MONARCHY

این نوشته و

The only dishonesty here is that of the republican camp

They are doing desparate to suggest that the the only type of monarchy is that of an authoritarian one as they know (sometimes I doubt it) that in the same way that there are authoritarian republics like Saddam's and Asad's and there democratic ones like USA or France there are parliamentarian democracies like Braitain, Spain, Japan, Holland, etc as well as their opposite like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, etc. What guarantees can they offer that their republic does not go the same way that Assad's republic is going?

Their asinine arguments are mind boggling.

dear Aynak

Thanks for your contribution, very interesting.

With all due respect sir

Dear Aynak

With all due respect sir I believe that you are the only party to this discussion who keeps drifting from the main point of the argument and jumping from branch to branch while I am only trying to keep up.

In your previous posting you asked a straight question on federalism and I provided an straight answer to you question stating where I stand with regards to it. I also warned you not to let your emotions and prejudice get the better of you and think about the reasons and motivations behind such move.

Now if you are interested in me elaborating more on this particular issue please let me know and I will be more than happy to comply I think you (the Republicans) might find it useful in order to plan your next move.

In the posting before that you tried to turn a day to day practical issue like choosing the type of our next governing system by our people into a philosophical argument and I believe that I have also provided a satisfactory counterargument to that issue as well.

As I told you am neither a monarchist nor a republican but I would like to keep a close eye on both species. Also as I stated before I respect your right to the choice of being a republican as well as appreciating your logic behind making such choice.

All I am saying here is that in order to be a true democrat you also need to respect the views of monarchists and the reasons behind their adapted view.

But this does not mean in any way that you have to agree with them or stay quiet when you see an error. However dismissing them in total and denying their right to choose their favourite type of system of government would also be dishonest and undemocratic especially when it comes from the person or group claiming to be the only advocate of true democracy.

But more importantly freedom and choice comes with a responsibility and as I mentioned before by making a smart move like inviting you all to the negotiation table RP has called you upon that duty.

Now that is the dilemma that all other opposition groups to the IRI are facing and I believe I have explained its consequences and effects on their campaign and integrity in my answer to our friend Aynak Dovom.

Now if you are interested I can also give an advice to the best counter move that could get the Republicans out of the corner they are.

As for having another dictator or someone else stealing Khamenee’s job title I must tell you that it takes more than a job title to make a dictator.

The world is full of dictators with different titles. As long as there are Chaploos self centred and thoughtless people who put their personal and family interest before the interest of the society they live it and hence do anything to win the favour of the guy who is in charge there will be no shortage of dictators with different titles now some countries like Russia prefer to call them President and have a sham election to update them ever four years while others like Saudi Arabia will call theirs King and many others like Iran or China will call theirs the grate or supreme leaders and keep them for life.

You have to understand that these guys are the symptom of a deeper social and cultural problem and not the cause of it.

As long as we deny the main problem and occupy ourselves with the symptoms noting will be resolved as we just keep jumping from one dictatorship to another and that brings me to the other issue. An important issue mentioned by yourself which is honesty.

In order to be an honest citizen, party member, politician or ultimately an honest leader one first need to be honest with him/her self.

The fact of the matter is that today not many of us from the highest ranks of Republicans to the lowest rank of the IRI supporters, monarchists or others are yet prepared to do so.

Thirty years after following one Khomeini to the hell that is IRI, without knowing who he was, what he was standing for or even listening to what he was saying still none of us including and especially our so called intellectuals is prepared to acknowledge and accept our error and instead we either look for a escapee goat to discharge all our responsibility to, or attempting to make petty excuses (Ozre bad tar az gonaah) to portray our cock up of a revolution as what it is not.

That is the main challenge for all of us here. Being honest and transparent with ourselves and being prepared to put up our hand and acknowledge our errors when due in odder to be able to correct them

 In a brief being able to lead ourselves before attempting to lead the world 

Monarchy or Republic?

Mr. Kamran,

The ennemy is the Islamic Republic. If you believe in a democratic republic, why dont you offer a progarm, a suitable candidate, a plan of action. All constittutinal monarchists with Prince Reza Pahlavi as their leader will support your right to vote for your ideal. It is beyond me why after 34 years, some republicans only identify themselves solely in relation to their opposition to consititutional monarchy rather than expanding on the merits of their own thoughts. When was the last time that a consitutional monarchist attacked a democratic republican?

Monarchy a totalitarian System ?

