Iranian of the Day

BenRoss

I read your reply and I found it very intriguing. I found myself in agreement with your points. Thank you for this well thought of comment.

Jamshid

I think your comments for David and Darius are deeply related. The issue is not inheritance in Monarchy really. At least not in this modern time that Monarchy is symbolic and doesn't exercise any executive power. Although I personally think that even in our modern time, the army should be under supreme supervision of the Shah, in a monarchy that is.

But back to your argument, you are clearly criticizing RP, not inheritance in a Monarchy. You are criticizing RP not fulfilling his inheritance. Otherwise, we can surely assume that some provisions in the constitution can easily prevent an out of ordinary inheritance in a monarchy. But this is not really the issue and any comment on RP part on this matter would be premature.

I do understand your criticism of RP and I tend to agree with you. But I don't attribute it to 'incompetence' in a hereditary tradition. This is not the case. If you look at RP interviews, you see a well informed, fully competent statesman. He does not though, appear as a king, and this is not because his lack of competence, but his deliberate approach in his policy towards Iranians, which in my view -as yours- was a failure.

Reza Pahlavi has a very honorable vision about Iran, a vision that he has kept throughout the past 30 years. He does insist on that. But one would think that a vision which was withheld for 30 years, coming from a prominent position that he has, should be an obvious matter of fact, as the air we are breathing. This is not the case and regardless how competent he is as a statesman, he did not succeed to pass the message for the past 30 years. It must be frustrating for him to constantly seeing himself obligated to answer questions such as if he is pro democracy or not!

The root of this unfortunate failure, is his policy not what he stands for. And the best statesmen of the world can have a wrong policy.

By downplaying his role as the crown prince, he intended to align himself with activists of his own generation who, for the most part, were alienated from Pahlavi and symbolism of monarchy altogether. This is where your two comments meet each-other. In order to build a bridge with people like David and to show that he is looking for the same freedom that David is, in effect he managed to portray himself as an incompetent king and -in the view of likes of David- and incompetent freedom activist! So what he has left for everybody to believe is that he is a decent person, a likable father.. and an incompetent leader. This is not about his competence. It's about his policy, poorly conceived.

Even DK is adamantly opposed to give any portray of Reza Pahlavi as a leader, as if this portray automatically destroys his image of a democrat, a freedom loving person, and particularly for his concern as a monarchist, it damages the image of monarchy for modern Iran.

But monarchy in modern time can not be anything but symbolic. Even in army leadership. This symbolism is useful for giving a unifying identity to the country. But if we think of keeping monarchy in Iran, it's for the time of crisis, it's for a time like this, that we need a king, to take charge and save his country. Otherwise what's really the purpose of it? 

The mistake was in the conception of the policy not in competence. It is not for you to ask David to apologize, as we all should apologize for what we did to Iran. Reza Pahlavi downplayed his inheritance and his constitutional duty to attract people like David. But it was for him, as a king, to take responsibility and ask David to apologize not you.

This is how he lost both worlds... fortunately not irrevocably. 

Dear Darius

Thank you for your input. Perhaps your computer crashes are indeed the work of gods, but only to make you rewrite and refine your views, thereby making them even stronger!

I think people like you should step forward and brainstorm and suggest ideas that could refine/reinvent the institution of Monarchy in Iran so that it could meet its formidable challenges in the 21st century. And I hope RP gets to study them and add his ideas as well.

Due to its long traditional role in Iran, I think Monarchy can survive in Iran despite the events of the past 30 years. But as it was "reinvented" once during the constitutional revolution, it must be done so again, a hundred years later.

If RP himself comes forward with these new progressive and even revolutionary ideas on the institution of Monarchy, which would be unique to Iran's challenging needs, I think he has then served both Iran and the historic tradition of Monarchy as well.

Dear Jamshid

Your challenging Questions deserve a much longer answer and convincing arguments than the one I will offer you here. I actually was brainstorming on it last night and lost the entire text due to my computer crashing down ;0(

It seems I have a particular problem with this particular question cause Irandokht asked me a similar question for which I also wrote a long well argumented and well thought response only to accidently click something else than the submit button and lost everything.

The Gods must be against Heriditary Monarchy or something no matter what I do LOL

But just to say that I am not against society Re-inventing itself or re-shaping it's system of government and a Restoration as I see it is not an attempt to re write history or try and to revise it only to glorify the monarchy.

The British after all invented Splitting Image for TV making fun of Prince Charles ears or the Queen's bad breath , The Beatles and the Rolling Stones revolutionized 20th century Music and Pop Culture thrived as in no other country in the Western World. None of all that brought down the British Monarchy which is the most conservative institution in the World with it's set of traditions and rules.

Even Lady Diana's tragedy did not bring it down.

But the British remain Royalists at heart as much as the French remain Republican at heart due to their respective historical evolution and experiences.

I don't think nations are entirely shaped merely on grounds of reasoning and logic. I think a nation is built essentially on grounds of emotion and based on our collective view of ourselves both nationally and on the world Stage.

As much as Democracy is important and essential and JUST, we do not always vote merely with our brain but also with our heart.

As much as I am not against the notion of seeing society Re-Invent itself, I am however hostile to the notion of re-inventing the State into something that erases a nation's references to oblivion. Particularly if that is an outcome of an absurd and immature behavior which was the case for our generation back in 1979 where the Regime needed to be reformed and not toppled as such.

