Persian Realm

But maybe I was wrong.

Maybe it is purely personal for some of us. Otherwise why call him "an arrogant bastard"?

I still think RP was right and the obsession with Mr Mossadegh by Iranians of all generations since is very real. All politicians by nature are populists, that is not the issue. The key issue is that he was elected through a democratic process, and overthrown most undemocratically through a coup. That brief phase of democracy was ironically a gift to Iranians by the allied occupying forces. Now you name one single "leader" we have had in Iran who was democratically elected, let alone democratically deposed.

If ahmadinezhad was democratically elected and I knew there was a democratic process in place to have him removed, I'd have no issue with him. I'd look up at the democratic process to take effect.

Good to see you back

I thought you'd hurt yourself jumping!

What would you think of my legacy(?!!) if I said : A dead Mosaddegh is as good to some of us as it is still bad for the rest"?

To set the record straight

I wasn't around to use the past tense. So I simply say he IS not feared nor hated nor despised. He was simply an arrogant bastard like many others in his -and our- time, totally incompetent to promote what he claimed be doing, i.e. democracy. He set an example of a cheap populism that we now logically should glorify in the behaviour of likes of Ahmadinejad. His populist approach toward nationalism cost us a bundle in our oil settlement, left a culture of hatered and revenge and he was only minding his own glory and power. Nothing else... and nothing exceptional I might add.

But to say that he had any concern about 'democracy', not as a populist tool for power, but as an effective social structure, I just remind you that he knew well how he was abusing the social context to the service of his own personal vendetta and glorification, he who once was contemplating to ban illiterates to vote, knew very well what populism is and what populism can do. And he used it as such. It's politics. It's even a fair game in some respect. But nothing, nothing glorifying when it comes to modern values.

Mossadegh himself is not a special case and nothing of importance in our current social issues, if there was not so much filth intoxicating our political discourse on his name and legacy. He himself is nothing. Find me an Iranian who is NOT nationalist! I look at his legacy of filth, nurtured by Toodé and Islamists alike. That, has to go. And it's on its way to go I might add... no thanks to you.

The fear and hatred or the love for Mr Mossadegh is not personal

He is feared, despised and loved due to what he stood for, and how he came to power. He stood for Iran and democracy and came to power through a democratic process, during a very rare period in Iranian history when some selfish , corrupt dictator was not running the show.

This precisely explains why he is so much loved by the Iranain patriots and so much hated by the Islamists and the worst elements of Monarchists.

The Monarchists of sane and democratic tendencies are best to follow RP's example and join the rest of us in our struggle to free Iran from the yoke of Islamist facists.

Masoud Jan

Thanks you. Suggestion that Sha was terrified of Razmara makes sense. In fact my father thinks Razmara may have had his eye to replacing the Shah. Therefore it is not a real shock that Shah would have at least approved of the assassination. The Shah's fatal flaw was the combination of too little courage and too much ego.

I guess we shall never know. I do know that incompetent and gutless leaders will never advance Iran. 

Dr. Mossadegh was in FACT the democratically Elected PM of Iran

S: The majority of Mossadegh's wins were therefore NOT in Tehran and according to you electionsoutside Tehran were 'not clean'.

This means you concede to the fact that Mossadegh received a mandate from a referendum which was ultimately corrupt and unrepresentative.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

MK: You confuse the votes of Majles and the votes for referendum. The votes for Majles in rural areas where there was little or no monitoring by credible people were not clean. Only the votes in large cities for Majles election were clean.

But for the referendum, the issue was clear. Mossadegh was popular, he was defending Iran from the British colonial domination and the Shah’s dictatorship. The vote was yes or no. And Ayatollah Kashani and his other monarchists supporters called for boycott of the referendum.

S: The constitution

Finally, you boasted that Mossadegh was a guardian of the constitution. You are going to regret that he ever did. The constitution required law to pass the approval of the Shia clerics who acted like a Shoraye Negahban. When did Mossadegh consult the clerics? Did he seek their approval of any other nationalist or other Jephe Melis? Were his decisions susch as the nationalisation of oil companies and closure of the oil and ejection of the British based on the spontaneous plans of one man or did he consult a committee?

MK: You are referring to the Amendment 2 of the 1907 addition {motamam 2}. The Amendment 2 mentioned that a council of clerics should be formed to make sure the laws passed by Majles did not violate the Shariah.

This feature was NEVER put in practice.

The 1906 constitution had a lot of problems. The above was one of them. The constitution also demanded this or that person to be Shia esna ashari [12 Imami Shia].

This is one main reason, that I support writing a totally new Republican constitution that is 100% secular. The old former constitution had a lot of flaws.

