VOCAL MINORITY: Pro Shah and Pro Bakhtiar Demos amidst 1979 Revolution


VOCAL MINORITY: Pro Shah and Pro Bakhtiar Demos amidst 1979 Revolution
by Darius Kadivar

Pro Shah and Pro Constitutionalists gather in Amjadieh Stadium in Tehran in support of Shapour Bakhtiar’s government amidst the ever growing turmoil of the Islamic revolution. A Vocal minority (often presented as the « Silent Majority » by then Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar) dares speak up in support of the crumbling regime and it’s last appointed government.


Pro Shah demonstrations in Amjadieh Stadium (1979):

Pro Shah demonstrators gather in Amjadieh Stadium in Tehran as the Revolution gathers larger crowds against the regime

Pro Bakhtiar Demonstrations in Tehran (1979) :

Pro Bakhtiar Demonstrations in support of the 1906 Constitution gather in Tehran 


Related Blogs :

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Man Chased by Anti Shah Protestors During Shah's US Visit (1977)

DISCRIMINATION: Vendetta Against Anglican Bishop in Iran (1980)

pictory:(FOR REFERENDUM BASHERS) Women Punched in Face by Revolutionaries

Other Related Constitutionalist Blogs:

POINT: Shahram Homayoun on unfair attacks against the Pahlavi Dynasty

Shahram Aryan: "Khatami’s illusions of an ‘Islamic Democracy’ are bound for failure"

Constitutionalist activist debates with Green activist Omid Dana On RP 2's Leadership

Young Constitutionalist Explains why he Favors Monarchies over Republics


Constitutionalist's Critics of Shamlou's deemed 'Insults' towards Ferdowsi's Shahnameh


Constitutionalist's Rebuttal of Republican Assessment that Revolution was "Highjacked"


Constitutionalist Student on '79 Revolutionaries Infatuation with Arabs


Constitutionalist Student's Views On Shah's Rule after Mossadegh's Downfall


Constitutionalist Student Shares Views On Mohammed Reza Shah's Rule


Constitutionalist Student Shares Views on the Pros and Cons of Reza Shah's Rule


more from Darius Kadivar

True patriatic people

by Siavash300 on

The people in the above video are really patriatic. These are the ones who knew what would be happen if shah leaves the country. These are true intellectuals, Not Jebeh Meli, Not left, Not mojahedin.  

My kudos to all of them.


Darius Kadivar

aliash jan

by Darius Kadivar on

I don't know how long you have been around on Iranian.com but if you have followed my writings and blogs you should know where I stand on the question of the Monarchy.

If not then I invite you to go through some of them to shape your opinion on what I actually advocate in a more informed way:


And you will see that it would be unfair to reduce me or my likeminds to a Shahollahi crowd. Not that you accused me of that but if that is what you understand from the term Monarchist as being the blind adoration of a given man who happened to embody the institution of the Monarchy. Then let me explain that is not what a Monarchist is nor what the Monarchy represents.

But I am a Constitutional Monarchist (i.e: advocating a democratic Institution but within a Royal Framework) and a Legitimist (i.e: believing in the legitimacy of the Pahlavi dynasty) and for me the monarchy by definition is intricately linked to History and as such my blogs are aimed at refreshing people's memory on what happened be them good or bad, spectacular or not, constuctive or destructive.

I leave it to people to draw their own conclusions on the events or people presented here or elsewhere whether they share my perspective of the events or not.

The fact that a dynasty was toppled does not mean the system they happened to embody (i.e: the Monarchy) does not work, it mearly means it was not accepted at the time by the majority of the people for XYZ reasons and other shortcomings which are of public knowledge 32 years later.

As for the title Reza Shah II it prevails whether a dynasty is toplled or not. A King, Crown Prince or Queen Remain as such unless beheaded. 

The same is true when you speak about former Presidents. Be it Clinton, or Bush Jr; or Sr in the US , Giscard D'Estaing or Chirac in France former Presidents remain Presidents once out of office and are Not referred to as "Mr." But "President" by Journalists  in all interviews or references made to them in articles or history books.

The same remains true for Reza Pahlavi. He may not expect anyone to address him by anything else than Reza Pahlavi but it does not change the fact that he is Reza Shah II in the eyes of his die hard followers and merely Crown Prince by Constitutionalists like me until the day he takes oath Officially in front of Parliament if that day were to arise in the future.

Now as a Constitutionalist it is not my problem if some who don't believe in the Monarchy as a system of government wish to dismiss his royal titles and credentials.

But I don't see why I or others belonging to today's deemed Vocal "Minority" have to follow the preferences of today's deemed Vocal "Majority" if our goals in precisely to replace that Majority with our own Constituency ?

For after all That's what a political stuggle is all about : To push for the ideas we uphold and to struggle to implement them in the future.

