ahosseini & Simorgh5555: What is it your don't Understand ? ;0)


ahosseini & Simorgh5555: What is it your don't Understand ? ;0)
by Darius Kadivar

Folks this is the last time I will sacrifice a Blog to answer a Question to which I have answered a Thousand Times ... Either Do Your Homework or Stop Playing Stupid But Stop Lecturing me on Democracy as if I had not addressed your questions before from a Constitutionalist Perspective by reducing every issue related to Monarchism Vs  Republicanism to some abstract charicatural entity known as a Shahollahi Vs Hezbollahi or Neo Con Warmonger VS Bassiji.


For if this is not the first I hope it is the last time I will have to remind you that Constitutionalism is an attempt to implement "Secular Republican" Ideals within a "Royal Framework". Hence there is no major difference in terms of democratic practice between let's say France ( A Republic) and Great Britain ( A Monarchy). And America's constitution is very much inspired by both of these nations political evolution particularly the British Bill Of Rights. Now if you think we Iranians are Not as cultured or intelligent as Europeans or are simply radically different not to say superior to any of these old nations then I would also suggest you to drop the idea of implementing in Iran an American Federal model ( barely 300 years old) in a nation we claim to be 7000 years old only to end up with this:



Mullah Crying Fake about Imam Hussain (as)




since as Iranians expats ( even half Iranian) we are no more no less American than we are European. We merely happen to live in these democratic countries and therefore have each in our own rights been lucky tohave had the exposure to democratic rights denied to our fellow compatriotsback home. But neither our forefathers nor have we truly contributed to thenation building and democratic transitions which have shaped our host countries. If we wish to establish or contribute to the democratic transitionin our former country the least we owe to ourselves and those back home is to study and share what we know on the pros and cons of the different systems of governments which exist in the genuine democratic nations to date. Up to people to decide which one corresponds best to their needs and aspirations. But to dismiss one form of system of government in favor of another by spreading lies and clichés on how they truly operate is unfair and intellectually dishonest to say the least.    


But then if Democracy is a Western Value I really don'tsee how we can one day build a democratic nation if we don't take interest andlearn about how other Democratic societies, however different function ? 


The WESTERN Model is used merely as a reference in thisblog simply because to date it is the only ones that have proved to Workspecifically in respecting the democratic process and Human Rights. A Legacywhich it also owes partly to our very own Persian civilization:


Barry Marston speaks about the importance of Cyrus theGreat's Human Rights Charter. Martson is spokesman for the British ForeignOffice, in London with speciality in Middle Eastern issues.



  Now if you think Russia, China ( First in the number of Executions of political prisoners) , India or Turkey are Role Models of Democratic Practice which you would like to emulate / implement in Iran ... Fine ... but then don't come and pretend you don't see the nuances and repeat the same clichés on the Monarchy by reducing it to what it is not in the most developed democracies.   Sweden despite having a Monarchy proves to be far more democratic and less corrupt than India be it today or Yesterday:

BBC ON THIS DAY | 12 | 1975: Gandhi found guilty of corruption


Will Growth Slow Corruption In India? - Forbes.com (2007)

Corruption one of the main problems: Rahul Gandhi - India - DNA


  It's Not I who is saying this but regular Democracy Index Polls conducted and published across the political spectrum and equally in the Liberal Left wing Press as well as conservative Right wing publications :


World'sTop Democratic Governments: Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2010(PHOTOS) 





Anyway Here to answer your Question  here Agayeh ahosseini Khaneh Mohtaram and your likeminds Read Below:










I won't sell you the monarchy for something it isn't and never claimed to be: An Egalitarian System of government. It can only be benevolently democratic hence countries notably in Europe which have established Fully accountable Parliamentary Systems of Government:



ROYAL FORUM: Explaining the Concept of a Constitutional Monarchy to a Staunch Republican



Yet the Monarch remains immune to critics and enjoys political and diplomatic immunity. 


That is less the case for members of the Royal Family like Princes, Princess' etc who if caught up by justice are accountable for any misdeeds and the press is often keen on reporting such incidents at the first opportunity:



Prince Andrew slammed over child sex offender friend





BBC NEWS | UK | Princess Royalfined over dog attack 




So justice applies equally to all regardless of rank, position or social, racial, ethnical backgrounds.