If we want democracy, in my opinion, we have to have a secular democratic republic. As I mentioned earlier, I criticize Dr. Mossadegh for not demanding a republican form of government in July 1952. That is why we have been under the two brutal reactionary tyrannies of the Shah and fundamentalists since 1952.

S: Were women enfranchised? Did the 'democratically elected' Mossadegh obtain the vote of the women.

MK: Please read my blog on the JM cabinet sending the bill to Majles that authorized female franchise. This was one of the main reasons, Ayatollah Kashani (and Khomeini) opposed Mossadegh.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/history-lesson-dr-mossadegh-and-female-franchise-debunking-disinformation

S: There was no parliamentary democracy at the time of Reza Shah.

MK: Finally, I agree with you on one thing. The period under Reza Shah was a brutal tyranny.

S: Mossadegh supporters should just do themselves a favour and accept that he was a well meaning patriotic politician but ended up wanting to take up power in his own hands and doing what he felt was right for the national interest of the country. I would have respected this view more than this 'democrat' fairy tale you have created.

MK: Dr. Mossadegh was a nationalist. Dr. Mossadegh was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. He was a genuine democrat.

VPK

VPK

1. Why did the parliament pardon Tahmasbi for murder of Razmara

2. What was Dr Mossadegh's stance on this.

3. How did it impact the relationship and power of radical Islam.

MK:

1. I do not know much about your first question. My guess is that Kashani was responsible for that.

2. Dr. Mossadegh believed that the Shah was behind the assassination. That Fadaian Islam and Tahmasebi were tools of the Shah and Seyyed Zia.

3. Some times the radical Islamists sided with the Shah. Other times against the Shah. Each side (JM, monarchists, Islamists, Leftists) made tactical alliance against the other.

Best,

Masoud

On Razmara's assassination

VPK jaan,

1. Please read what Dariush Homayun writes on the Shah allowing the assassin of Kasravi be free.

//www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2010/07/100727_s...

2.

Homa Katouzian, Musaddiq and the Struggle for Power in Iran (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 1990), pp. 82-84.

Professor Katouzian is widely regarded as one of the very top scholars of Iran. In my opinion, Professor Katouzian is the number 1 scholar of Iran. He is currently at the University of Oxford. The following are from his book:

===============================

Musaddiq having thus refused to co-operate, the shah and his friends began to think of other means of dealing with the fearsome general.

Razmara was assassinated on 7 March 1951 while attending a funeral service at a mosque in Tehran. The self-confessed assassin was Khalil Tahmasibi, a member of the Fada’iyan-e Islam....

Immediately after the assassination, Sayyed Zia had confided in his friends that he believed that the shah was involved in the incident. The Sayyed had related that was with the shah when Alam – who had accompanied Razmara to the mosque where he was shot dead– had hurriedly arrived at the palace, and joyfully told the shah: ‘They killed him and we are relieved.’ ....

However, Colonel Musavvar-Rahmai’s detailed discussion of the event in his recent memoirs had left little room for speculation that the plot had had sides to it. Thus he wrote:

"An army sergeant, in civilian clothes, was chosen for the deed... He had been told to shoot and kill Razmara with a Colt, the moment Tahmasebi began to shoot... Those who had examined the wounds in Razmara’s body were in no doubt that he had been killed by a Colt buller, not by the bullet of a weak gun."

Furthermore, Musavvar-Rahmani relates his conversations with Colonel Daihimi shortly after the event, and the letter from Daihimi to the shah which the latter had read out to him, ending with the following words (which Rahmani emphasizes he is paraphrasing from memory): ‘As Your Majesty knows very well, no one had a greater role in getting rid of General Razmara than Mr [Asadullah] Alam and this servant.’

　================================

the rest are my writing 

The evidence is quite solid on most aspects of the assassination.

1. We know for 100% certitude that Alam asked Razmara to go to the Mosque (Masjed Shah) on 16 Esfand 1329.

2. We know for 100% certitude that at the same time, Khalil Tahmasebi and an Army Sargent with a Colt arrive at the same time. Even the IRI’s site for Navab Safavi admits to this.

3. The liaison between the darbar and Fadaian Islam was Seyyed Zia. Alam and Zia had been working for MI6 for a long time.

4. Shah was terrified of Gen. Razmara and was working hard to get rid of him. The Shah asked Mossadegh to become prime minister in order to undermine Razmara, an offer which Dr. Mossadegh refused.

