Solution to satisfy Monarchists and Republicans

dingo daddy En passant
by dingo daddy En passant

This will be a short blog to present my humble proposal for the debate between Constitutional Monarchists and Republican. It has come about in the best/worst norroz messages blog // and some other places.

I just think we should be able to honor the institution of Monarchy for its historic and cultural value to Iran. Iran has been a monarchy for almost 100 percent of its existence and this deserves to be there. I think most secular republicans who wish a parliamentary republic or federation are not necessary against the Monarchy. They just don't want to take anything away from democracy by having an UNELECTED Monarch with some responsibilities, even if they are only theoretical or ceremonial responsibility.

I think the solution is to INFORMALLY recognize the institution of Monarchy in the future Iran costitution. BUT explicitly state that it has no role in Iran's future government. This is an important distinction because it means Monarchy is saved as part of Iran's CULTURAL heritage but not in any governmental capacity, not even as ceremonial head of state.

This would be a very creative solution. The Monarch would still get state visits and be an object of intrigue and pride. It would be like having access to living heritage of Iran. I think most people can support this role for a Monarch, even those who hated the Shah.

Thanks for reading.

- Daniel/Melbourne


Recently by dingo daddy En passantCommentsDate
Farzad Tarash: The Other Iranian Wrestler
Aug 12, 2012
Writing Love is...
Sep 06, 2009
more from dingo daddy En passant

Dear Farah,

by Kaveh Parsa on

مقاله  شاهزاده سبز ایران  بیانگر دیدگاه من در مورد اتلاف و اتحاد میباشد




Reza Pahlavi's most recent interview on........

by MM on

Reza Pahlavi had a news conference on the future of Iran on the 6th of Farvardin in Bonn, Germany in which he spoke about

* the abuses of power (concentration in the central government) in Iran

* civil society in Iran

* secular society in Iran with separation of religion and government

* human rights in Iran

* advantages of labor unions in Iran

* and many more......


part 1: //

part 2: //

Just the type of discussions we have been having here.  Why cannot he/monarchists put them all on paper and sign them as amendments to the constitution of 1906?


David ET

Kaveh and Farah

by David ET on

I give you an example just among us and then you can expand the thought across the board: 

1- We agree on what our common goals are , which at least in my view is what is listed in

// (with supposedly some revisions that we all agree on)

2- I am a republican, you are monarchist, both democrats and seculars. I will not deny being a republican and neither you will deny being a monarchist but as of today , the country is in the hands of a religious military dictatorship , so although we keep identities as what we stand for but we form a coalition on even more important principles that we all believe are important such as respecting human rights, separation of religion and state, 3 independent branches of government, right of the people to vote, freedom of speech etc etc.

3- We also agree that none of these ideals are possible under the current regime, therefore we know that our first goal as a coalition is to make the coalition wider in numbers and obtain more support in all form and from everyone possible:

Leaders of oppositions , groups, parties, activists, people, men, women, labor, teachers, students, etc etc

4- the larger and wider the political viewpoints, religions, ethnicities, etc etc in this coalition the more successful it is

So the first goal is to get the word out with all the communication means from top to bottom possible

What we communicate is the common goals and that we each have our own political identities but we all have same goals and that by example also gathers others...

We also agree that when IR collapses we all respect an independent interim system based on our common and agreed goals and then we each while committed to the common goals will also in a free and democratic system will campaign for our own representatives in that government elected by the people ....

This would not be a vague coalition but one with defined common terms, goals , plans and even a set of laws .

The only thing left will be the specific tactics and strategy to topple the regime and those in my view will be much easier than most think if the coalition is wide and has the popular support, asnd it will!...and if you insist ! I summarize the strategy in one sentence: Paralyze the IR machine

no government has ever been able to stand up to the power of masses and The People

PS: when MEK recently claimed that they have been secular all along, they were shown their own gaol of "Islamic Democratic Republic" and their answer was (accprding to newsecularism website) that the Islamic words were just a tactic. My point is when momentum builds many will follow and yet they do not have to give up their identity but also do not forget that after 31 years

many have learned from their mistakes

many have learned that without each other they can not succeed alone

many have learned that they better compete in their own country in a democratic system than some outside and some inside in a dictatorship

many have even learned that many of the extremist and ideological views that they had were too extreme and wrong

I believe more and more (from all sides) have come and coming to the center where and what I call principles of the coalition

Now we Iranians should  (as jamshid keeps reminding us , put the past aside) and organize...