As for Heriditary Monarchy or the choice of the Successor I believe that all European Monarchies have what they call a Constitutional Assembly whose role is not to supervise the Parliment or government or the people but the King or Queen's behavior and decision making. 

Their Job is to Protect the Royal Family from itself so to speak and can give an opinion as to the choice of the successor to the Throne. They are elected I think amongst the Parlimentarians but the King or Queen usually have the initial choice of presenting their successor before definitive approval.

If the eldest son or daughter is deemed unfit to rule due to a mental disease or any other reason, the choice is set  on other members of the family like the second son or daughter or even a cousin or uncle depending on how the family is composed.

In Belgium the current King Albert II is the brother of former King Baudoin who had no children.

But family Oligarchy does rule in Europe at least because the Monarchy is considered as based on continuity.

But once again No one is above the Law and even forced abdication can be suggested as was the case for King Edward VIII who wanted to marry and american divorcee.

I would like to continue my arguments further in regard to legitimacy and inheritance and I had a wonderful argument developed but I lost it due to my computer crash. 

I hope to be able to do it someday before Iran becomes a Republic ;0)

Hope this response is satisfactory for the moment however imperfect.

cheers,

DK 

Alex

There is also historical data that suggests monarchy is not an ideal form of government. So it would all depend on the time and place and the circumentances.

In my opinion, Reza Shah (the first) was a competent ruler both in peace and in crisis, but his son was competent only during peace to advance the country, but not in moments of crisis to save it from disaster.

An incompetent president or prime minister could also be elected into office. But at least, if the elected figure screws up, then the people have only themselves to blame for.

Monarchy is fine too, as long as the people can have a say as to who will be the king. He can be from the Pahlavi family and can be elected from among a number of groomed (your word) individuals.

Alternatively, he can be king through inheritance, but some sort of checks and balances should be there to allow for the removal of an incompetent king from office.

I am not an expert in this. I am sure there are more knowledgable individuals who can present a more acceptable form of Monarchy, but I know that it must be reivented to meet the demands of the 21st century. Until then, my vote is for a republic.

Jamshid

Regarding The weak link in monarchy as a system of government is its reliance on "inheritance" rather than "competence". 

So Read a little history and objectively make up your own mind, there is just too much historical data to suggest you are a correct authority on this matter. No doubt, all forms of govt have weak links and are imperfect. 

Monarchys asset is unlike other forms of government because it is hereditary it can groom and qualify the king for the role. So infact it can produce competant leaders, unlike the USA under Jimmy Carter who incompetantly betrayed his own countries top ally in the region and refused to even give his police tear gas, water cannons or plastic bullets.  This is the real reason the shah was destroyed, not his own judgement, but a betrayal of his alliances.

Read about Rome and how Augustus by bringing absolute monarchy saved Rome from over 50 years of civill wars on the one hand and produced a series of Monarchs that truly restored freedom and civility for hundreds of years.  He is considered Romes greatest selfless hero.

I would prefer you read persian history pre-Islam to absorb what humanity is possible of under absolute monarchy, when the people are not busy worshipping a god that is a terrorist, a rapist, a torturor, a thief and a pimp. 

As you know the god of the 3 major religions, judaism, christianisty and islam are all these things, we only have to read their religous books to discover this.  So the problem I have just identified is what we should concern ourselves with. 

Which is how can we help iran become heaven on earth, while our people are 3 times a day worshipping a rapist, pimp, child molestor, crook, torturing terrorist thief they call GOD.  Hardly a recipe for Utopia and not a coincidence.  If we want heaven on earth I suggest we cannot worship a God like this forever.

3 Cheers for Absolute Monarchy, practically the Only solution for Freedom in Iran.

Ali Pahlavi

Manuchehr Farmanfarmaian dar Blood and Oil migeh: "Reza Shah's son, Ali Reza, who suffered from a mild mental handicap." digeh baghiyash be khiyal khodetoon vagozar misheh. ehtemalan ye malali dashteh ke nashod ke besheh vali ahd!!!! As for Ali's message just no comment!!!!!

Dear jamshid Thank you for your question

I will answer you as soon as I can. Got some extra work to do but will definitively try to answer your challenging and interesting questions at some point this week or next week. So stay tuned.

Gorbanat,

DK

David ET

In a few of your comments in this blog, you asked why RP is not apologizing or admitting to his father's sins.

This brings up two questions. First, why wouldn't YOU and myself and other average Iranian joes apologize or admit to OUR sins? After all what transpired in Iran wasn't all the Shah's or Khomeini's fault. It was the people's fault as well. WE THE PEOPLE significantly contributed to the fall of Iran.

I have never ever seen you admit to your mistakes. Sure, you were just a student 30 years ago, but so was I. But I have hold myself accountable and admitted to my mistakes and errounous ways of 30 years ago on many occasions in this very site. So have others who are far more valuable and important than I could ever be.

You believe in democracy. Democracy begins and ends with "accountability". But you and many others prefer to dodge accountability and instead blame everything on others.

The second question I want to ask you is this: Why should RP indulge himself in admitting to his father's sins? 

WHAT SINS?

The Pahlavi kings gave so much to Iran. Iran experienced a renaisance under the Pahlavis, culturally, economically, educationally, administratively and so much more. Without the hindsight, YOU could not have done half of what one of those kings did for Iran.