5. We have evidence that Col. Daihimi was asked by Alam to organize the assassination. Col Daihimi discusses this with the Shah. Col. Daihimi says that an Army Sargent was assigned to shoot Gen. Razmara if Khalil Tahmaseni’s assassination did not work. The evidence is that the wounds on Razmara indicate that the mortal wound did not come from the weak gun by Tahmasebi, but by a powerful gun like Colt (the kind used by the Sargent sent by Alam).

Based on the evidence, Mohammad Reza Shah and Alam decide to assassinate Gen. Razmara. Alam personally brings Gen. Razmara to the place where he was killed. Alam also has Col. Daihimi send an Army Sargent with a Colt to be present and ordered to assassinate Gen. Razmara. Alam has Seyed Zia to coordinate Khalil Tahmasebi to be present and assassinate Gen. Razmara. Tahmasebi proudly confesses that he killed Gen. Razmara. At least three shots were fired. How many of the shots are from Tahmasebi’s weak gun and how many from Alam’s Army Sargent’s Colt are not known.

Mohammad Reza Shah, like Reza Shah, had assassinated many powerful individuals. There are many "theories" on Reza Shah killed soooooooooo many of his own lieutenants. One speculation was that because Reza Shah was a heavy opium uses, that might have caused him to become paranoid and kill his own top aids. One top scholar, Professor Stephanie Cronin, argues that Reza Shah’s heavy use of opium many not be the explanation of why he killed sooooo many of his own supporters. Professor Cronin argues that Reza Shah was getting old and he believed that his son was too young and inexperinces and that his own powerful lieutenants might make a coup and get rid of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Therefore, Reza Shah killed all those who MIGHT one day undermine his son. See Stephanie Cronin, Tribal Politics in Iran: Rural Conflict and the New State, 1921-1941 (London and New York: Routledge, 2007).

The following is on page 173 of Cronin book:

The shah’s fear of assassination had become very visible from at least the mid-1920s and these fears only heightened with time. By the early 1930s he had become dominated by a sense that his own life and the future of his dynasty were in danger. Although he had little concern about any rival to himself, he was extremely conscious of the vulnerability of the succession, owning to the Crown Prince’s youth and weakness. His own health was suffering, his use of opium taking its toll, his morale further damaged by the attitudes and behaviour of those surrounding him, and he became morbidly preoccupied with the real or imagined ambitions of those closest to the court.

In conclusion, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah have a long history of killing other powerful individuals. In order to avoid responsibility for killing them, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah made them look like suicide in prison, or assassination by other groups.

I hope this is helpful.

Best,

Masoud

Masoud Kermanzadeh

The plebicit  granting him emergency powers

With respect please do the calculations:

2044600 ballots in the entire country + 101463 ballots in the capital.

Total number of ballots = 2146063 ballots.

Mossadegh won 2144696 (approx) according to the source which makes it almost  a land mark win of 99%.

I say again: This figure is impossible and stinks of manipulation. 

The majority of Mossadegh's wins were therefore NOT in Tehran and according to you electionsoutside Tehran were 'not clean'. 

This means you concede to the fact that Mossadegh received a mandate from a referendum which was ultimately corrupt and unrepresentative.

You simply cannot have it both ways. 

Finally this was your statement: Mossadegh was right to dissolve parliament because it was corrupt and the deputies were un-representative. 

This is a generalisation which you made. You have followed this statement by saying that not all of the deputies were corrupt. Therefore, if the Majlis comprised of deputies and representatives which were good and bad then why dissolve parliament?  Why not reduce the composition of parliament to consist of ony the good and honest politicians?

The constitution 

Finally, you boasted that Mossadegh was a guardian of the constitution. You are going to regret that he ever did. The constitution required law to pass the approval of the Shia clerics who acted like a Shoraye Negahban. When did Mossadegh consult the clerics? Did he seek their approval of any other nationalist or other Jephe Melis? Were his decisions susch as the nationalisation of oil companies and closure of the oil and ejection of the British based on the  spontaneous plans of one man or did he consult a committee?

Were women enfranchised? Did the 'democratically elected' Mossadegh obtain the vote of the women.

I tell you again, you have created a myth in your head about a 'has been' who never 'was'. There was no parliamentary democracy at the time of Reza Shah. 

Mossadegh supporters should just do themselves a favour and accept that he was a well meaning patriotic politician but ended up wanting to take up power in his own hands and doing what he felt was right for the national interest of the country. I would have respected this view more than this 'democrat' fairy tale you have created. 

Pardoning of Tahmasbi

Before I proceed let me say: this is not an underhanded attack on Dr Mossadegh. I am not a monarchist; nor do I have anything against Dr Mossadegh. But  I really want to know what happened. It is a legitimate question worthy of a reply. 