To my knowledge unlike what you folks were advocating in 1979 :

pictory: Yazdi, Castro and Pretty Interpreter (1978)

pictory:Yazdi Meets Castro, Cuba (1980's)

Despite Knowing perfectly that your Role model states were hardly examples of democracy:

The Cuban Political Prisoners Deserve a Cuban Spring - Forbes

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, 1966-1976

Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union -

Political Prisoners at Perm - Gulag: Soviet Forced Labor Camp

Imperial Iran was NOT a totalitarian system since you could leave the country and travel abroad, marry a foreigner and do what you wanted in your private life as long as you did not interfere in the privacy of others ...

That is NOT what one calls a Totalitarian System ...

A politically conservative and authoritarian regime maybe ... Totalitarian definitively NOT !

No more than Mobarak's Egypt, Ben Ali's tunisia or even Bachar Al Assad's Syria could be qualified until recently (under the current civil war) as Totalitarian ...

Even South American dictatorships of the 1970's including Chili cannot be defined as totalitarian.

The two genuinely Totalitarian Systems were Nazi Germany and nearly all the ex Soviet States or Sovietly Endorsed States in East Germany ...

The Lives of Others trailer

It's amazing how some can use "words" they hardly understand and then want to lecture on Political philosophy ...

Recommended Reading:

How The Gulag Archipelago changed the world. - Slate Magazine by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Recommended Watching:

Hitler and Stalin the roots of evil (part 1 of 5)

Re:When the man is right he is right

Dear Areyo Barzan,

I think we are drifting from the issue, but since you mentioned this, here I speak for myself, but I think anyone believing in a repulic would agree, that Reza Pahlavi, has every right to nominate himself for the president of  a future government in Iran.   However, in principle, people believing a Republic can not and will never support what is essentially the right of a person to become permanant ruler.

Discussion gets heated at this point because  Saltant-Talabs become dishonest, and this is the source of --philosophical dispute-- and their dishonesty in my opinion:  (BTW, none of this has anything to do with person of RP but the position of king)

--They see Mohamad Reza Shah as a legitimate constitutional leader! 

--They also say R.P will be a constitutional leader!

Now personally, I don't know how much longer Khamaneh-ee will live, nor how long will I live.   But I believe the only way to insure a better form of government for Iran, is to make sure that no one person- under any name or title can steal and rob the citizens of Iran of their rights to demand accountability of their government, and the history of monarchy be it Valeeh Fagheeh or normal salatan has shown the inability of this form of governance to be democratic and accountble.   One known way to insure accounability, is to have frequent and regular elections.

To me the problem is not merely Islamic Regime, but totalitarianism.   So by definition, my answer will not leave door or at least try not leave the door oopen for its return.   Otherwise we are simply going around circle.

RP supports Federalism?? 

RP supports Federalism??  Can someone provide a link??

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

All Oppression Creates a State of War--Simone De Beauvoir

Your argument

Mr. Kamran,

Your argument about the roles of a king and prime miniter in a constitional monarchy is based on the premise that a consitional monarchy actually exitsts. Sir, we donot have a contitutional moarchy, currently. Reza Pahlavi IS NOT actiing as a monarch but as a private citizen, as he has said on many occasions. Witout a referendum on the issue of monarchy vs Repulic, without a constitutional mandate for roles of the Shaha and the prime minister, your argument does not hold. Mr. Reza Pahlavi has every right to fight this barberic regime, just like you and me. If he is able to gather more followers then great. 

When the man is right he is right

Dear Aynak

As I stated before I am in total agreement with you and Mr Kamran over the issue of federalism and I believe going through such rout will be a faithal error by RP and monarchists which might even spell their doom.

However as I recall the bulk of the argument here was about RPs campaign and the place of monarchy in future of Iran's political spectrum which I believe would go much further and deeper than the person of RP or his view of federalism as at the end of the day even that need s to be decided over a free and fair referendom and my belief that so far (right or wrong) his campaign is on a winning path

As I told you before I am NOT a monarchist and I do not even believe in RP being the best choice of candidate for our leadership, but I need to respect his right to campaign and the right of his supporters or the advocates of monarchy to argue and campaign for the favorit system and leader of their choice..

Furthermore I think it would be a stratigic erorr to dismis him, his supporters or his success so I have to be alert and critical of all different political groups in order to make sure that they mean what they say and have a valid argument. This would be this is mostly because of myself and myown integrity rather than being a supporter of monarchy

As for the republicans I believe that by engaging in the argoment on federalism RP has opend himself to alot of criticism and that would be the point that Republicants could use to drive their points or at least one of them home.