Otherwise might as well ask me to give up my own beliefs and adher to your point of view without the slightest conviction. How fair would that be ?   

It's Up to those who believe me or my likeminds are wrong to prevent us from achieving our goals or convince us with their views or on the contrary to work with us if they feel there can be avenues of cooperation or constructive exchange of views.

We are not closing the door on anyone who shares a set of common values and goals namely: Opposing the IRI and wanting to establish Democracy, and Human Rights in our country once and for all.

But as a Constitutionalist for me the Monarchy is not defined by Democracy but by Patriotism.  

In otherwords it is not merely a Cosmetic addition to a political establishment. The Monarchy has it's set of rules and institutional coherence which shape it's identity.

That's what I aim to explain or illustrate in my blogs. I don't claim I am right. I claim this is how I see it.

But I try to do it with an open mind by equally illustrating the shortcomings of the Monarchy as well as it's advantages.

The British Monarchy or others in Europe did not become democratic overnight.

They evolved thanks to an evolution of mentalities and a better understanding of what people set for themselves as a priority.   

The British have no probmeù to celebrate their current Monarch with Pomp and Circumstance today as they did in the Past:


GOD SAVE THE QUEEN: UK Prepares for Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee


Yet Her ancestors often ruled Britain with an Iron Fist !


If the British had concluded like you do that the Monarchy is over because it did not work at the time of the Monarch Charles Ist whom they toppled and beheaded then they probably would never have Restored their Monarchy in the shape we see today.

Yet they Restored the Monarchy with the son of the former Monarch whom they crowned as Charles II.


The point of which Parliamentary Democracy took off in Great Britain not only Prior to the American Revolution but also the French Revolution both of which were greatly inspired in their political framework from the British Bill of Rights which was subsequently to influence the French and American Constitutions:


RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights 


Well that is Precisely what Shapour Bakhtiar and those who demonstrated in the above blog were advocating for Iran:


A Genuine Constitutional Monarchy:


RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy ( Interview in London for Newsweek, 1984) 


as opposed to an Absolute One :


KING OF KINGS: Mohamed Reza Shah Pahlavi's Tribute to Iran's Past Kings and People (Nowruz 1977)


But that does not mean because the Dynasty behaved in a dictatorial way that it should be dismissed as Illegitimate.


Otherwise then might as well dismiss all the European Monarchies today all of which descend from absolute monarchies.


So ultimately I don't see how one can try and put things in perspective if we don't take a minimum of interest in history and the past.


My Perspective happens to be a Constitutionalist One.


I don't claim I am right. I simply claim that is what I believe in and I try to offer my arguments as coherently as possible in defense of the point of view which I uphold as true.  

But I'm not dictating my point of view on anyone. Merely Sharing mine and defending it with my own set of arguments and creative tools which allow me to best illustrate them other than with "words".  

Others including you are free to offer a different perspective using your own arguments, creativity, culture and imagination to defend or illustrate your point of view.

Up to people to draw their own conclusions and choose what they deem is best for them.


My Humble Opinion,





 "The past is a foreign countrythey do things differently there"

- L.P Hartley author of "The Go Between" 



by aliash on

Darius jan, let me make one thing very clear I really do not care if the people pick a constitutional monarchy or a republic for the future.  The only point that I am making is that a small demonstration of a few at the time of the revolution has no real significance today and quite frankly I actually think it is counterproductive.  Focus on what is being done at this time today.  Bringing these small demonstrations up from that time, which it may or may not have been genuine is not really helpful, and makes people think that you are looking to bring back the monarchy as it was then.  Which did not work, otherwise we would have Reza shah II as the head of state rather than Ali gada!  I personally have no problem with a real democratic constitutional monarchy where the control of the government is in the hands of the elected representatives of the people not the shah!

Darius Kadivar

aliash Jan Who said the contrary ?

by Darius Kadivar on

Hence my Title: "Vocal Minority" 


But please explain to me how does bringing "Democracy" and "clarifying the form of government people want" is compatible with dismissing a form of democratic government which may not be of your liking but may be One which may appeal to Iranians tomorrow ? : i.e: A Parliamentary Monarchy !  


Explaining the Concept of a Constitutional Monarchy to a Staunch Republican  


Crown Prince Reza on importance of "Checks and Balances" of future regime 


In otherwords I fail to see how my advocacy of a Constitutional Monarchy threatens or discourages you or your likeminds from advocating a Secular Republic or another form of government of your liking ? ... 


People did not want the Shah

by aliash on

Darius jan, I think you need to keep things in perspective.  It is very clear that by far the greatest majority the people were tired of shah's dictatorial rule.  This is not to say that what happened was a good thing and we ended up making progress.  But one thing is for sure that they people did not want the shah at the time.  The very few who were pro-Shah at the time are essentially inconsequential.  Why don't you focus on what could be done today to bring democracy to our country, and set the stage for the election that would clarify what form of government the people want.