If there is anything RP should admit to, it would be the great things his father and his grand father did for Iran. Just go study where Iran was in 1925 and where it was in 1978, in only 55 years, or in two generations. The growth and the development of the country in that span was not just great, but astonishing, borderlining a miracle.

I know you'd like to downgrade the Pahlavis accomplishments as "so what, other countries did it too", or, "so what, anyone could have done it", and so on.

But you are wrong. Excluding South Korea, other countries were not developing and growing even at a fraction of Iran's rates. And no, not everyone could have accomplished the same in Iran.

Also, you like to call the teams that these two kings assembled in order to build Iran, as "corrupt". Sure there were a few corrupt ones among them, but most of the vazirs and modirs and other high ranking people of those times were dedicated, highly educated, clean and Iran loving individuals who spent their lives serving the country and its people.

But because people like you blindly called them "corrupt", many of these dedicated individuals ended up executed or their lives destroyed.

Darius Kadivar

The weak link in monarchy as a system of government is its reliance on "inheritance" rather than "competence". In a hypothetical future government based on constitutional monarchy, if the country faces a crisis, perhaps a competent king could resolve the crisis and put things back in track, however, an incompetent king could actually make things worst, much worst. The system that had depended on the kings role and duties could suddenly have an incompetent king that could not meet those duties. Disaster can then ensue.

And it doesn't matter that Europeans have successful forms of democratic Monarchy. Iran is not a European country. It has a different culture and history.

An example is Reza Pahlavi. While I have the outmost respect for him as a decent human being, as a loving father and husband and as someone who genuinely wants the best for Iran, but he is not meeting his responsibilities as the "king" against the Republic of Rape and Murder.

In my opinion, this is no due to his lack of concern for Iran's fate, but due to his "incompetence" as a leader and as a politician. While RP could run a free Iran very well and display a great "competence" in doing so, he is not fit to save it from the mollahs.

We are all made for different tasks. So much lays in our genes. We inherit genes. Kings inherit talents and competence in different areas, just like everyone else. And this is the greatest weakness of Monarchy: Inheritance, literally!

Why shouldn't Iranians be able to choose their king? Why shouldn't you or others choose another member of the Pahlavi family who is more fiery, more brave, more charismatic and more up to the task of ridding Iran from the mollahs than RP is?

And what would be so wrong in doing that? I am sure there are members of the Pahlavi family who can do a much better job than RP is doing or could ever do for freeing Iran. With a willing RP, this will not endanger monarchy nor create division.

My last question is why should we blindly follow successful European Monarchies? Why can't we add our own checks and balances and reinvent it? What is wrong with new ideas and reinventing things, specially in disastrous times such as now when old ways have failed us for such long time.

Mr ET: monarchists and the students movement

First thank you for your mini guide to democracy, secularism, referendum and constitutional reforms. It seems that you have planned everything down to the last details and the only thing missing is a leader that I am sure you might humbly accept the role. The tone of your comments could just have come from a leader in the offing.

Second, I wonder if I may address two of the issues you have raised. Let me begin with your allegation that monarchists and MKO have been divisive members of the opposition. This is a meaningless statement because if you are suggesting that monarchists (or MKO)could not join the rest of the camp, for whatever reason, then it can be said that the rest of the camp could not join the monarchist (or MKO) either. This, I am afraid, is a sword that cuts both ways. Long before you and your ultra-patriotic partner, Hovakhshatar, became Iranian response to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, we had a Constitution that had been adopted long after the American one and it was customized to suit the deeply rooted cultural, religious, social and political needs of an ancient nation. This was in 1906/08. In 1979, the religious element of the above mixture  succeeded to take over and ignored the rest of the elements. Now, three decades later we have you and your dreamy partners re-inventing the wheel, This time with total disregard to the historical and cultural, not to mention spiritual requirements of the nation. In other words in your dream world you are Americanizing the Iranian constitution. By all means go ahead and do it but I wonder who the Iranian George Washington is going to be?

The other issue that I'd like to address is the question the students movement during the Pahlavi II era. You should be reminded that you were not the only student who experienced that era (or at least a small period within it). Unlike you who were a mere observer, there were students who were actually arrested, beaten up, insulted, tortured, imprisoned and some were even executed or killed during the armed confrontations with the security forces. A large number of the students who were arrested, beaten up, tortured and imprisoned did survive that phase and lived to stir up more trouble which eventually resulted in the calamity known as the Islamic revolution.  A few of such students soon realized that they were utterly wrong in destroying the old system, with all its shortcomings and injustices, and madly embracing the untried and untested theocracy that not only had denied them the political freedom they were seeking but had taken away all the the basic and personal freedoms that they had in the old system. In less than three decades these students, while cognizant of Halabi Abads and Zaghe Khoones that existed under the old regime, were openly admitting the huge achievements that were made under the management of the old technocrats (corrupt and otherwise) and refused to give in to the empty and wasteful sloganeering that had paved them the path to the Islamic republic. You can find the confessions of such students in the scholarly works of Milani, Ajoudani, Mirfetros and a few others. They raised above the petty and cheap slogans and refused to remain frozen in their former mindsets. I think, in their words, there is a lesson for you to learn.

Farah

Pahlavi

Good for him !   A very enlightening comment. I salute him.

David ET: Shah and Students ...

The Democratic French Republic and French Students in 1968:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUJZgkhSCq8

Observing and Bullying Students by Government Officials was not Unique to Iran at the time ...

Darius jaan ,,,,,,,,,

Thank you - that was a mass of information to get thru.