However I must warn you that in order to prevent shooting yourselves in the foot you first need to do your homework well and read and listen to his argument calmley in order to be able to a prepare rational counter argument.as the worst situation for you would be accusing him of advocating something when he realy did not and due to your prejeduic or dislike of him you have misread his message

مصدق پرستان و عادت دیرینه شان

 هر از چندگاهی هیات عزادران ۲۸ مردادی و سینه زنان شهید مصدق به هر دستاویزی برای تخطئه نماد‌های سلطنتی متوسل شده و به زمین و زمان میاویزند و یکی‌ به نعل می‌زنند و یکی‌ به میخ تا بلکه در این میان به نهاد سلطنت (از نوع پهلوی آن و نه قجری) که از دید ایشان موجب به شهادت سیاسی رسیدن امامشان بوده ضربه دیگری بزنند. از لینکلن و جنگ برده داری گرفته تا فدرالیسم و غیره را به هم می‌‌پیوندند تا بلکه از این آب گًل الود ماهی‌ بگیرند. امروز هم نوبت به یکی‌ از نوحه خوانان معروف این قوم رسیده که کین خواهی‌ قجری خود را در لفافه تفکّرات فلسفی‌ سیاسی و با پیشوند دکترا عنوان میکنند:خانمها آقایان معرفی می‌کنم آقای دکتر (یادتون باشه همه مصدقیون دکترا دارند یه موقع اسمشونو بدون دکتر نبرید که "عینک" بهش بر میخوره). بله کجا بودم؟ آقای دکتر رامین کامران زوجه (ببخشی منظورم زوج بود) خانم مهشید امیر شاهی‌ که دیگه شرحشون رو میدونید. من فقط از این متفکرین هیات عزاداری میخواهم این جمله کامران میرزا رو برام معنی کنند:

از این دیدگاه مهم نیست چه کسی یا چه سلسله ای در مقام سلطنت باشد، مهم وجود سلطنت است. من کسی را نمیشناسم که به این معنا یعنی به این معنای کلی، بتوان «سلطنت طلب»ش خواند. از این گذشته نمیتوان این سلطنت طلبی موجود را به طرفداران سلسلهُ پهلوی هم تقلیل داد چون این سلسله برای احراز پادشاهی یک نامزد بیشتر ندارد. خلاصه اینکه آنچه امروز «سلطنت طلبی» میخوانیم در حقیقت فقط مترادف طرفداری از به سلطنت رسیدن رضا پهلوی است و بس. به اینجا که رسیدیم روشن میشود که اگر رضا پهلوی ببازد سلطنت است که باخته. امروز سرنوشت این گزینهُ سیاسی به یک نفر بسته است.

چطور است که خود جناب کامران که از سلسله قجر ریشه میگیرند و یا جنابان شراب میرزا و اسدالله میرزا هم داوطلب نامزدی سلطنت بشوند که فقط این نهاد موجودیتش منوط به شاهزاده رضا نشود آنوقت ببینیم دوستان قجرالهی ما رضایت میدهند؟

 سوال اینجاست که اگر ملتی که تظاهر به فهم گزینش دموکراسی دارد واهمه از سلطنت مشروطه داشته باشد، این ملت آیا قادر خواهد بود که جمهوری دمکراتیک برقرار نماید. چرا؟ چون اصل را که همان دموکراسی باشد رها کرده و به فرع پرداخته.

خواهشمندم که دستجات سینه زنی‌ به ترتیب و با نظم وارد تکیه مصدق السلطنه  شوند.

دوست محترم آریو برزن

Aryo Barzan: "However in here we have more urgent matters at hand a matter like saving our nation and future generation"

رامین کامران می نویسد:

"....رضا پهلوی چندیست که همگامی با فدرالیسم را پیشه کرده است..." وی ادامه میدهد:    "  ...فدراسیون
در جایی مایهُ اتحاد است که اقوام یا دول پراکنده را گرد هم بیاورد و بین
آنها وحدتی، حال هر قدر رقیق، ایجاد نماید. فدراسیون ساختن از کشوری که
قرنهاست متحد است فقط معنای پسروی میدهد و سست کردن اتحاد.    ..." و سپس  می گوید: "...."انگیزه 
آمریکا از ترویج «فدرالیسم» البته به سبک عراق و لیبی و... برای ایران
روشن است و هیچ ارتباطی با دمکراسی ندارد. هدف تضعیف و در صورت امکان تکه
تکه کردن این کشور و نظایر آن است تا نه آمریکا و نه متحد اصلیش که اسرائیل
است، در خاورمیانه با هیچ دولتی که وزنه ای باشد، درگیر نباشند..."