For background: Prior to Dr Mossadegh the Iranian PM was Razmara who was murdered by Islamist radicals. The murderer Tahmasbi was pardoned by the subsequent parliament.

Please lets get to the point. No personal attacks or whitewash.

• Why did the parliament pardon Tahmasbi for murder of Razmara
• What was Dr Mossadegh's stance on this.
• How did it impact the relationship and power of radical Islam.

Dr. Mossadegh was in FACT the democratically Elected PM of Iran

Simorgh,

This is the actual quote. No where does it say that Mossadegh boasted. It provides the results according to the New York Times.

"To ensure victory at the polls, positive and negative ballot boxes were placed in different places. As expected, Mossadeq received an overwhelming vote of confidence, winning over 2,043,300 of the 2,044,600 ballots cast throughout the country and 101,396 of the 101, 463 ballots cast in the capital. 118"

"118 New York Times, 4-14 August 1953."

Context. Ayatollah Kashani and others like him had boycotted the referendum. Why? Was it because the vote was restricted? Was it because they could not have monitors? Or was because they knew that they were a minority of voters. Had they participated, they would have gotten more votes and still lost.

JM was presenting a democratic procedure to resolve the problem, but the Shah, Ayatollah Kashani, CIA, and the British were using anti-democratic dirty measures (kidnaping, torture, murder, coup, and more torture, more killings).

Simorgh, "...

treacherous Qajar Kings.."

MK: It does NOT make sense to call Qajar Kings treacherous and not the Pahlavi kings. In actual fact, BOTH Qajar kings and Pahlavi kings were treacherous, disloyal, and dangerous.

Did Reza Khan collaborate with the British? Yes or no? Did Mohamad Reza Pahlavi collaborate with CIA and MI6 against the national interest of Iran?

Simorgh: I am very sorry but you still have not answered my question: How was Mossadeq a democratically elected prime minister if the entire Majlis was corrupts and its deputies were unrepresentative?

You cannot accept the poll of one election as legitimate when it suits you and then reject it when it is not in your favour.

MK: I did answer your question. You did not get it. Let me try one more time.

The ENTIRE Majles was NOT corrupt. There were clean elections in big cities like Tehran. In those places where there were clean elections, the people succeeded in voting their true representative to the Majles. In such clean elections, JM members won.

Razmara was assassinated by the conspiracy of Mohammad Reza Shah, Seyyed Zia Tabatabaee, and Fadaian Islam.

There was a lot of pressure on Majles deputies. Dr. Mossadegh was popular among the people. They had little choice but to vote for him. They hoped he would fail.

I accept the poll when it was clean. And I reject it when it is not clean. It is a FACT that the majority of Majles deputies voted for Dr. Mossadegh, and thus he is the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran.

Let me repeat one more time. Not all the elections were clean. Many were not. But many were. In large cities the elections were free. In such free and clean elections, JM candidates won.

MK

Agree again with Simorgh

Can't believe it, again I find myself in agreement with Simorugh: 

"the entire Majlis was corrupts [sic] and its deputies were unrepresentative"

My family members had left their posts as Ministers and Majlis speaker by that time, post-Reza Shah. There were those that considered them of the very few that were not corrupt, particularly during the time of my grandfather. In fact, upon his exile, Reza Shah remarked that my grandfather was the only Minister that served him who was both honest and loyal.

Masoud Kermanzadeh

The Plebicit 

The page number you refer to is 274 of Abrahamian's book. Please do the mathamatics: 2.000,000 votes (of the entire country in favour of Mossadegh) to 1000 against. I state again: such an approval rating is impossible.  The plebicit was also conducted in Tehran and not any other part of the country. This does not justify Mossadegh's attempts to dissolve parliament and to obtain emergency powers.

1906 Constitution

The references to the ill fated  Anglo-Persian agreement of 1919 and your criticisms of Reza Shah are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please focus on the central topic. Where in the 1906 constitution did it allow Mossadegh to curtail the power of the Shah and weild so much power into the hands of a prime minister?  

By your own admission no referendum was taken by Mossadegh to ask people whether they wanted a monarchy or a constitution. Mossadegh was ultimately a usurper and an opportunist. 

You have a selective memory and talk about Mossadegh's honesty but have very little to say about the fact that he served under Ahmad Qavam and Mushir Dwoleh and played a part in government and adminsitration of the treacherous Qajar Kings.Mossadegh was equally part of the problem just as the fool Bazargan was part and parcel of the Khomeini government which he supported and then distanced himself.  