My main point is not so much the restoration of the 1906 constitution and the old ( Pahlavi ) monarchy system in Iran - rather developing the future system of government in Iran - modelled on the Spanish system - which I think is very progressive and comprehensive.

Any comments about that ?

FYI... This is Not The Real son of RP second Son.

For Your Information.

RP second sons child changed his name after revolution.

Used to be called Ali Patrick Pahlavi (not Patrick Ali) and is now in his mid 60's.

As far as his message goes, February 11th and the show of support for the Regime is why democracy can not really work in Iran at this point in time.  After 31 years of increasing poverty, inflation and unemployment look at what we are seeing in Iran.    
 
So many people celebrating each others failure to achieve anything worthy of respect.  Maybe people enjoy less freedom and more dependence on hand outs or charity, but that is not sustainable for ever, no matter how many people come out in force and are begging for misery.  
 
Personally, I need absolute Shah-han-Shahi so I can pursue freedom and happiness as opposed to the misery Islam gives in abundance. 

You can't have this many people worshipping, a terrorist, dictatorial and unjust God and believe democracy has a chance. 

In a Democracy or Constitutional Monarchy, Suicidal people don't just get their way if they are the majority, they take you with them and instead of evolving will create another generation of bigots.

Anyone else here in favor of Modernity and Freedom for all like in the 1970's? 

Personal attacks

Anyone continuing to leave comments with personal attacks, his/her account will be closed.

JJ, Why do you insist on letting some of the posters

here distort history and events?

Do you think by deleting responses to the outrageous and nonsensical posts by some can shut the rest of us up!?

Look, the guy makes outrageous lies about the recent history in Iran and I challenged him! Let the guy defend himself. He is a big boy!

Furthermore, what is wrong with the real estate profession? It's a honorable profession!

Go ahead delete this one too. I know you suffer from control alt delete syndrome problem!Or better yet JJ, maybe you need to take censorship 101 at your community college of choice!

Dear Ben

Dariush claimed that last constitution was democratic and I provided many proofs that it was not. Now even if we agree or disagree on one article to be OK or not , still there are so many others that show it was not democratic (If we put our prejeduce aside).

For the most part the two constitutions were both flawd in undemining the power of the people one way or another.

I have said my piece in articles about the two constitutions as a whole and in detail and is up to those who claim either two constitutions can guarantee democracy to prove themselves and one article won't do it, there are so many of them that are non-democratic and I just mentioned a few here. For more refer to the article I linked in last post.

no sense of repeating here...moving on...

Mr ET - you are clearly worng

You have a totally erroneous understanding of the Constitution of 1906 and the reason is very clear: either you are reading it from a layman's perspective or your grasp of Persian is not up to the required level (I guess the latter is most likely the case). I am not going to engage myself in an extended exchange on this topic as there is no point but suffice it to citing your first and fundamental error: 

The person of the King is exempted from responsibility (article 44)

In a constitutional monarchy such as the European monarchies of Britain. Holland, Belgium (based on which ours was drawn up) and other, the office of the Monarch is not an accountable body as the Monarch is forbidden to involve himself in legislative, judicial or executive affairs. Therefore he cannot be held responsible for the wrongs or rights of these bodies.

Now, saving that Mohammad Reza Shah did not quite follow that article, the article 44 of the Constitution was precisely the same as the equivalent artciles in the aforementioned European democracies.  

Farah

Dear David

The king is the king. He has immunity. In future constitution -if monarchic- we might add some provisions for impeachment of the king. Otherwise a king is a king. Are you arguing that the king should not be a king?! what kind of twisted logic is that?!

For the rest, it's all about our history in post colonialism and cold war. It has nothing to do with your neat picking on a constitution that I already described as dysfunctional.

It had adopted some democratic process. But it was not used for the most part, mostly because backwardness of our society and its structure, and the obstacles it was creating toward advancing any constructive project. For the period DK is mentioning that the constitution was actually practiced, nothing was improved. Mossadegh, who once advocating that illiterate people should not have the right to vote, used this 'democratic' process, any way he felt like it (ending the election period before he got minority in the parliament) and inciting the same 'illiterate' people to parade outside of the parliament on his behalf and intimidate his opponents.

This is what we had as democracy. The rest, the real thing, was happening outside of the parliament and at the world stage and and its impact on our society. Now keep going on the content of the constitution, article by article, you started untimely then, you are continuing this futile discussion untimely now. 

Dariush : You must be kidding!

Dariush, you wrote: "So the Constitution in itself was democratic. "

I have addressed this in detail and I presume you read it too because we had discussed it before:

IRAN CONSTITUTIONS: From Islamic Monarchy to Republic! (I & II) 

The previous monrachist constitution was anything but democratic because  :

1- It gave ultimate say to Shah

2- It also gave ultimate say to clergy and in fact has its own shoraye Negahban supreme council of clergy who can veto laws for being against Islam.

etc etc

Some scripts from monarchist constitution :

[ART. 44. The person of the King is exempted from responsibility 

 [ART. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.]

[ART. 58. No one can attain the rank of Minister unless he be a Muslim by religion,.....