نظر شما در مورد طرح ایران فدرال رضا پهلوی و نظر مطرح شده
رامین کامران  چیست؟   آیا اصولا چنین خطری ایرانیان را تهدید می کند؟  و
ارتباط آن با  امور اضطراری  که همان نجات کشور ماست و در بالا یاد کردید 
را چگونه می بینید ؟

point taken

Dead areyo barzan

"I do not have to agree with your point of view in order to respect your right to hold that view and that is what most of us including and especially our intellectuals need to learn and such arguments only help us to get closer to such goal. "

That's a very good point and I really hope others feel the same way about these arguments, and when push comes to shove, they will put arguing for the sake of arguing aside and focus on what matters most:

which form of leadership is a point we need to eventually get to but there are more urgent pressing matters at hand to deal with.

more than anything a secular democratic movement needs to be fromed to save our country and the future generation and in my mind RP seems to be taking the correct steps towards that direction.

Changing the subject when you are loosing the argument ay?

Dear Aynak Avval

I can assure you we have already read the entire article before responding to it. In fact I personally have even agreed with the writer when he was right (on Federalism)

However reading the article is one thing and analysing the content or the intent of the writer is quiet another.

If the argument of article is of a philosophical nature stating that Monarchy can not lead to democracy and the only way to democracy is some kind of republic then I am sorry to be the one to break the news to you that under both systems we can have dictatorship as well as democracy and as much as you can argue that IRI is not a Republic the monarchists can argue that the last regime was not a Mashrooteh and they are fighting for another kind of Mashrooteh i.e. UK Sweden.

However if the argument was a bout RP’s campaign loosing momentum and him becoming irrelevant or his capability for leadership then I believe that in my answer to our friend Aynak Dovom I have already countered that argument and I am yet waiting for a reply.

As far as I could read this was an article about RP and his campaign or his ability to ever succeed. But if you want to open the other Pandora’s box of philosophy by arguing whether one type of system can get us to democracy then we also need to bring the whole meaning of democracy into the argument as well, let alone getting into the arguments of philosophers who think of the democracy itself as an illusion or the dictatorship of majority.

But that is another argument for another day. But we should know as long as we are walking in the philosophical path we can argue for ever without coming to a definite answer as tat is the nature of philosophy.

However in here we have more urgent matters at hand a matter like saving our nation and future generation

ناتوانی در پاسخ به نقد فلسفی:

وقتی بجای چنین روشی شما به صحرای کربلا و اینکه
ایشان چقدر زحمت می کشند و چقدر ایران را دوست دارند و ایرانیان هم متقابلا
چقدر به ایشان ارادت دارند -- این  پاسخ نقد فلسفی نیست.

چرا نقد فلسفی در اینجا مهم است؟   چون، اگر در فلسفه وجودی چنین رکنی --
تضاد هایی که مطرح شد می بینیم به اصل مسئله که --تمرکز قدرت-- است در دست
یک نفر -- که انتخابی هم نیست این خود پایه را برای دیکتاتوری بعدی فراهم
خواهد ساخت.

در ضمن مرگ فلسفی با مرگ حقیقی یکی نیست.    حکومت اسلامی سال ها ست که اولی را تجربه کرده ولی هنوز دومی را خیر.

duplicate

duplicate

Sounds like the author is

Sounds like the author is not quite convinced himself that Monarchy is dead.

" You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.--

 Robert M. Pirsig

All Oppression Creates a State of War--Simone De Beauvoir

Dear persianone33

I do understand and share your frustration. The fact of the matter is that everyone here agrees with you that IRI has to go and has to go now.

All of us have at some point or in my case are still living through the same hell you described in your posting everyday and we all want to get rid of this murderer regime yesterday.

However for everything there is a right and a wrong way. For those of us who remember the errors of 1357 and are man enough to admit to our mistakes we need to make sure that this time round we are not repeating the same mistake of the past and in 33 years time our children would not have to go trough the same sh**t as we went to get rid of our mistake

A regime change although necessary and essential is not the whole answer but the first step. We need to make sure that the next regime will not be another version of the IRI or other dictatorships of the past.

That is why we first need to understand the meaning of democracy and know truly what we want, or if we are willing to pay the price for it and by that I do not mean by giving our lives as I believe that is the easiest part, but by having a will to live in peace along side each other and appreciate our differences by knowing that such differences will only make us stronger.

I do not have to agree with your point of view in order to respect your right to hold that view and that is what most of us including and especially our intellectuals need to learn and such arguments only help us to get closer to such goal.

If we learn to think and behave in a democratic manner then democracy will be achieved easier that you can imagine

But so far that remains to be a very big IF  

Answer the question Mate!

Dear Aynak;

As I told you before I am far from being a monarchist or a republican.

What I want is a democracy and I am mature enough to know that democracy is much more than a name and so far I have not seen any essence from either side (Republican or Monarchist).