Dear Farah - as I said in my previous comment:

by MM on

I am all for a neutral position (I call it softer position) on the type of government, for the sake of unity.  However, there should be a basic framework by which we all agree on in order to prevent another 1979-like referendum that was followed by writing of a constitution that nobody liked and the government itself did not follow.

The basic framework, in my opinion is

1. independent, free and integral Iran

2. adherence to the charter of the human rights.

3. separation of religion and government

While these three principles will hopefully unite the majority of the opposition in a united front, unfortunately, inclusion of #3 will exclude the reformists/IRI/MKO from the coalition.

Farah Rusta

Learn to walk before learn to run

by Farah Rusta on


what is your definition of "unity" or "coalition" if you will? I know what both of these terms mean but I am interested if David. Jamshid or Kaveh would venture to give their understanding of these two words. From what I can see here, you are running too far before learning to walk first. You say that we need unity and coalition but you need to say "unity" of what or "coalition between who? You can't have either of these two before identifying the components of this coalition. And the components of this coalition are a whole range if believers and activists  who can't deny their own identities in the name of a coalition. You seem to have many detailed ideas about how  the post IRI system should work but I can't see any detailed formula to bring Mossadeghis, Monarchists and Mojaheds to the same table without stopping them to refer to themselves as to what they stand for.



nothing wrong with an amendment to the 1906 constitution

by MM on

to make it palatable to those who do not want to see abuses by the Shah or the clergy.


David (2)

by Kaveh Parsa on

Regarding Iraq,I did say: "This comparison in no way underestimates the differences between the 2 countries, or the issues in Iraq during the last 7 years, nor gives legitimacy to the idea of foreign intervention"

I used Iraq just to show an example of the need for legitimacy for the (interim) administration (which can only be gained through elections) that will conduct elections for the Referendum & the constituent assembly. It does not have to follow the exact timeline as Iraq, but in my view it is necessary & needs to be done as soon as practicable.



Dear David & MM

by Kaveh Parsa on

Although I do not presume to speak for RP, my presumption is that he feels bound by the spirit of the oath that he took in 1980, to uphold the 1906 constitution and therefore act as a "de facto" constitutional monarch.


This is a tricky balancing act. If he does not abide by the spirit of the constitutional oath, then everyone will rightly point out, that this is evidence that he is not trustworthy.


I believe he has resolved this by taking political positions over non-contentious issues, i.e. by supporting & promoting Human Rights, democracy as well as his unconditional support of the green movement. Another example of this is his statement over the Ashraf camp issue, a purely HR act.


Again without wanting to speak on behalf of anyone, I believe that the second part of the monarchist strategy is to have a coherent democratic (as far as its possible in an exile environment) political organisation in order to to overcome this obvious problem.


Taking a stance to support the green movement, I would suggest as not being political, since by everyone's definition, the green movement includes supporters of all political persuasions (excluding IR diehards). If one supports the movement, then one is not taking sides and therefore apolitical and keeps him in line with he "de facto" constitutional role.


Now, dealing with your call for unity being directed primarily at individuals & activists;


I think this is similar to a chicken and egg situation. With out known, credible groupings subscribing & agreeing to the minimum principles, I think it would be difficult (not impossible) to get the individuals (perhaps not activists) to join the solidarity front. I think you allude to this but in the reverse order. What I am saying is that it is easier to generate the momentum for the advancement of unity, if political groupings unite, by issuing statements & joining each other on platforms, than the other way round.


1906 Constitution:


I agree with you and MM that the 1906 constitution had problems and need amendments. However, I wouldn’t term them as major problems. I believe it was and is a more progressive document than the IR constitution. The areas that could be improved are:

Remove the monarch’s authority to dissolve parliaments, without out express advice/consent of the PM. 