However Unlike Presidential Systems (i.e: Republic's) the Monarch however accountable to hisor her subjects cannot be impeached !


Why you may ask ? Because they are considered for better or for worse as the living symbols ofunity of their nation and the living embodiment of the system of government upon which the head of State derives his or her legitimacy.


So the "Nixon style" scenario of forced resignation to avoid an arrest has no predecedant in any constitutional monarchy to date.



PRESIDENCY ON SCREEN: Anthony Hopkins in Oliver Stone's "NIXON"



But the Press in Constitutional Monarchies are as free if not freer than in many other deemed democratic Republics to criticize the Royals including in tabloid press:




ROYAL FORUM: Unauthorized Bio Tarnishes King of Sweden's Reputation With Wild Sex Allegations




ROYAL FORUM: The Pain in the Reign in Spain





Something that the country you folks often deem as "Bad", "Cruel" and"Racist" Israel on the contrary allows, once out of office:




Israel ex-President Moshe Katsav jailed for rape 




While In "Virtuous" France the President although pursued for corruption allegations prior to his Presidency on the otherhand escaped justice:




Jacques Chirac's Paris corruption trial halted (bbc) 




Proving if needed that No system is perfect ... 



An Irony given that the French King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette ( particularly accused of corruption for a distasteful comment : "If people are hungry then why notgive them cupcakes ?" attributed to her without proof except rumors at court) were beheaded for far less tangible "crimes".


So again as Head of State the King Cannot be impeached and any attempt on the life or security of the Monarch is deemed unacceptable and one could be pursued by justice even be putin jail for an act considered as treason:

1981 -Trooping the Colour - Queen Shot At (VIDEO)



ROYAL FORUM: Prince Charles and Camilla's Car has been attacked by protesters



The same is true In an Absolute Monarchy as was the case for Iran throughout it's history including under the previous dynasty:


Isn't Calling for the Head of State's Death usually called "Treason"?


Even if the Shah often granted his pardon to many who tried to kill him:


HISTORYOF VIOLENCE: Shah of Iran wounded after Assassination Attempt (1949)


as in the case for a former communist who the shah then named head of Iran's Radio and Television who later was executed by the Revolutionaries accused of being a"mohareb" aka "enemy of god".



Prior to becoming a Constitutional Monarchy, the British Monarchs and ancestors of the current dynasty of Queen Elizabeth II also displayed cruel sentences and arbitrary arrests and executions for what they deemed as an insult or treason to the King or Queen:



One famous example is Sir Thomas Moore who could be rightly seen as the British equivalent of Hoveyda's tragic fate:



MON CINEMA: A Man for All Seasons (1966)



King Henry VIII also killed several of his six wives for not bearing a son as heir:


HORRIBLE HISTORIES - The Wives of Henry VIII (Terrible Tudors)




Ultimately he was succeeded by Elizabeth Ist the very daughter of his beheaded wife Anne Bolyne.



ROYALTY ON SCREEN: Johansson, Portman and Bana in "The Other Boleyn Girl"



So the current Monarch of England Queen Elizabeth II is the decendent of that Bloody Tyrant...


Yet no one questions her legitimacy today. Except a minor few who wish to see Britain become a Republic:



GALLOWAY's REPUBLIC: George Galloway on the Decline of the British Monarchy



Given that Britain is a Fully accountable and democratic society anyone who wishes to criticize the Monarch is free to express himself or herself as long as he or she does it through peaceful and democratic means:



RESTORATION:Prince Charles, The Meddling Prince (5 Parts)



But NOT Through violence:



Arrest over Charles and Camilla attack


Butno one can be arrested for expressing an opinion however harsh on the Monarch or the Royal family because the Rule of Law applies to everyone and the freedom of expression is tolerated.


Asa matter of fact the MAGNA CARTA was the first draft with on paper (if not in practice) was the first decree imposed on the British Monarch ( Known as Prince John immortalized in the adventures of Robin Hood) by British Nobles who demanded an end to torture for one’s beliefs. In practice however it was never entirely respected until centuries later when Parliamentary Democracy took root in Great Britain.


