ رو باز نویسی کنی‌، برای مردم ایران اثری نخواهد داشت.  تاریخ ایران نشان داده، و خواهد داد، که جبهه ملی‌ یکی‌ از بزرگترین خائنان به ایران و ایرانی‌ بوده است. جبهه ملی‌ یکی‌ از عاملان اصلی‌ انقلاب ۱۹۷۹ و یکی‌ از بنیانگذاران اصلی‌ جمهوری اسلامی، قانون اساسی‌ آن و ولایت فقیه بود.  بزرگترین اشتباه جبهه ملی‌ این بود که تصور کرد که خمینی روی قولش می‌ایستد و قدرت را با آنها تقسیم میکند.  ولی‌ بسیار خوشم آمد که همانطور که پأیین گفتم مافیای خمینی افتاد به جان خود این اراذل و اوباش.  دمش گرم!  حقشون بود این جانورها.

حالا هم خوشبختانه بازماندگان جبهه ملی‌ شدند چوب هر دو سر به "طلا."  هیچکس از آنها خوششان نمی‌آید.  یک مشت خائن وطن فروش.  حقشان هم است.  نوش جان!     

scholarly history of the Rastakhiz Party

please read the basics on the Rastakhiz Party here

Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), pp. 440-446.  Several pages (not all) are available at:

//books.google.com/books?id=qh_QotrY7RkC&pg=PA440&dq=In+March+1975,+however,+the+shah+did+an+about-turn&hl=en&ei=TFToTZbhA8vdgQfWg_C5AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=In%20March%201975%2C%20however%2C%20the%20shah%20did%20an%20about-turn&f=false

Having said that, I know it

Having said that, I know it was not all was rosy either. As a teenager, however, I, personally, was not exposed to the ugliness of life, thanks to those who provided me with a good childhood.

 I was never asked to join the Rastaakheez Party. I have brothers and cousins who were older than me, and I don't remember any one of them being forced to join.

You say your friend was beat up for not joining. I have a feeling there is more to the story. I, after all, lived in Iran in those days and a few years after the Revolution. Nobody in my circle of friends or family (and we were not all taaghootee!),was ever beat up for not joining.

Ali p: I agree. I was the same age and I don't remember a mandatory registration for those in junior high or highschool. It's the first time I hear it on this site.

...

I am disgusted by some of the comments, if this is the best Iranain.com has to offer, count me out of any political discussions. Massoud jaan I applaud your enthusiasm; but you might be better off bringing the dead to life.  As for me , I'll be feeding the ducks in a nearby creek:-)

جبهه ملی‌ فرق بین دموکراسی‌ و دمب الاغ رو نمیدونه چیه

اگر می‌دونست، آقایون سنجابی و بزرگان و امثالهم نمی‌رفتند ردیف اول تظاهرات زیر عکس امام خمینی عزیزشون؛

اگر می‌دونست، آقای بازرگان اصرار بر گذاشتن "ولایت فقیه" در قانون اساسی‌ ایران نمیکرد؛

اگر می‌دونست، آقای سنجابی اعلام نمیکرد که اصل جمهوری اسلامی دمکراتیک است...

لب کلام اینه که اراذل و اوباش جبهه ملی‌ هم، همانند بقیه اراذل و اوباشی که مهندسان سرنگون کردن شاه بودند، منتظر بودند که مافیای خمینی بهشون یک نقشی‌ در دولت جدید بدهد.  فکر کردند که با خود شیرینی‌ و چاپلوسی و پیروی از خمینی بهشون پاداش داده میشه.  نمیدونستند که با چه کسی‌ طرفند.  خمینی هم از فرصت استفاده کرد و تا نافشان کلاه گذشت.  دستش هم درد نکنه البته.  این فرصت جویان دون صفت حقشون هم بود.  ناراحتیشون هم از اینه.  نه اینکه دلشون برای "دموکراسی‌" سوخته.  اینها ناراحتند که چرا مافیای خمینی بهشون راه نداد.   

You are correct Massoud

I was born close to 1964. I did mention that I remember the negative sentiments that Rastakhiz generated.

My dear Friend, Masoud jaan eh gol

They told me Shah killed Mohammad Massoud. That turned out to be a lie.

They told me Shah killed Ali Shariati.That turned out to be a lie.

They told me Shah killed Gholamreza Takhti.That turned out to be a lie.

They told me Shah killed Mostafa Khomeini. That turned out to be a lie.

They told me Shah set cinema Rex on fire.That turned out to be a lie.

 I was 14 when I heard these assertions. That was 32 years ago. I am smarter today; slightly. So after everything said and done, you have to cut me some slack, to be skeptic of claims like this.

You provided: "In a chilling speech, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ordered all Iranians from
the 9th grade up to register to become a member of the Rastakhiz Party."

When I say I was in 9th grade under the Shah, you respond by modifying the claim, as to not to apply to certain age. I don't remember anything about forced membership.( But I do remember free snacks for all students, economic prosperity, and a war-free childhood).

Having said that, I know it was not all was rosy either. As a teenager, however, I, personally, was not exposed to the ugliness of life, thanks to those who provided me with a good childhood.

 I was never asked to join the Rastaakheez Party. I have brothers and cousins who were older than me, and I don't remember any one of them being forced to join.

You say your friend was beat up for not joining. I have a feeling there is more to the story. I, after all, lived in Iran in those days and a few years after the Revolution. Nobody in my circle of friends or family (and we were not all taaghootee!),was ever beat up for not joining.

This is just one man's story. An average Iranian kid's story, having lived under the Shah. Without trying to make a political statement, I would like to add: Coincidentally, those were the happiest days of my life.

Lord bless us all.

Yours,

Ali P.