Remove the monarch as the commander in chief of the armed forces, other than in an honorary capacity.

Remove the monarch to appoint members to the second chamber (Senate), and make it wholly elected.

Remove the provision for the Guardian council altogether.

Remove any sexual/religious/ethnic pre-conditions for all positions of state (Monarchy, Executive/Judiciary/legislative branches)

Introduce a wholly elected council/body (with historical precedent, i.e. Mahestan council) to oversee & supervise the conduct of the Monarch. This can be a council either independently elected or be appointed by parliament, from amongst its own members.


Having said that, I believe that the interim constitution is an excellent working document, to take post IR Iran towards a Referendum.




David ET

Dear Kaveh (2)

by David ET on

You have used Iraq as an example and also have mentioned that today is different than 1979 and the sooner a ballot box is offered the better.

1- Iraq was and still is a country under foreign occupation ...Also they are divided to three regions of sunni/kurd/shia and have history as a country only after the British drew lines in Middle East.... conditions are extremely different

2- By rushing to govern (which in their case they did not have much choice) Iraq ended up with an Islamic Republic constitution (although not as strict as IR) but laws etc must be within the Islamic guidelines kind of similar to monrachist constitution of Iran in that sense.

3- However after some time and after political parties etc were formed, now that elections were run, the secular coalition won majority of seats (with small margin)

As you see with time people made more informed decisions and that is despite all the foreign interference from US to Iran to Saudi's, Syrians etc in the affairs of Iraq.

A system with all three independent branches are sufficient to manage the affairs of Iran until there is enough time to undue the dictatorial system and form democratic means.

It is only then that the information can be freely communicated to the people so that they can make an informed decision based on facts instead of perceptions and assumptions as it happend in 1979.

31 years of IR has not necessarily helped inform many across the country (Iranian population is lot more than the educated upper middle class segment in the major cities)

This takes time. But having said that....The issue at hand today is different and that is : How to get there and that is where we need to focus for now. The rest can be decided then by the people elected representatives.....

e.g.: see chapter 13 // 




by Kaveh Parsa on

I am leaving town for the day and will return later in the evening, when I will respond to your comments.


David ET

Dear Kaveh

by David ET on

You have made many constructive comments worth more detail discussion. Also thanks for your kind comments.

So far I had seen RP being very political and I always have presumed that is because he is not bind by the constitution yet. Otherwise technically a secular monarch should not involve in political matters as you mentioned. So if he takes political positions regarding green movement, etc etc in all his speeches, I don’t see any reason he can not get take position of unity also.

My suggestion is not directed only at leaders but average people as well as activists of all kinds who represent themselves and also have those who respect or follow them.

As for republicans etc, they each have their own groups, etc...If enough people, activists and others agree to it, others will follow. We do not need one person in each camp giving fatwa that the idea is Kosher... The momentum (as it happened in the election atmosphere) in an environment when so many are against the regime will just do the rest.

Obviously this can not be by one or two but needs joint statement by many from different sides and camps and then the coalition can not be claimed to be work of one or another.

As for the interim constitution that I have formed, that does not have to be part of the coalition but just the outline or similar goals as I have already listed.. Remember this is called interim not permanent...

As for the issue of 1906 constitution, as MM mentioned it really had major issues with too much power to Shah as well as clergy so I don't think even secular monarchists are comfortable with it.

The government post IR need to have three independent secular branches that adhere to democratic rules and this can not be possible without a set of laws that make that possible for a secular monarchy or whatever.

We all have to be more adaptive within our beliefs to the new age versus 104 years ago...or we will continue to remain where we have been stuck for 30 more years.

I will discuss Iraq later...



Dear David,

by Kaveh Parsa on

As far as I am aware, excluding the fringe element, I do not see any objections by the main body of the monarchists (in principle) to your ideas Re: Road to Freedom- Chapter 1 which I had read before, and salute your efforts for it & the constitution.