[ART. 71. The Supreme Ministry of Justice and the judicial tribunals are the places officially destined for the redress of public grievances, while judgment in all matters falling within the scope of the Ecclesiastical Law is vested in just mujtahids possessing the necessary qualifications. ]

Oath required from King :

......endeavor to promote the Ja 'farí doctrine of the Church of the Twelve Imáms, and will in all my deeds and actions consider God Most Glorious as present and watching me. I further ask aid from God, from Whom alone aid is derived, and seek help from the holy spirits of the Saints of Islám [Oliyaye Islam] to render service to the advancement of Persia." ]

[ART. I. The official religion of Persia is Islam, according to the orthodox Já'farí doctrine of the Ithna 'Ashariyya (Church of the Twelve Imáms), which faith the Sháh of Persia must profess and promote. ]

…..At no time must any legal enactment of the Sacred National Parliament, established by the favor and assistance of His Holiness the Imám of the Age (may God hasten his glad Advent !), the favor of His Majesty the Sháhinsháh of Islám (may God immortalize his reign!), the care of the Proofs of Islám (may God multiply the like of them !), and the whole people of the Persian nation, be at variance with the sacred principles of Islám or the laws established by His Holiness the Best of Mankind ((on whom and on whose household be the Blessings of God and His Peace!)….

….It is hereby declared that it is for the learned doctors of theology (the 'ulamá)—may God prolong the blessing of their existence!—to determine whether such laws as may be proposed are or are not conformable to the principles of Islám; and it is therefore officially enacted that there shall at all times exist a Committee composed of not less than five mujtahids or other devout theologians, cognizant also of the requirements of the age, [which committee shall be elected] in this manner. The 'ulamá and Proofs of Islám shall present to the National Consultative Assembly the names of twenty of the 'ulamá possessing the attributes mentioned above; and the Members of the National Consultative Assembly shall, either by unanimous acclamation, or by vote, designate five or more of these, according to the exigencies of the time, and recognize these as Members, so that they may carefully discuss and consider all matters proposed in the Assembly, and reject and repudiate, wholly or in part, any such proposal which is at variance with the Sacred Laws of Islám, so that it shall not obtain the title of legality. In such matters the decision of this Ecclesiastical Committee shall be followed and obeyed, and this article shall continue unchanged until the appearance of His Holiness the Proof of the Age (may God hasten his glad Advent !) ….“

ART. 20. All publications, except heretical books and matters hurtful to the perspicuous religion [of Islám] are free, .....

[ART. 27. The powers of the Realm are divided into three categories. First, the legislative power, which is especially concerned with the making or amelioration of laws. This power is derived from His Imperial Majesty, the National Consultative Assembly, and the Senate, of which three sources each has the right to introduce laws, provided that the continuance thereof be dependent on their not being at variance with the standards of the Sharia law, and on their approval by the Members of the two Assemblies, and the Royal ratification. The enacting and approval of laws connected with the revenue and expenditure of the kingdom are, however, specially assigned to the National Consultative Assembly. The explanation and interpretation of the laws are, moreover, amongst the special functions of the above‐ mentioned Assembly. Second, the judicial power, by which is meant the determining of rights. This power belongs exclusively to the Sharia tribunals in matters connected with the Shria law, and to the civil tribunals in matters connected with ordinary law. ]

Constitution that we had and RP claims his legitimacy from was a "Dictatorial Islamic Monarchy"

Bahramerad Jaan Serve Yourself here Mehmouneh Man ... ;0)

YOUR QUESTION: may I ask you gentleman do any of you know of a country that has regional elected prime ministers , an elected President and also has a King - and is a secular democracy ? All within the same system of governess.

ANSWER: The Closest Scenario to what You suggest Happened in Bulgaria:

RESTORATION: King Simeon II of Bulgaria, The Republican Prince 

As for other cases see below: 

RESTORATION: Elected Monarchs of Malaysia 

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

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

RESTORATION: Belgium King Baudouin takes Oath Amidst Republican Animosity (31st July ,1950)

RESTORATION: Greek Constitutional Monarchy Toppled by Military Coup (April 21st, 1967)

RESTORATION: King Simeon II of Bulgaria, The Republican Prince

Royal History Forums:

HISTORY FORUM: How Truly Democratic is The British Monarchy ? 

HISTORY FORUM:The Monarchy with David Starkey (Cambridge University)

Answer to MM

I am not an authority in Constitutional Law nor ever claimed to be one and even if I were to Copy and Paste the entire text of the 1906 Constutution here, I am not sure I could entirely explain the pros and cons in comparison to existing democratic constitutions.

What I do know however is that the Constitution was drafted based on precisely a European Monarchy and relatively Young Dynasty at the Time: That of the Belgians.

As Such Iranians lived with a European Constitution during the last Qajar King and the 50 years rule of the two Pahlavi Kings.

As a matter of fact Prior to the Coup of '53 ( Or Counter Coup ? depending on our readings of the Constitution and laws of the land of the Time ) The Shah reigned for 12 years as a Purely Constitutional King like in Europe and it posed no problems. As a matter of fact he was the Only Shah in the entire History of Iran to reign and Not Rule for a decade in a country that had always been ruled in an Iron fist by ALL his predecessors.  

And For those who Boast about Mossadegh being elected Democratically, they should know better under which Constitution ? ;0)

So the Constitution in itself was democratic.

That the Qajar and Pahlavi Kings of Iran were overlooking the amendment that forbade the King to Rule but allowed the elected Prime Minister to govern in his name is another debate.