Furthermore I believe the only safsateh comes from you and our friend Mr. Kamran

When instead of answering my question you resort to dismissing the whole argument or making unrelated references to Roman Empire that shows the depth of your knowledge and the strength of your argument.

Believe me mate! I am your friend and may be one of the very few ones left and that is not because I think Republicans are better than monarchists or vice versa, but it is because I believe that in order to have a vibrant democracy we need all people from all backgrounds to be able to choose their leader and vote for the system that they want.

I do appreciate your argument about the differences between Republic and Monarchy and respect the fact that you believe that one is better than the other as that is your democratic right.

However there is a time and place for everything. These things need to be done it stages. There are such things a strategic planning.

As it is stupid to talk about where the to stick the windows when the foundation of  your house is not yet ready, it is also stupid or as you like to put it a Safsate to ask for a prime minister from RP when we have not yet voted for monarchy and may not ever do so either.

Otherwise the same argument could be put to the republicans by criticising them for not appointing a president to take over their leadership..

First we need to get rid of the IRI and then the advocate of all ideologies can put forward their arguments and the final decision on our future system of government will be with our people and trough  a private free and fare ballet box.

Now the fact of the matter is that RP has understood this process and knows the rules of this game and so far he has made all the right moves and. Believe you me mate, when I tell you that it would be an strategic error to let your dislike for him or what he stands for to blind you from seeing the truth.

Now! Don’t get me wrong that does not mean that I think that he is the perfect leader and monarchy is the only way. That does not even mean that I think that he believe in the road he is stepping into just as until 22nd of Bahman 1357 one Khomeini was also making all the right noises, but things changed after he got in charge, RP might be following the same strategy.

But so far he is on the winning side and the difficult dilemma for you is that you only have a chance to control him from the inside and that brings me back to my first argument about his invitation to cooperate with him..

At the end of the day politic is like a game of chess and in this game RP is making all the right moves and in the end the favour he that needs to win is that of masses in the street of this country and not a few remaining corps of the old cock of the resolution, stuck abroad.

Whether we like it or not he is winning the argument amongst the ordinary masses here. If not for his own words and position then for the nostalgia of a generation who could not care lass about politic but still remembers the good old days of 2 Rial per litter petrol and 30 Rial per kilo lamb.

Especially as I told you by extending a hand of cooperation towards other political oppositions to the IRI he has put them into a difficult position. 

And that is the dilemma faced by other opposition groups today including the republicans.

This is the fact. Now you can deny it as much as you like or you can shoot the messenger a thousand times but the message will not go away and sooner or later you need to deal with it.

Your choice

why can't we think about the future instead of this crap

Wow my first post but couldn't stand quiet anymore.

Let me give you a high level info about me, born in tehran 2yrs before the revolution lived through the 8 yrs of war, was indeed in Iran until I was 21 and some of my best childhood memories are formed in the streets of tehran. Family was maybe middle close to upper class but even thats gone to hell with sancations today. Read the news daily about where things are headed and I feel like my country, my parents and everyone I knew from that past life are standing at the edge of a cliff waiting to either receive a swift kick down to oblivion or finally have an opportunity to take a few steps back. Regardless they are still standing and then need help the whole country needs help.

 Yes I feel privilaged to be away from that currently but lets put that aside. As a younger guy when I look back at Iran I dont question the type of leadership that is going to be in place IF we are ever successful at changing the regime or its structure. I care about the fact that, that change needs to happen NOW.

I saw a video on here last year Girl sitting on the sidewalk holding for her dearlife screaming for help while the hejab polic were trying to force her into a Van and eventually they were successful, one guy tried to oppose, the beat the crap out of him too. Who knows what happened to that Girl, and that could very well be next time my sister or someone close to me. That video always makes me cry, I don't think I could pass by and just stand there and do nothing. I can't believe thats where we are at today, and that probably happens daily

The point is people need the help and need it now and personally everytime I hear RP talk, he is talking about human rights and democracy he is talking about bringing various opposition groups together, he is talking about the youth. These are things that matter most.

I'm in my 30s and I'm losing hope that I will ever be able to take my profession as a consultant and work on a project in iran and help rebuild my country, thats my dream along with many things I wish for others there. To me RP seems to be the only person thats got it right while others just sit there and debate about 30yrs ago. What's that gotten us so far?

 This is my personal view:

I don't care about monarchy or your republic or Islam, I care about my loved ones back home, my dad who is almost out of work after having had an amazing life due to recent sanctions which I believe are rightfully in place, and I care about being able to live in Iran again one day while having the ability to be myself.