RP as the representative of the institution he represents can NOT lead nor propose the mechanism of the interim government, before IR's collapse. He has sworn an oath to a constitution that puts him beyond taking sides, in how & when the said referendum would take place. This same oath does not allow him to be political or take sides. The legitimate political wing of the Monarchist movement (Hezbe Mashrouteh), are the party who would need to be engaged & agree this within the proposed solidarity front/or similar council.

With the utmost respect for you & your efforts, I think the problem is with whom will the political side of the Monarchist movement (Hezbe Mashrouteh) need to agree/negotiate this front/council? Will it be you? Are the secularist republicans organised? will they come under one umberlla with the National Front (Jebhe Melli)? will it include the Left Grouping who are by and large Secular & Republican? I know that Mr Esmaeel Nouri Alla (for whom I have the utmost respect), is organising some grouping, but as of today it is still in embryonic but rapidly growing stages.

The most that RP would be able to do with/for this body once negotiations have successfully concluded, (given the constrains that the 1906 constitution imposes on him) is to be its spokesman, if they so agree.

As a supporter of constitutional Monarchy, I personally agree with the idea of the interim government, along the lines that you propose, in order to prepare for the referendum. However, I also believe that this Interim Government will need to have democratic credentials as soon as possible after the fall of IR.

As a case in point, I refer you to the example of Iraq and the fact that they had democratic elections very soon after the invasion (all be it under foreign occupation), which then drew up a constitution which was put to a referendum. This comparison in no way underestimates the differences between the 2 countries, or the issues in Iraq during the last 7 years, nor gives legitimacy to the idea of foreign intervention.

I do understand your concerns, regarding what happened with the IR referendum being repeated, but I also think that we have a different population, who are more mature & politically aware than we ever were in 1979, and certainly in my opinion more so than Iraq.

I believe as Jamshid has mentioned in his latest comment to DK's Blog that we have more in agreement than differences. 

So in my opinion the sooner we introduce the ballot box, the better. Just one voice





by MM on

I do not think that RP should relinquish his claims to the peacock throne.  That will, yet, be hailed as a great feat of the revolution by IRI, will be a distraction and not much constructive actions will come out of it.  Legally, I guess once RP relinquishes that claim, the next in line or someone else will do so, and we are back to square one.

I have listened to Reza Pahlavi's speeches and they sound reasonable as far as bids and pieces here and there, but I really would like to see RP/Monarchists to amend the 1906 constitution to take away the abusive powers, and show everyone what a preliminary Monarchist constitution will look like. 

I am all for a neutral position (I call it softer position) on the type of government, for the sake of unity.  However, there should be a basic framework by which we all agree on in order to prevent another 1979-like referendum that was followed by writing of a constitution that nobody liked and the government itself did not follow.

The basic framework, in my opinion is

1. independent, free and integral Iran

2. adherence to the charter of the human rights.

3. separation of religion and government

While these three principles will hopefully unite the majority of the opposition in a united front, unfortunately, inclusion of #3 will exclude the reformists/IRI/MKO from the coalition.

David ET

Dear Kaveh

by David ET on

I have observed, watched and listened to Reza Pahlavi often enough. 

If he and his supporters think as you present, then on their part there should not be any objection to unity .

The part that I am not sure if I have ever heard him talk about is an interim secular government and constitution.

What i have heard (and correct me if I am wrong) has been him referring to a referendum right after collapse of IR (somewhat similar to conditions when IR referendum heppend). That as I have stated often I think is a prescription to failure.

Read Road to Freedom- Chapter 1 for my reasons...



Dear David

by Kaveh Parsa on

Having read your various blogs, and your recent comments and exchanges with DK, I am wondering if you have listened to any of RP's interviews or read any of his statements. Why do you insist on misrepresenting what RP stands for? Please show me one instance where what RP says is in contradiction to your preconditions for unity? In fact he has been saying the same thing consistently for the last 31 years.

He sees that 90% of his mission would be complete if he can help (& not lead or impose) in bringing freedom & secular democracy to Iran. After that he will serve in what ever capacity the people decide for him. His supporters (not himself) can at that point campaign for their preferred system, i.e. constitutional monarchy.