That is not a criteria to dismiss a Royal Constitution for that matter because then one should then also dismiss All Republican Constitutions in the Middle East and North Africa for that matter Since ALL are DICTATORSHIPS ( excluding Turkey and it's Tamed Military Junta overlooking the secularist nature of it's regime and Israel which is an "Imported" Democracy created with European or American jews who lived or had been exposed to Democratic countries prior to arriving to Israel and not one created by some social transformation like lets say a revolution).

A King or Queen are Not Elected in Constitutional Monarchies. They are seen as National Symbols. One can be philisophically against that concept but they have always existed in the history of mankind because nations were shaped by individuals far before we discover the virtues of democracy. And if they were transformed into democratic Constitutional Monarchies it was because they were reformed by historical events like indeed in Great Britain or Spain or the Netherlands to name a few.

The Notion of "Divine Kingship" ended when people started questioning Absolutism and Absolute Leaderships. Some like in France chose Revolution ( it worked for them at High Costs) others like the British chose Restoration and Reform to achieve it decades earlier.

Interestingly in the case of England, The Queen of England is actually a VELAYATEH FAGIH because she is also the Head of the Church of England. Yet Britain because of it's constitution has become a perfectly Secular State where the Queen's Religious role has no more effect on the affairs of the State than When President Obama or his Predecessors are to make an Oath on the Bible before becoming President.

But England is an exception to the rule because of it's Anglican Church which parted from the Vatican. Other European Monarchies including Spain's do not have any Religious Role or position mainly because they are all Catholic nations or Orthodox as was the case of Greece before the Military Coup that toppled the Monarchy.

But what one needs to understand is that Nations do not progress towards democracy only through Revolutions as we understand it. One dramas of most Revolutions in the Third World during the 20th Century was that they tried to copy the French Revolution in all it's excess' including the Reign of Terror which most often led to Coup over Coup like in South America where one General would chase another in a bid to become the next Napoleon of his country.

Democracy is a process that takes time but achieving it should not be a pretext to become so impatient as we did during the Revolution of 1979 by supporting the most incoherent and destructive ideology.

We Replaced an Authoritarian King ( who was No Tyrant) which ruled the country with a Religous Inquisitor by encouraging him to establish a Totalitarian Religious State similar to the Spanish Inquisition.

We failed as a people to understand the benefits that our Constitution could help us achieve but instead opted for anarchy.

As Such our intelligenstia was equally responsible as the late Shah was but probably even more than the Shah himself. Cause unlike the Intelligenstia who boasted to know what the people wanted, the Shah never claimed to be a democrat. He was born into royalty and inherited the Crown. He wished at best to be accepted and be respected like his own father was:

pictory: David Frost's documentary on Iran's Shah in Power (1974)

Our Intelligenstia was not able to formulate those legitimate demands for democracy in a pragmatic and wise way in order to force the Shah into accepting it's conditions under Popular Pressure. There are historical reasons and political reasons that can explain or excuse them but it does not change the fact that the intelligenstia of 1979 apart from a few exceptions like Bakhtiar were shortsighted and our society was politically immature at large.

Today history and our experience as a nation showed us that a Constitution is first and foremost a mutual contract between the People and their Leaders and Governing body. What matters is if it protects the citizens fundemental rights while allowing the State to function and see to it's duties towards it's electors.

But a Constitution becomes Democratic if the amendments and rules that sustain it allow people to take charge of their own destiny through Free elections like in electing their  representatives. But a Democratic Constitution does not make that Society Democratic for that matter. That depends entirely on the level of confidence between the People and their elected leaders and the strength and maturity of civil society in maintaining it's rights and or imposing it as an irreversible demand.

In otherwords It's not because a country has laws that those laws are right !

That is why Democracy is essential and allows them to be improved so as to protect individuals and adapt them to the realities and needs of a free society.

How democratic is the Constitution of 1906 to todays standards ? That is to be seen.

But the French voted a 4th Constitution in 1948 upon France's Liberation and another one in 1953 or 1958  under De Gaulle which gave the President More Power and Representation. 

We have been living under that system eversince and there are talks with the new French President to amend a New Constitution.

We did not for that matter Topple the Republic for that matter.

In a sense When France was liberated with De Gaulle ( who was a Monarchist at Heart but Republican by Choice and given the realities of his country's history ) he actually RESTORED the Republic after the Fall of the unpopular Vichy Government of Petain.

That is why I advocate a Restoration of the Monarchy but with the Democratic Pre-conditions that subscribe to the Universal Human Rights as we know them in Democratic societies in Western Europe that would be clearly stated in a new Drafted or Updated Constitution of 1906.

That is my conviction as a citizen and Constitutionalist Monarchist.

It is the job of more competant people like lawyers, parlimentarians to come up with a text that would satisfy the majority of the people and would then be submitted after intensive debate and explanation to a Referandum.

But in democracies Constitutions are not drafted so as to be a definitive rigid text but are aimed to be flexible to evolve in a way to enforce new amendments that protect and enforce the citizens rights and duties in full transparency.

It's not like in Iran under the IRI where they consider their laws as long as they subscribe to religious convictions or superstitions.

A Constitutional Monarchy is not an ideology. It does not seek to export itself as the Islamic Republic.

Nothing stops the Parliment from Forcing the King to Abdicate if he does not subscribe to certain duties imposed on him. Look at King Edward who abdicated because he wanted to marry a divorcee.

Anyway I can't brain storm any longer but am sure we can continue this interesting debate elsewhere again or on a different occasion.