RP seems to be the catalyst required atleast to get the worlds attn if we put our differences aside and support him.

Many times after listening to his interviews I've wanted to send him an email and ask, but how can a regular Iranian, outside of Iran without any special financial privilages help. I might send him that note today, I'll let you know if he writes back

میبخشید اقای آریوبرزن

میبخشید اقای آریوبرزن اما آنچه شما میگویید سفسطه به تمام معنی است ! با منطق جنابعالی وقتی ادوارد گیبون تاریخ انحطاط و سقوط امپراطوری روم رو نوشت این نشان دهنده این بود که امپراطوری روم نه تنها سقوط نکرده بلکه در حال بالیدن و شکوفاییه. هدف اقای رامین کامران تا اونجا که بنده میبینم این هست که اقلا به ایرانیهای خارج از کشور بفهمونه که این ماشینی که اسمش پادشاهیه نه تنها بنزینش تموم شده بلکه باک بنزینش هم سوراخ شده. پس انقدر روی باربندش چمدون و اسباب و اثاثیه بار نکنید که این ماشین بدرد اسقاط چیها میخوره. و بر خلاف آنچه شما نوشته اید ایرانیهای داخل کشور مدتهاست که در این مورد دوزاریشون افتاده. خدا کنه دوزاری بقیه ماها هم بیفته و از اتلاف وقت ذیقیمت دست برداریم که بقول شاملو بیتوته کوتاهی است این جهان.

The Dead....

The dead ones are all the young and old of the past 33 yrs with their number exeeding 1Million.

Thank you AreyoBarzan

But the main issue have to stay for FREE IRAN and not rolling into another useless war with....

just so we get more damages on top of having the mollahs run 30more years.

Maziar

Stubborn old bigots unwilling to change, facing a new dilemma

Usually if something is dead I tend to put it to rest in the grave yard of history and not talk about it. Especially when there are more urgent and important tasks (like saving a whole nation) at hand. 

The fact that after 33 years of  the same old BS still these so called “Republicans” are still putting pen on papers or in  this case fingers on the keyboard, trying to convince the rest of us that monarchy is dead and we are better of with a “Republic”, not only shows that fact that Monarchy and monarchism is live and well, but it also shows that the old dinosaurs of the last cock up of a revolution are not yet man enough to face up to their own demons and admit that they where wrong to follow one Khomeini to the hell that is IRI.

As for Reza Pahlavi, regardless of what I or anyone else might think of him in persone or about Monarchy in general, I can assure you that he still remains the most effective and influential opposition leader.

Take it form a person who is living in Iran. Right or wrong, people of Iran today have more faith in RP and count on him more than they even think about other opposition leaders and the likes of Bani-sadr, Rajavi,  Tagvayee or others and lets face it at the end of the day this is what have made these so called "Republicans" so worried that after 33 years they still find the need to go back the starting point and try to win the argument between monarchy and Republic.

They know that he is just biting his time and sooner or later there will be masses organising behind him. Especially with the policy of avocating a free referendum for the future government inIran and NOT directly calling himself a monarchist he has put other opposition groups between a rock and a hard place.

Now! If these other groups decide to unite with him and fight for a regime change and a free fair referendum for the future type of government in Iran they will risk to be put into the same basket as monarchists and being called monarchists by the IRI, and that is a risk they could not afford to take especially after 33 years of stating otherwise, as it will alienate them from their traditional grassroots supporters.

On the other hand now that they are rejecting RP’s hand and of cooperation and his offer of uniting to fight for a free fair referendum, and putting the interest of Iran and our people above all personal and party interests, they are portraying themselves as another dictator who can not even bring themselves to talk with other opposition groups for the good of our country, people and future generations. And the question that brings to mind would be that if they are so stubborn and undemocratic while in opposition then and with not power then what would they be like in the government.

Will they refurbish Evin and Kahrizak to accommodate the advocates of monarchy or other opposition groups whose view they do not like or feel threaten with.

However the most important point overlooked by these so called “republicans” is the fact that our people and especially the younger generation have way passed the point of caring about names, ideologies and types of systems.

They know very well that democracy is much more than a name and we can have democracy or dictatorships under both systems as the current international political spectrum is full of perfect examples.

Today our people and young generation are looking for essence and actions rather than empty slogans and rotten old ideologies.

So at the risk of being called a monarchist by those who have not read my previous articles, I must admit that from all the opposition leaders today RP has shown more integrity, more self confidence and more democratic attitude by not only refusing to dismiss other political schools of thought but also by inviting them to cooperation for a true democracy and that is the dilemma which is facing all these old  groups who have not yet evolved with the time and the political  views or visions of our people.