As to his supporters, (and their many variations) the nature of the core constituency that he represents and their belief system is by its nature such that they will ultimatley accept what their "leader/king" does or says. That is a strength lacking in all other factions, who can not put forward a representative who can authoritatively speak on their behalf.  

If you want to know what the vast majority of Monarchist believe in, listen to what RP or his political representative (Hezbe Mashrouteh & its Gen Secretary, Daruish Homayon) actually says or does, and don't label them according to the views of the absolutist fringe (who are a tiny fraction but who do have a right to express their views). RP has said repeatedly that they do not represent his views, and has politely asked them in so many words & in his own democratic way to shut up!! His dilemma as a democrat is that he can not silence this fringe.




Farah Rusta

by jamshid on

"The fundamntal flaw in your analysis lies in your assumption that nationalist, labor or religious factions are a threat to a secular democracy."

I think you misundestood David's intentions. I don't think he considers nationalist, labor or religious factions as threats to democracy, but he does see any preference to any group can be a threat to unity against the IRI. These two issues are separate and distinct.

I think a neutral stand is necessary to unite and rally the masses. Remember that Khomeini successfully used this technique (although he had malicious intentions), and also it was used to some extend in the green movement with some success as well.

Why shouldn't we do the same? I think Monarchies should accept this neutral stand, of course, without having RP relinquish his obligations as crown prince, only to endorse the netural stand in the name of unity. This could be a striding step forward.

If a pure republican is willing to change the wordings of "President" to "Government Chief" (thereby allowing for a future democratic monarchy, i.e., a prime minister instead of president) in order to accomodate the monarchists, then monarchists should take one step and accept the neutral stand as well. 

This is not to say that monarchists are rejecting monarchy, not at all, it only means that they are endorsing unity with the understanding that a future refrundum can establish monarchy or any other form of government the people would will in the future.

All sides need to both give and take. In the event that this ends with a secular republic in the future Iran, then I am certain that monarchists would still prefer that secular republic over the IRI, and the secular republicans would prefer a secular democratic monarchy over the IRI as well.

David ET

Dear Farah :-)

by David ET on

I was referring to coalition before the collapse of the regime and then until when there are any future votes or referendums..... where we need to agree on MINIMUM common areas .

What you refer to I assume are existing systems and constitutions. If you read my other comments you clearly see that I have no issue with the wish of majority of people's representatives and the people, but until we get there, we all must agree on what brings us together verus our differences.

AFTER seculars are in power I will be OK with monrachs under a secular democratic republic system or repubicans under a monrachist secular democracy.

But the question is how to create that coalition while keeping the majority of seculars within its umbrella instead of alienating one another by own preferences.

RP is wearing green band these days and many of his supporters are unhappy about it, so may be in time at least by necessity we all see the benefit of an at least a minimal but real coalition...



Farah Rusta

Dear David (now that we are friends)

by Farah Rusta on

I hope you don't mind my being critical (especially in the Nou ruz season !) but you clearly have a number of fixated and preconceived assumptions about democracy, secularism and indeed monarchy. Here are my points. You say:

"When making a coalition , those involved agree on what's in common. In
this case the secular, democratic principles and a democratic system
consisted of three branches of government.Those are the COMMON areas.

When you put something that is not common in the conditions of
coalition being Shah, Ayatollah, A Socialist Counci each for own
reason, one calls it for unifying the nation, other for unifying the
religious, other for uniting the labor etc etc then we are trying to force our preferences or presumptions and therefore we are putting those above what we have in common.

Let us for the sake of argument assume that your "common" areas are indeed the common areas needed for a coalition to be formed (debatable but let's make it simple). Then why should "something" - as you call it - like the Shah, Ayatollah and a Socialist Council, be uncommon to your common criteria? Haven't you studied monarchical democracies of Europe? Didn't you know that the Britush monarch, for example, is also the defender of the Faith? Or perhaps you think that such democracies as Britain, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and Begium that were pioneers of parliamenraty democracy and secularity even before republics such as France, America or Germany were created, are not democratic enough for your taste? Do you know that there were, and there are still, democratic features in these democracies that Americans copied or still lack?