I am very sorry but you still have not answered my question: How was Mossadeq a democratically elected prime minister if the entire Majlis was corrupts and its deputies were unrepresentative?

You cannot accept the poll of one election as legitimate when it suits you and then reject it when it is not in your favour.

Please answer my question. 

On Dr. Mossadegh

Simorgh,

1. I have read Abrahamian’s book. I do not recall what you say. Please provide the page number where it says that Mossadegh boated that referendum got 99% of the votes, and I will apologize. To the best of my memory, you are wrong. Prove what you say.

2. Ditto.

3. There is no contradiction in my statements. Iran since 1906 constitution contained many forces. Some were nationalist-constitutionalists (Mossadegh). Some were absolutists (Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar). In 1919, in the aftermath of the disaster of WWI, the British bribed Vosough ol Dowleh to sign the 1919 agreement which would have made Iran a legal colony of Britain. The nationalist-constitutionalists strongly opposed and succeeded in undermining it.

Who supported the 1919 agreement? Seyyed Zia Tabatabaee. In February 1921, the British officials in Iran paid a lot of money to Reza Khan (later to be Reza Shah) who along with Seyyed Zia made the coup. Between Feb 1921 and late 1925, there were constant struggles between Reza Khan and others. After Reza Khan got rid of others, and became king, he brought back Vossough ol Dowleh. Seyyed Zia was brought back by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

After Reza Shah got close to Nazi Germany during WWII, the allied invaded and occupied Iran. They replaced Reza Shah with his young and inexperienced son. During this period due to the removal of Reza Shah’s brutal tyranny, civil society flourished again. So, Mohamad Reza Shah did not have the ability to get all he wanted (restore the kind of total brutal dictatorship his father had).

There were many centers of power that were not under the control of MRS (Mohammad Reza Shah). For example, Gen. Razmara was a powerful figure that was independent (sort of like Reza Shah figure). Razmara was strong, popular among officers, and had good relations with Americans and the Soviets!!!! MRS feared him greatly. There is a lot of evidence that in a conspiracy Mohammad Reza Shah and Seyyed Zia and the Fadaian Islam assassinated Gen. Razmara.

MRS was a terribly dictatorial person. He had an extreme form of authoritarian personality.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh...

But he was not able to get all he wanted. MRS was collaborating with the British to help him recreate the total tyranny his father had established. For example, he changed the constitution. For example, he had fraudulent elections, which caused protests by the nationalists-constitutionalists (e.g., Dr. Mossadegh, Hezb Iran, etc.) and others. It was during such protests that Jebhe Melli was created. JM forced MRS to hold free elections. There was struggle to hold the elections clean and fair. In Tehran and large cities this became possible, but not in other places where the modern middle class was too small (and thus its representative the JM was absent).

3. (You repeated the number 3 twice and I am following you). The Pahlavis had VIOLATED the 1906 constitution zillion of times. Mossadegh was one of the biggest defenders of the 1906 constitution. In fact, after the coup on August 16, 1953, the Shah escaped to Iraq and then to Italy. Dr. Mossadegh appointed a Royal Council.

In my opinion, Dr. Mossadegh was wrong. Dr. Mossadegh should have in July 1952 (after qiyam 30 Tir) hold a referendum to allow the Iranian people to decide whether they want a constitutional monarchy or a republic. Dr. Mossadegh should have done this again in August. In my analysis, the Shah was both terribly dictatorial and a puppet of foreign powers. One could not have a constitutional monarchy with such a monarch.

4. My position is what I stated already.

5 and 6. It was for 6 months. And all the laws he passed during this period would be up for vote (accept or reject) after the new elections for Majles. We were in the struggle to gain our independence from British colonial control. The NIOC was the biggest source of foreign money for the British. They were fighting dirty to get our oil and continue their control over Iran.

7. Please explain and provide some scholarly history of what you are talking about.

8. Please explain. According to one of the top CIA agents (Richard Cottam) in Tehran during the coup, he would write an article full of lies against Mossadegh and by the next day his article would be published in Tehran newspapers. Cottam estimated that about 75% of the papers in Tehran were in the pay of the CIA (money sent to them via Rashidian brothers and others).

9. It is a FACT that there were no torture, no assassination, and no executions under Mossadegh-JM cabinet. This is a FACT. Before, during, and after our cabinet, the monarchists engaged in such brutal dictatorial actions. We did NOT execute any of the monarchists. But monarchists executed our Foreign Minister. The monarchists kidnaped, tortured, and murdered Gen. Afshartoos (our Head of Police). We did not assassinate a single journalist. The monarchists imprisoned, tortured, and burned alive our brave journalist Karimpour Shirazi.