So as far as I can see choice is really simple for these people.

As one Charles Darwin put it so elegantly.

They either evolve and adapt in order to stay alive (be able to stay engaged in future political spectrum of our country) or they will be extinct like all other species that could not handle the winds of change (i.e. dinosaurs) .

However to be fair to the writer I must admit that I totaly agree with his views on feredalism and its place in future Iran.

Furthermore going trough such rout would be a fatal mistake by RP and monarchists

The article has many fine points dear Maryam

which my brief write up did not cover.   I would highly recommand reading it as  Dr.Kamarans works are very interesing and worthwhile to read.   For instance, when it comes to justification of some actions by Pahlavi's in regard to suppression of freedom, its necessity was justified to "preserve integrity/indepence of Iran".

Dr.Kamran points out that with Reza Pahlavis talk about Federalism, (which effectively he sees as a way to tear Iran apart) Reza Pahlavi is deviating from the lone justification provided for the actions of his father and grandfather.   Of course my summary does not do justice for the explanation and reference to U.S case and civial war, where Dr.Kamran were eloquently points out:   If your example of Federalism is U.S, then in civil war, the individual states rights (and in that case a whole bunch of them) was usurped by the desire to keep the union.  (i.e under the guise of federalism, states can not just secede as we saw in U.S).   Dr.Kamran takes this position of Reza Pahlavi to be more directed in tone with directions of outside forces which will not benfit Iran.......and much more.

مقاله عالی

مقاله عالی! اقای رامین کامران شما با موشکافی مشکلات اساسی آینده پادشاهی در ایران رو در مقاله اتون تحلیل کردهاید. خسته نباشید و لطفا از  فحش و فریاد چماقداران اینترنتی وفناتیک های شاه الهی که نه بنیه استدلال دارند و نه سواد درست و حسابی که بفهمند شما چه نوشته اید دلسرد نشوید. مرگ دوم سلطنت عنوان بسیار مناسبی است. رضا پهلوی فرصتی داشت اما متاسفانه این فرصت از دست رفت.  همونطور که شما در مقاله اتون بهش اشاره کردید هر چه آدم حسابی بود از دور و ور این آقا پراکنده شدند و فقط یک مشت پادو و چاپلوس  باقی ماندند. مشکل اساسی رضا پهلوی عشق غیر قابل کنترلش به میکروفونه و مصاحبه. و چنین عشقی با نقش پادشاه مشروطه همخوانی نداره. طرفداری از دمکراسی هم تظاهری بیش نیست. اگر این آقا دمکرات بود و به نظرات دیگران احترام میگذاشت دو تا آدم حسابی باهاش همکاری میکردند و به همکاری با او ادامه میدادند     

Aynak,Thanks

for clarification of this long blog.

در تعریف --جمهوری--

در مورد سلطنت مشروط رضا پهلوی - رامین کامران - به تناقضات جالبی اشاره می کند که باید دید طرفداران فلسفی مشروطه سلطنتی چگونه به آن پاسخ خواهند داد. از آنچه من در این طیف دیده ام - با در گذشت داریوش همایون - مقوله "مشروطیت" و مفهوم آن - در بین هواداران ایشان چندان جاذبه ای ندارد و کمتر از ان صحبت میشود. تنها زمانی از مشروطیت سخن رانده میشود که برای توجیه لزوم آن به سلطنت های مشروطه اروپا اشاره میشود.

در این میان وقتی صحبت از مشروطه در ایران توسط طرفداران سلطنت مشروطه میشود، بیشتر همان افسوس (Nostolgy) هواداران ایشان است از اینکه سرکوب در زمان پدر او به اندازه لازم و کافی صورت نگرفته، و مشتی مردم قدر نشناس حکومت وی را سرنگون کرده اند. پس چاره نیز- توبه افراد و بازگشت به آن دوران شیرین است و کمامکان صحبتی نه از مشروطه است و به همان طریق نه از چگونگی مشروط کردن سلطنت ، پس به اینکه شخص رضا پهلوی فردی است طرفدار حقوق پشر بسنده میشود.