If I come across the Original text of the 1906 constitution that would be confirmed as the genuine text by some authority on the subject I will do so.

From what I understand David ET has based his text for a Secular Republic on that Draft ( the 1906 Constitution) by replacing the word "Shah" by that of "PResident" and dropping the Prime Minister.

I'm not very good in Copy and Pasting Techniques.

If that makes him an authority in Constitutional Law ... Well Why not ...

LOL

Best,

DK

Aren't you tired of chasing your own tails?

@ Darius Kadivar - David ET - Sargord Pirouz - :

Having read a few of your articles and the comments that you have made on these pages - It seems to me that you guys are very passionate about your views and I also think that you are kind of knowledgeable about Iran and it's people and have very set and strong views of how we should put an end to this debacle of IRI - and in it's aftermath  - how to set a course for its future and start Iran on a yellow brick road to fortune and happiness.

If this is so - then my I ask you gentleman do any of you know of a country that has regional elected prime ministers , an elected President and also has a King - and is a secular democracy ? All within the same system of governess.

If you do - let's have a genuine discussion about if such a system is suitable for Iran's future.

ben

I agree with your point IN GENERAL and in fact the criterias is what I have been saying but at the same time, a religious based system in essance is not in harmony with secularism.

We can not have a secular system and have a  religion based system of government at the same time. Providing that alternative in essance removes the option of democracy for others, otherwise IR was supposed to be that.

So a secular democratic option remains to be the only alternative that can guarnatee democracy.

Dear DK

Your suppositions, although may be right, but undermine the democratic process. It won't work. Worse, it is shortcutting internal dialogue between different ideas within IRI and in the society at large.

We don't know yet how we get to the point that there will be a referendum. Assuming that it will be after toppling the regime is premature, you don't even have a political organization to speak on behalf of secularism, nevermind the policy it will undertake to push it forward. Even if the referendum occurs after toppling IRI, the alternative can only seek legitimacy by carrying out a referendum between IRI and monarchic constitution anyway. It is only THEN that in a free country and under an interim government, which has taken its legitimacy from the referendum, a preparation for a constituent assembly will be carried out.

You are substituting your own reasoning and discourse by what should be carried out within society. This is politically suicidal and democratically not viable.

To Monarchists

Sadly monarchists and RP at the head of have caused a division among opposition abroad for 30 years and the issue is not necessarily what they stand for which is their right, but the division that has been caused in every demonstration, forum etc raising pictures of RP just as Mojahdeen's raising pictures of Maryam Rajavi... or advertising monarchy in every forum....

1. Iran needs to rid of IR and unfortunately monarchists in action for 31 years put the cart before the horse.

2. Iran needs to have a democratic system and means BEFORE having the environment for discussions, formations , votes and referendums. Asking for a quick referendum in a vacuum of lack of means of democracy after fall of IR is a ticket to divisions, disasters etc etc.

The ONLY mean to a healthy democratic future is to FIRST continue a republic system where ALL SECULARS, monarchists included can form parties, distribute their information , express their agendas to the people, ....and join parliament through election by people and then if they have enough constituents , then call for a constitutional amendment to change the system after the referendum.

If they do not gain majority to gain enough votes and constituents then obviously they do not have the ground for referendum either and if they do have support of the people within that democratic environment AT ANYTIME IN FUTURE, all the power to them! That is how all secular parties including monarchists can function in a secular system. 

Asking for a permanent ticket in form of referendum or whatever shortly after fall of IR is illogical.

If monarchists or anyone claims to majority, then they should not be afraid to have some patience (especially after experience of last regime and Pahlavi's ) instead of asking for a permanent ticket !

Meanwhile a limited term executive branch without any other superficial title of King, Faghih etc etc is only truly democratic alternative.

benross Jaan You do have a valid point here

Yes You have a Point here.

But as far as I understand a Referandum can only be submitted upon the IRI Regime's downfall given that the idea of Reforming the Islamic Republic has long been abandoned whether that aim was an Islamic Democracy a la Khatami:

Khatami, Democracy, & Islamic Republic:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUza-yhd9dM

Or if that aim was indeed to achieve a Purely Secular Republic well I am sorry to say that the message was not very transparant on their behalf. And to my knowledge that was Not on the Agenda of ANY of the Reformists including their supporters such as our own very dear Shirin Ebadi. She now speaks only of a secular Republic having failed to impose her own ideals she outlined in her Nobel Peace Speach where she saw herself as the daughter of Both Cyrus the Great and Muhamad ...

I am not trying to downplay Mrs. Ebadi's Credentials as a lawyer and Human Rights Activist nor as a Nobel Peace Prize Winner. As Such I think we are all proud of her and her work and achievments as a prominent individual.

She is a brave lady, competant in her field But Certainly Not a Politician. Which does not mean that she should not participate in this debate or contribute to a better understanding of her own vision.

But the Reformists today are at crossroads particularly when it comes to making constructive suggestions ( See Ten Demands ) in which people would agree upon across the Iranian political spectrum both inside and outside Iran.

So as such we as a nation are once again faced with a dillema of choosing between two systems of government that in their draft at least are transparently Secular and Democratic.

IRI supporters are allowed to take part in this vote in the same way that in France Jean Marie Le Pen's Racist Partisans are free to vote and even suggest candidates for Presidency if they wish but that does not mean that they are Free to implement their concept of a State.