Yet despite all these apparently democratic practices, Great Britain remains an exception amongst Europe's Constitutional Monarchies on one single ground: It Does not even have a written constitution:



How Truly Democratic And Stable Is The British Monarchy?



The reason being that the British democracy was not built on democratic principles but on Principles of Religious Tolerance. 


There are deep historical reasons that explain this particularity for which I do not have the time to elaborate here (but are explained in the above link). Ironically The Queen ofEngland being a Velayateh Fagih so to speak and guardian of the Faith in the Anglican Church of England.


Other European Monarchies do not follow that trend. Spain or Belgium have a written Constitution and their monarch's of "Catholic Faith" owe at best a private"inexplicit" obedience to the Vatican. Coronations, Marriages etc are held publicly in presence of Religious authorities for purely symbolic representation to underline the "divine" attributes associated to the King or Queen. In Practice none of these Religious considerations affect the Secular nature of the Royal Institutions since all affairs of the State are conducted by an Elected Prime Minister and government who has no accountability whatsoever to the Religious institutions of the country.


The Prime Minister is however accountable to the Monarch and carries the politics of the nation in the name of the King or Queen and never in the name of the "Subjects"(citizens in a Republic). In practice given the democratic nature of the citizens and society at large it is de facto the opposite because the King or Queen are Not involved in the political decision makings of their elected government which can be right wing or left wing ( which in america would be Republican Party vs Democratic party).



This is something which may shock Americans but not Europeans. The French Constitution often referred to as the V Republic is actually very much modeled on the British Parliamentary System where the elected President names the Prime Minister who then carries the affaires of the State in his name and in the service of thenation.



One may consider the Royal Institution as obsolete, undemocratic or ridiculous or unfair but that is how it is conceived and many European Monarchies have no problem with it because they see the Royal Family (with or without their imperfections) as a symbol of continuity with more or less ancient family ties. Some dynasties likein Sweden, Monaco or the Benelux are much younger than others like particularly England. Spain is a fairly young dynasty which was restored only in 1975 after a particularly long interruption due to Franco's Fascist government :



THE SUN ALSO RISES: Shah of Iran and Queen Soraya visit Franco's Spain (1957)



and a civil war that tore the country and jeapordized it's national unity:



Roland Joffe directs Golshifteh Farahani in Spanish Civil War Film




HISTORY FORUM: Franco's Ghost- Spain's Painful Road Towards National Reconciliation





King Juan Carlos unlike our Crown Prince Reza is Not even Born in his country but was born in exile in ROME, Italy:



ROYALTY:Crown Prince Reza & King Juan Carlos of Spain




ROYALTY:King Juan Carlos of Spain Greeted by Shahbanou at Sa'ad Abad Palace State Dinner (1978)



ROYAL CURTSY: Iran's Royal Family At Spain's Crown Prince's Wedding (2004)



ROYALTY:Spain Greets Iran's Prince Gholam Reza and spouse Manjineh (1978)



Ultimately is is about Mutual Trust between the governing body ( Elected Prime Minister, Un elected Monarch) and the People.


That is why most monarchies draft a constitution which becomes a kind ofmoral contract between the two bodies with it's set of Rules.


The British have a wonderful capacity to look at it with humor including in it's social or economic implications:


I know my place Sketch : John Cleese


It has worked till now ... can it work equally in the future ? Only time will say but their is little chances that British society will ever seek to topple it's Monarchy. They may seek change and demand lower profile from their Royals as is for instance the case in Sweden, Denmark or Holland ( which was a Republic prior to becoming a Monarchy again) limited to purely representational and symbolic roles.



But Pomp and Circumstance remain deeply associated to the image of the monarchy:


ROYALTY:Holland Greets Shah of Iran with Pomp and Circumstance (1959)


It has a cost which is calculated and depending on the economic well being of a nation the budget covering the costs of Royal activities are debated in Parliament:


RESTORATION:The British Royal Family at Work (PBS : 7 Parts)


ROYAL FORUM: Spain's Royal Family Cut Budget For First Time In History



Something which may less been the case in IRan except for the empress whose secretariat and offices had a given budget to carry out her activities and which were inspected by Parliament: 