در مورد تناقض درونی (Inherint contradiction) شیوه حکومتی/دولتی "جمهوری اسلامی" -- سخن های بسیار گفته شده که شاید اولین آن را نگارنده از عبدالکریم لاهیجی فعال حقوق بشر به اصل قانون اساسی این حکومت به خاطر دارم. در ان نوشته که به دهه ۸۰ بر میگردد، لاهیجی حکومت ایران را --حکومتی اسلامی- و نه --جمهوری- می داند که تعریف جمهوری مشخص و برخواسته از رای مردم است، در حالی که حکومت اسلام (و از گونه ولی فقیه آن) تمکین به رای ورای مردم ندارد پس معلوم نیست منشا حقانیت (legitimacy) قدرت آن در چیست؟ در اولی (مردم) یا دومی (خدا یا نماینده آن). پس حکومت فاشیستی حاکم بر ایران را که پسوند اسلامی هم با خود به یدک می کشد را چگونه می توان در زمره شیوه دولتی -جمهوری- قرار داد و سپس نتیجه گرفت پس ان هم وضعیت بهتری ندارد؟ از نظر نگارنده شیوه حکومتی فعلی ایران اتفاقا خود بیشتر نوعی از سلطنت ولی فقیه است تا جمهوری. خلاصه: کارنامه "جمهوری اسلامی " است که خراب است نه -جمهوری ایران-و یا جمهوری , که هنوز باید در ایران تجربه شود.

مسئله اصلی چگونگی در راس قدرت قرار گیری است که تفاوت جمهوری و سلطنت را آشکار می سازد.اگر قدرت در دورانی نامحدود در دست یک نفر باشد (حالا چه شاه اسمش باشد و چه ولی فقیه ) این میشود همان سلطنت. و اگر راس قدرت با انتخابات و بطور موقت در راس باشد میشود جمهوری. پس نگارنده حتی حکومت های سوریه یا مصر (مبارک) را نیز که در آن راس حکومت توسط آرای تقلبی ۹۹% به صورت دایمی در راس حکومت قرار دارند را علیرغم آنکه دیکتاتور خود را چه بنامد جمهوری نمی پندارد که با اصل جمهوریت در تناقص است.

پس آنجا که رامین کامران به این برتری جمهوری اشاره می کند که:
در عوض راه تغییر در برابر آن (یعنی جمهوری) باز است و در برابر سلطنت بسته.
در حقیقت مشکل کارنامه حکومت اسلامی در باز یا بسته بودن راه جمهوریت آن نیست، بلکه اخته شدن جمهوریت توسط ولایت/سلطنت فقیه است. البته دائمی بودن سلطنت و موقتی بودن جمهوری نکته محوری و مهمی در مورد تفاوت این دو شیوه است. .

تغییر در خشتک جمهوری اسلامی

"
بالاتر گفتم که در ایران کارنامهُ جمهوری بهتر از سلطنت نیست. حال باید اضافه کنم که در عوض راه تغییر در برابر آن باز است و در برابر سلطنت بسته."

حاج آقا اینهمه حسن حسین زدی که آخرش اینو بگی؟ چه لیبرالی! به به مزنه اش بالا رفته حتما!یه جمله نوشته حاجی دوتا دروغ توشه! معلومه حوزوی خونده

1 

جمهوری اسلامی ریده به هرچه جمهوری درشم نشسته اونوخ حاجاقا کامران میفرمان کارنالمه اش بهتر از سلطنت نیس!یک قلم تلفات جنگ! تعداداعدامها، سقوط بخش خصوصی بنیانگذاری، سرمایه داری دینی، سرمایه داری نظامی، صادرات دختران شیعه به شیخ نشینها 

2

راه زرد تغییر! این سی ساله خفه نشدین بسکه خشتک جمهوری اسلامی رو بو کردین در انتظار تغییر؟ 

این چرت وپرتایی که امسا تو مینویسن خیل که بخواییم با تربیت باشیم، تزئین عمامۀ گندیدۀ خامنه ای و همپالکیاشه. سلامت باشی حاجی 

There you go again as Expected ..."Liberal Democrat de mes deux"

I see our Usual Suspect Jomhurykhah Hypocrits back in Force again Jumping on RP 2 "popularity's" Bandwagon ...

Bikhial History will get back to you for all the damage you did not only to our position in the world but the pain you inflcted on two generations to say the least.

Feel Free to call our Sovereign your "buddy" or to use him as your convenient "Trojan Horse" to replace the current regime you folks or your Parents supported only to abandon him once he won't be useful to your agenda but History will Get back at you for the price Iran has already paid in terms of cultural and political setbacks which won't go unnoticed ...

Halah Boro Gorbonneh OU BAH MAT va HOLLANDE Boro bah oon ideologyeh "Liberal Democrat" à la mode ...

Not Everyone considered his or her oath to King and Country as trivial ...

Unlike you folks and your parents They even paid the ultimate price for it ...

In tribute to all patriots killed by islamics and leftists

Even to this day ...

Best,

DK

An Unapologetic Constitional Monarchist

Paris, FRANCE

"Treason is a Matter of Dates ..." -Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1754-1838)