After the coup, the monarchists executed and tortured to death a lot of people.

10. In a democracy, people can vote in and vote out anyone they so desire. Despite his illness and old age, Dr. Mossadegh gave his life for the sake of Iran’s independence, freedom and democracy. He could have had an easy life. But instead, like a burning candle, he gave of himself for the Iranian people.

Masoud

RP is doing the right thing.

In a free, democratic Iran, he, like any other Iranian should be given the right to stand for the "leadership post". I do however think his chances would be very slim. History has taught us that royalty has never returned once overthrown by a revolution. The noteable exception is of course Britain. But brits are weired, and their "revolution" was more of a civil war.

Mr Kermanzadeh

This is your most funny statement: 

Much of Majles deputies were corrupt and unrepresentative. Literally
the British would pay cash for the votes of some deputies. This FACT
exists side by side with the FACT that Dr. Mossadegh was decent,
honest, and non-corrupted.

I see. So when the deputies in Parliament elected Mossadegh they were NOT corrupt and unrepresentaive. 

How did they become corrupt and unrepresentative later on?

Surely, these are not the same 'corrupt and unrperesrntaive' deputites that voted for Mossadegh?

I am sorry Sir, you make no sense whatsoever. 

Masoud Kermanzadeh - Mossadegh

I would like to respond to some of the points you raised about Mossadegh.

1) Mossadegh did boast in having 99% of public approval as stated in the book 'Iran in between two revolutions'by E Abrahamian. Again, even by Iran's standards in the 1950's the results of the poll is extremely doubtful. However, even if the approval rating was smaller then how was this plebicit carried out? Was it carried out in the whole of Iran and not just the rural cities? How was such a pleblicit monitored to ensure impartiality? By your own admission elections in rural areas were often rigged. You cannot have a mandate to desolve and obtain emergency powers on the basis of a poll taken in Tehran. 

2) How could the results of a public plebicit be counted so quickly in such a large geographical terrain as Iran?

3) You make the same contradiction as earlier: You imply that the Shah ruled as a dictator but yet the political system which brought Mossadegh into power was legitimate. This is an oximorin. All other elections other than Tehran were 'clean and fair'.So only the elections which Mossadegh appear to have one are legitimate as opposed to other parts of the country. This is an arrogant statement to make and one which you offer very little evidence for. 

3) If Mossadegh was 'fair and dedecent' and observed the rule of law then where in the 1906 constitutions did he have a right to divest the monarch of his sovereignthy. It was Mossadegh and not the Shah who had acted unconstitutional including the other attempts to block the curtail the power of the Shah 

4) Asking for emergency powers is one thing. Dissolving the parliament was an act of a desperate dictartor. Your explanation that this was done to preserve Iran's democracy does not wash. Again, this is just your interpretation without any evidence to supprot this. Even in the events of an emergency such as sa state of war, Parliament and the judiciary are still needed to ensure a proper system of checks and balances. 

5) Mossadegh had asked for the emergency powers even BEFORE the Brtish Blockade. What was the justification? Where was the emergency? Where was the state of war? It was just a desperate attempt to save his own skin. 

6) Teh emergency powers that Mossadegh wanted was without an expired time limit and gave him monopoly of power over ALL affairs of state. What was the justification for seeking such extensive powers?

7) You also forget that the same ministers and supporters in Parliament rsigned because of Mossadegh's handling of the Britsh closure of Abadan which resulted in workers being layed off. How could Mossadegh justify continuing as party leader under those circumstances? 

8) Why ban the press as Mossadegh did? Is everything an international conspiracy? 

9) No records of executions or torture....but the government of Mossadegh was so short lived. Like with everything about Mossadegh you have created a myth in your own mind.

10) A scrupulous honest man.Maybe. I am not going to defame him on this account.  A man who was also suffered spouts of unpredictable tantrums and fainting. He was often tired becuase of his age and illness and carried out government business in his pyjamas. Mossadegh's political career and phyisical mortality was vulnerable and uncertain to start off with.

"Iranian government sleeps very well"

And it looks like a nightmare to me when I have to agree with Pirouz.

On Democracy

VPK jaan,

No system is perfect. All we can do is to design a constitutional system with as many features that we can think of to on the one hand, allow majority rule, and on the other hand provide protection to minorities from majority abuse.

In addition to a good constitutional deign, we need brave individuals (statesman and women, public intellectuals, journalists, etc) to stand up to popular prejudice. We also need a political culture that allows for individuality and tolerance.

For consolidation of democracy, we need the above ingredients.

There will always be bad laws, bad policies, and bad popular votes. It is through trials and error that the people, the intellectuals learn to correct their mistakes.