The fundamntal flaw in your analysis lies in your assumption that nationalist, labor or religious factions are a threat to a secular democracy. They are part and parcel of an all inclusive democratic coalition. The proof exists in the nations that have experienced and are successfully running their affairs. I am very disappointed and really sorry that you and many other Iranians can't see the bare realities and  seem to have a dogmatic stance against monarchy and the church. This is hardly a promising start to the formation of a thriving secular democracy. 


David ET

Dear Dingo

by David ET on

Here is the bottom line before I move on to other things (This responds to Jamshid' similar suggestion too):

When making a coalition , those involved agree on what's in common. In this case the secular, democratic principles and a democratic system consisted of three branches of government.

Those are the COMMON areas.

When you put something that is not common in the conditions of coalition being Shah, Ayatollah, A Socialist Counci each for own reason, one calls it for unifying the nation, other for unifying the religious, other for uniting the labor etc etc

then we are trying to force our preferences or presumptions and therefore we are putting those above what we have in common.

I know you ir Jamshid mean well but with such approach PRIOR to a referendum and while IR is in power , in order to create a coalition you are asking everyone else to in addition to forming a coalition of common ideals to give one special preference to one branch of the proposed coalition .

I wish it was that easy but when dealing with millions of people with different point of views, asking for more than what is in common is a prescription to failure of a meaningful, large and effective coalition. You may gain for example the monachists but instead you will lose so many others, because you are stepping beyond the common principles.

I have no problem with joining hands under what secular democrats have in common and that is already so much that we share.... but at the end of day the foundation of those ideals is : We are all equal and some are not more equal.

If some are not willing to leave their preferences to the will of the people and want their cake and eat it too beforehand;  while others are willing to gather under shared principles and leave out their own preferences, the one you need to convince to get off their high horses are them not the other way around.

Thank you for your time and good efforts.

dingo daddy En passant

David ET, I don't agree about dictatorship

by dingo daddy En passant on

Dictatorship is a recent concept which is applied to history only in retrospect. The people of Iran at time were supportive and opposing to various monarchs but they did not think of the entire system as a problem until last 100 years.

Thank you for answering the question about delegates. But I think you are making an assumption that nobody wants a Monarch for the interim government. This is not true, some people want it. I know that some people don't, that's OK. It has many benefits to unify and oversee a democratic process. If you have a interim government basically making rules to choose delegates some people. Those people will have more influence in shaping the next government which is very unfair. Why not recognize the Monarch in some capacity to gain the trust of many supporters ? You say "we must ALL agree", that's fair. But how can you say we will agree that there should not be any role for Monarchy even in the interim government? Another question is that we know for sure we, meanig the people of Iran, don't ALL agree on secularism either. Plus people who agree have different ideas about it. So how to overcome this obstacle in the process?


IRR puppets should be silenced one way or the other

by Hovakshatare on

There should be no more tolerance for a group of puppets and their masters who do not understand the meaning of freedom.  I think they should all be lynched!

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

I also propose this amendment:The Monarch must Work for a living

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

Earn his own living instead of living off the people. Drinking wine in Barcelona isn't employment. This is a radical idea, but I think it's worth imagining. 

This is a silly little blog. There is only one way to satisfy the monarchists and we know what that is. LOL. Rescue Reza Pahlavi from his bunker! 

David ET

Dear dingo

by David ET on

(Just a pre-note: Dictatorship is also cultural and historical in Iran but that does not mean we will have to stay with them. )

As for how delegates to parliament are chosen , It is like any working democracy. Must accept the secular nature of the system and otherwise can be a monarchist as well as republican etc.. There is freedom of creating parties, assemblies, expression and adherence to articles of human rights... no political prisoners or executions....and list goes on

Presently my proposed interim constitution (which has been a work in progress for more than a year) has one head of executive Branch, which can easily be named Prime Minister or whatever

...and another ceremonial role can always be created if there will be a majority call from parliament and then by the majority people vote. If republic, that role can be filled by president and if monrachy can be filled by monarch. We can even put that in the interim constitution !