During the French Elections in 2001 Jean Marie Le Pen came Second in the runoff against Chirac and that led all democratic forces to vote for Chirac including the Socialists and Communists to stop Le Pen from being elected PResident.

The Same in Algeria if you recall when the Fundementalists were saying that they would abolish democracy if elected which led them to be ousted.

The point is that there should be a common understanding on what we want to submit to a Referendum: The choice between  Democratic Systems of government or between a Democratic One and anyother system of government.

I believe that there can be no debate with people who reject the concept of democracy and that in itself is the struggle at hand right now.

Now that does not mean that if the Democratic State is implemented that it won't be fragile ? That is precisely the Challenge of all democratic societies to maintain a Stable civil society within a democratic framework.

Whoever is to lead Iran  tomorrow be it an elected Prime Minister or elected President I personally would not like to be in his or her shoes for the challenge will be enormous not to dissappoint people with Huge Expectations and demands for Immediate Results.

But that is a Risk the nation will have to take by choosing for a Democratic System of government.

The eventual shortcomings you are refering too or need for clarifications are legitimate but I believe that they can be addressed to by any authority on Constitutional Law. Alas I am not one but as a Citizen I do Have an opinion and ideals to which I aspire like anyother fellow compatriot and as such a Referendum seems the minimum requirement when it comes to choosing a system of government. A Referendum is not just any type of election. It has a far fetched goal that concerns a nation's future and therefore the question submitted needs to be as clear and transparent as possible.

At this stage the major challenge is to reach a mutual understanding of what we mean by Democracy and a Democratic system of government and if we can reach common ground between lets say Secular Republicans and Constitutional Monarchists regardless of what our ideological or philisophical preferences or convictions may be.

Spain for instance ended up with Socialist government ( all of the members having been hostile to the Monarchy initially) under a Monarchical System so I can very well imagine advocates of a Republic become Prime Minister ( But Obviously Not King or Queen) in the same way that advocates of a Monarchy could run for President under a Republic.

People also need to know that there are differences between both systems. I never claimed a Monarchy is identical in Form to a Republic or vice versa.

Some will argue that the Monarchy is priveledging one family over another and that a Republic is far more just. That's Fine I have no problem with that assessment.

But as I said to David below No One has the Monopoly of the Heart. We build a nation not only with our brains but also with our hearts and how we see ourselves COLLECTIVELY and Not INDIVIDUALISTICALLY !

That is all I am saying.  

I would add that Any Politician, Civil Servant, Aspiring to become Prime Minister or President will come to experience that at Some Point History Hits Back at us and comparisons become inevitable between achievements and failures of a given government or regime.

Nation Building cannot be achieved without some form of national Reconciliation.

But to see individuals dismiss the option of a Constitutional Monarchy or a Secular Republic on grounds of prejudice would be a fatal error not to say foolish  when in fact each in their own right can precisely be an Opportunity to achieve democracy and that national reconciliation to put an end to the cycle of violence we have been experiencing for decades.

The Question that prevails is that Nation Building cannot be possible without some concensus and mutual concession between the governing body ( government, Parliment) and the People ( the Nation at Large).

The question that prevails is how will we practically put that to practice and beyond the Referandum once the democratic state is implemented ?.

No one can answer that question at this stage.

What I am confident about however is that what we are seeing today is a form of National Rennaissance based on a 100th year struggle for democracy in our country but the hopes and expectations that it carries demand to be channeled either by the leadership of One person ( which personally I don't see available not even in the person of Reza Pahlavi) or instead through a constructive Social Project that can rally people in the way Poland's Solidarnosc movement did in the 1980s where the leadership vacuum would be filled by leaders within the movement. It is within the latter context that I can see Reza Pahlavi play a constructive role not as a leader but a catalyst or moderator if you will in helping achieve that unity and international support for that common goal and that is Regime Change towards a democratic regime of the people's choice:

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc... By DK

But for the time being I agree it is easier said than done.

But we need to start somewhere.

RESPONDING TO REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc in the Making ... by DK

That is why I would like to see the likes of Shirin Ebadi, Akbar Ganji or even religious clerics like Mohsen Kadivar who are already in exile would make a move in his direction rather than play solitary which to date has only been counterproductive. Including in the exclusive suggestions outlined in their manifesto: Ten Demands In which no one but they seem to believe in.

My Humble Opinion,

D

Wow, the monarchist thugs are now stalking poor Mr. David E

eom

my focus

I am focusing on the message that AP and Souri's video provide us.  After 2 generations* and the absolute horrible conditions now, compared to Shah’s time, our focus should be:

1. How do we unite to bring about democracy in Iran?

2. How do we prevent another group with a hidden agenda from exercising their undemocratic ways?

If Reza Pahlavi wants to lead and succeed in toppling this UnIslamic regime, I welcome his contribution, especially since he has uttered his desire for a secular rule and the observance of human rights in Iran. 

In addition to leading an uprising against the Mullahs, if the monarchists want to bring a constitutional monarchy to Iran, RP needs to tell Iranians why a constitutional monarchy didn’t succeed last time and how he insures a different outcome this time around.  Posting of a planned monarchist constitution on Iranian.com, and its scrutiny by the readers, will help solidify RP’s position and address the concerns of many on this and other websites (hint, hint, DK!)**.

* In the antique world every 30 years is considered one generation.

** Telling us that it will be just like English or Danish monarchies is just a “pie in the sky” for many Iranians on this site and in Iran.