THE WORKING EMPRESS: The Life and Times of Shahbanou Farah



But when it comes to the Private Fortunes of Royal Families that to date remains a taboo and only estimations are given.Only Holland's Royal Family been very transparent equally about their private fortune as their expenses in public duties which are verifiable. All other European families are far less transparent. The Queen of England pays taxes onher properties and private fortune but the amount of her exact wealth is not of public knowledge. Same thing for the King of Morocco who has also been paying taxes and has stepped many reforms in modernizing the Royal institutions inthat country:


Morocco's King Mohammed VI pledges constitutional reform


ROYAL FORUM: Morocco's Steady Path Towards Democracy


The Private fortune of the late Shah was also subject to much speculation by Iran's new Revolutionary government:


pictory:Shah's Fortune demanded back by Iran's Revolutionary Government (1979)


But as the Crown Prince recently said on PARAZIT, all cases brought to international courts ended in an appeal in favor of the Pahlavi family. His alleged Fortune if I amnot mistaken is something that amounts to 64 $ Million according to his comments on the show in response to Kambiz Hosseini.


But obviously all Royal Families are More or less Rich. The palaces etc are attributes of Power and convey dignity to their Status notably when receiving foreign diginitaries, leaders etc:


Republic VS Monarchy In Style ... 


But modern democratic practice have introduced what we like to call Checks and Balances to balance all that glitter with a sense of social justice.

Is it hypocrisy? Yes and No !

It is notbecause you vote for a President or Prime Minister in a Republic that you are necessarily invited to the Garden Party at Elysee Palace:


EMINENT PERSIANS: Arash Derambarsh Future French President?


Or that you can assist to the State Dinners for the diplomatic corps:


STUNNING CARLA: Did French First Lady Make Republican Guard Go Weak At The Knees?


Such pubic displays are also meant to confer to the President some kind of "dignified" status above ordinary citizens who voted him in office.You will never have the privilege unless you have done something deemed important in your field of work and for which you could then be Knighted:


Be it in a Republic like France:


KNIGHTHOOD:France bestows culture honor on Michael Caine


Or a Monarchy like England or elsewhere:


KNIGHTHOOD:Shah Pins Medal on Young Boy (1973)


KNIGHTHOOD:Amin Maalouf bestowed with the 2010 "Prince of Asturias Award" forLiterature


Now I can understand that a Communist like Roozbeh or a Green Like you may not like that idea but that is your right. I simply don't think you folks are a majority or representative of how most Iranians see themselves or would like to see themselves in the future.


Now if You Prefer This :


DIPLOMATIC CORPS: IRI's New UK Ambassadorand Wife On Way to Buckingham Palace


To This:


DIPLOMATIC CORPS: Mehrangiz Dolatshahi First Woman Ambassador of Imperial Iran (1960)


That is not my problem but yours ... 



So Ultimately I guess it is a question of Taste and Choice of how best you would like to be represented on the national and international scene. One which draws respect and one which draws ridicule.




A TALE OF TWO IRANS: Constitutionalist VS Islamic Reformist




Shahzadeh Reza Pahlavi On the Anniversary of the Constitutional Revolution:

Reformist President Khatami of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the compatibility between Islam and Democracy:









Greek Tragedy by Aeschylus "The Persians" -Mourning Scene of Defeat at Marathon:

Tragédie d'Eschyle: Les Perses diffusée en 1961 en France (ORTF)


Camelot might for right, right for right, justice for all:








So let me conclude with Iranian scholar Azar Nafisi's favorite Canadian author when speaking about the "Republic of Imagination":


"A Country that Loses it's Poetic Vision is a Country that faces death" -Saul Bellow




Monday April 11th 2011



Related Blogs:


RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy


pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)


HISTORY FORUM: Nader Naderpour on Iran's Constitutional Revolution and European Rennaissance (1996)

UNIVERSAL LEGACY: UK Foreign Office Spokesman's speech on Cyrus The Great's Cylinder

Mehdi Bazargan and the controversial legacy of Iran's Islamic intellectual movement


SOURCES OF FURY:Nader Naderpour on origins of IRI's "Death Slogans" towards US and Israel




more from Darius Kadivar
Maryam Hojjat

DK, Thanks

by Maryam Hojjat on

for your blog,  all videos & references.  A constitution monarchy seems more suitalble with IRANIANS psyche.