But meanwhile we must ALL agree on a working government and environment and elected head of government, parliament, judiciary etc. can funsction.

 The ceremonial role if any at the end of the day (monrachy or republic) and by law would not have any say in the governing anyway....we can call him/her anything once majority determines that.

Once we agree on this, then we can focus on the real task in front of us which is getting this regime to get to that point instead of status quo!

All I am telling everyone from Monarchists to Republicans: Lets not put the cart before the horse now and lets focus on the "Iranian Solidarity Front" instead of our preferences the day after...

My proposal:  "the road to freedom"

dingo daddy En passant

Monarchy is cultural and historical

by dingo daddy En passant on


persian_yingyang, all the Shah's palaces were really meuseums. I don't think the King's living arrangements is important. I think it would be an honor to be the official cultural protector of Iran, for example.


I don't want the Monarch to be useless. I think the Monarch should hold court and even pass decrees. David ET, of course he is also a private citizen, this is not any concession on your part. But he would have a cultural role but not constitutional.

David ET, how are the delegates chosen for your interim constitution proposal?


Dear Farah, This is actually not like Australia. The Queen does have a constitutional role as head of Government in Australia and can technically still overrule the parliament and dismiss the government. Australians voted to keep the arrangement this way. 

Thanks for reading.


We are not cultured like euroupeans , let us face it

by jasonrobardas on

  iranians are sycophant (Khaye mal )by nature and upbringing . They kneel and bow in front of power and authority . If you put a crown on a monkey in iran.  Everyone kisses his ass so much and gives him too much power until he has enough power to be a full dictator . A MONARCH IN IRAN WILL AUTOMATICALY BECOME A TYRANT .

    We iranians have our "third world upbringing" . We are not like the English , Dutch , Australian or ......................

Farah Rusta

Iran is not Australia

by Farah Rusta on

Your suggestion is loosely based on the Australian model but there is a fundamental difference between Iran and Australia. Australian monarchy has its roots in the British monarchy and in fact the British Queen is the Australian Queen as well. But Iran's monarchy is home made (and organic too!).  Iran was never colonized by another country and there is no such thing as an informal monarchy. If anything we should have a home grown constitution , simialr to that of the British, in which the elected Parliament is the ultimate sovereign and the monarch is the head of state (a matter of debate in Asutralia).  


David ET

Interesting suggestion

by David ET on

In a way most of that is given in a democratic and secular republic:

1- Monarch and Family can live freely and have own ceremonies etc

2- Monrachists can form their own political parties and have representatives in the parliament

3- People by own choice can contribute financially or any other way to the monarch and monarchists


As for the interim government and constitution that I have proposed , I have even gone one step further and proposed that in the interim system any secular including monarchists can have representatives in the parliament and if they earn majority vote can even request a change to the intermin constitution to the preferred secular system of own (including monarchy) which also then will be put national referendum and if also approved by majority of Iranians they will get their desired secular monarchy or any other secular system. The conditions are equal for all, republican, monarchists and other seculars alike but subject to people's will..

and that is the basis for my proposed : Iranian Solidarity Front

For more information visit: راه رسیدن به آزادی


maziar 58

David En passant

by maziar 58 on

That is a very good point;like a similar system of government in Japan;with a major difference we (Iranians) have vs. japanese

They cherish RESPECT & HONORS.

Most (not all) Iranian are NAMAK NASHNAS .

P.S  Quetion from persian-yingi (read it with esfehani accent)      the avatar you've ASSBESS ?            Maziar


weird proposal

by persian_yingyang on

yeah, and I suggest you want the Monarchy to live in a Museum too, so visitors to Iran can go vist the zoo, parks, historic areas ..oh yes and the museum with monarchy too...

its funny, you think we are like bees, we got to have our Queen Bee.,,anyway I don't know if you heard  but bees are disappearing from the face of the earth -true story-- maybe they too are getting tired of their lazy Queen