Best,

Masoud

Dear Jomhurikhah,

I agree with what you say. I am not making up adjectives for fun.

For a brief article on various forms of democracy see Robert Dahl’s article.

//www.psqonline.org/?redir=%2F99_article.php3%3Fbyear%3D2005%26bmonth%3Dsummer%26a%3D01free

For more extensive treatment see his excellent book that the above article was extracted from:

//books.google.com/books?id=jCJ_kUOcCpIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=robert+dahl+on+democracy&source=bl&ots=5_LSZ_kfSg&sig=hgbH2jUKAfAWtIRyPIU8TkQu8Ik&hl=en&ei=35GeTOD2GMKB8gbJxOl3&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

For my own extensive articles on this subject please see:

//iranian.com/Opinion/2003/June/MK/index.html

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/authoritarian-personality-and-democracy

Best,

Masoud

"Reza Pahlavi is the best

"Reza Pahlavi is the best alternative to the other opposition leaders currently available"

As such, the Iranian government sleeps very well at night. 

Bavafa/Mehrdad

I hoped that I answered your question already. I would be grateful if you could have the courtesy to read my responses instead of misrepresenting my viewpoints from the nature of military actions to my positions on Reza Pahlavi.

I do not give unqualified supprot to Reza Pahlavi and I respect him as a constitutional monarch. This means, like the Queen of Great Britain,Shahzadeh should ascend the throne as a symbolic monarch with the power to delegate in the affairs of state. There are bound to be differences between individuals but this is called democracy.

Here, in the UK, Prince Charles is often known to stick his oar in just about every thing from the environment, conservation, international human rights, Tibet, architecture, hunting and tackling poverty- much to the resentment of a lot of people. However, people come to terms that these are the private thoughts of an individual.

I can't understand why you are so dumbfounded about people disagreeing. There are not many ideological differences between myself and Reza Pahlavi as you make it out to be. Reza Pahlavi is the best alternative to the other opposition leaders currently available. He is not perfect and does not have all the answers - I am sure Shahzadeh would agree with that. 

Referendum Problem

Another problem with them is the perception that they have no limit. For example people say: in 1979 IRI was "passwed" by referendum so it is legitimate until the next referdndum which may never happen. 

Elections on the other hand have implied limits on their period. This is because referendums inact laws whilst elections choose people. If we want to rule by referendum then IMHO there should be time limits. For example a system like IRI should require reaffirmation. At least once per generation. Why should kids who were not even born in 1979 be bound by it. That is both unfair and not representative.

The choice of one generation must not be binding upon another. Specially when involving internal matters. Therefore while treaties need to be binding for good an inititive should not. Or to make it binding you should need more than a referndum. In addition there should be periodic reviews. 

Regarding recall I am no fan of it. The California example is proof of how badly it could be abused. Just let the person run their term. Of course there should be an impeachement process but only for crimes. If not then no politician will dare take a necessary but unpopular action.

Popouri democracy

I don't want to ruin your weekend fun you seem to have with a bunch of adjectives, such as highest and best, etc.

All I'm saying is simple and very straightforward: Numbers matter where they do and not beyond. 

Simorgh jaan:

شما که هیچ حرف آقای رضا پهلوی رو قبول ندارید.  می‌شه لطفا توضیح بدید که چطور ایشان شاه شما آینده هستند؟

Mehrdad

Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy

Dear Jomhurikhah,

I support liberal democracy, which means the rule of majority (determined by free, fair, democratic, and periodic elections) and the rights of minorities. Liberal democracy is based on representative democracy.

There is also direct democracy, whereby the people directly vote for whatever they want. It is the highest form of democracy in the sense that the majority gets what it wants. This includes bad things when the majority wants bad things. This is indeed a weakness of direct democracy. It is the highest form of democracy. It is not always the best form of democracy. As a liberal democrat, we regard liberal democracy (with protections of rights) as the best form of democracy.

We could have features of direct democracy (referendum) added to a liberal democracy (representative democracy with protections of rights).

Best,

Masoud

Referendum as the highest form of democracy?

It's a grave misconception. Where is the mechanism to defend the minorities via referendum?

Dear Ali and VPK

Ali jaan and VPK jaan,

In actual fact, a referendum is the highest form of democracy. It is the procedure whereby the people directly say what they want. Can it be abused? Of course it could. The fact that wealthy person can open a paper or radio or tv station, and spread their views, does not negate the fact that freedom of the press is good. When there is freedom of the press, in addition to the wealthy folks, the people too have the right to have the right to have their paper, radio, and tv.

So, in the California initiative system that was in fact promoted by the progressives, the wealthy interests have been able to hire firms that would go around and gather signature to place the initiative on ballot and then have the money to place tv ads and attempt to influence the voters. This does not negate the fact that, ultimately it is the people that can vote and directly decide that public policy issue.

Referendum is direct democracy, the people directly deciding on policy. Because with large population it is not practical to have direct democracy, then we have representative democracy. In representative democracy, the people vote for individuals, who in turn vote in a number of policies (whether the people in their constituency like it or not). If on a number of issues the constituents are not happy with their representation, in the following election, they can vote the person out and vote in another person. 

There is also recall.  If the people really do not like the elected person, they can use referendum and recall the person.  This was done in California with Governor Davis.  Through recall, the people of CA recalled David and in new elections they elected Arnold. 

A referendum in the state is superior to a decision of the state legislature. For example, if the state of California’s legislature votes for something, and the people of California in an initiative vote for that thing; all things being equal (the issue of constitutionality, state and federal aside), then the decision of the people overrides that of the state legislature.

In constitutional amendments, a referendum to amend the constitution can override the decision of the state supreme court. Similarly, at the federal level. For example, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution can override the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In sum, the 1979 referendum (despite its language was fair vote) dismantled the 1906 constitution. And another referendum (lets say we can hold one in 2011) will override the 1979 referendum. It does not matter what garbage is in the 1979 constitution, when the people of Iran vote in a referendum (Islamic Republic, Yes or NO), then the vf fundamentalist system with it anti-democratic constitution is dismantled.

In conclusion, referendum is the HIGHEST form of democracy. It is superior to all other votes. It overrides other procedures.

Best,

MK

Ali jaan,

You confuse the features in a presidential system and those in a parliamentary system. In a presidential system, one has to tough it out. But in a parliamentary system, one could ask for vote of no confidence and dismiss a cabinet and ask for new elections for the parliament.

In the U.S., justices of the Supreme Court could be impeached and removed. The U.S. President can be impeached and removed. In a parliamentary system, a vote of no confidence can result in the new elections for the parliament.

The above are rules for a democracy in normal times. Britain was the de facto (but not de jure) colonial power in Iran. The British controlled our oil and had semi-colonial control over our politics. The nationalist movement (Jebhe Melli Iran) under the leadership of Dr. Mossadegh was our movement to restore our national control and kick out the British colonial control over us.

//iranian.com/History/2005/January/Kinzer/index.html

The following is from a British document discussing what the U.S. State Department sent them about the Shah in May 1953.

"The State Department informed us today on a number of occasions associates of the shah have told Henderson that His Majesty is uncertain about the British attitude towards himself. He is reported to be harping on the theme that the British had thrown out the Qajar Dynasty, had brought in his father and had thrown his father out. Now they could keep him in power or remove him in turn as they saw fit. If they desired that he should stay and that the Crown should retain the powers given to it by the Constitution, he should be informed. If on the other hand they wished him to go, he should be told immediately so that he could leave quietly."

One has to place a particular decision within its broader context. The fact that during WWII, the British did not hold elections does not mean that the British system was dictatorial between 1939 and 1945. They had to suspend the elections because they had to confront the Nazi Germany in a war of survival. In 1951-53, our struggle was to achieve our independence from semi-colonial control. The Shah was the local puppet serving the interests of the British. They were using illegal means such as kidnaping, torture and murder to undermine our struggle for independence and democracy. Dr. Mossadegh utilized a democratic procedure to counter their efforts against the national interests of Iran.

Best,

Masoud

Referendum

only works with a very interested and informed population. Otherwise it gets manipulated by big money interests. Or by people playing on religion; nationalism and so on.

In short I basically agree with Ali P.

Just see how referendums have been abused in the USA: Proposition 13; taking away the right to marry from gays; anti immigration laws in various states. About the only good thing I remember is referendums legalizing medical marijuana and reducing the penalties. Most other ones have involved right wing idiotic plans.

Masoud jaan

Much of your comment passes my muster.

I do, however, have a problem with "Referendum is the highest form of democracy".

It, in fact, is not.

You give several accurate examples from Western democracies. Let's try my examples in that context:

There is this jerk of a judge, on the US Supreme Court. Let's have a referendum, and remove her!

There is this idiot in the White House, as the President. Let's have a referendum, and throw him out!

Can we remove a US President,or a Supreme Court Justice before his term is up, just because his popularity drops below %50?

Bunch of bastards in the Congress...Won't you LOVE to have a referendum and throw all the bums out? Can we dissolve the Congress by a referendum?

Of course not. We just have to tough it out.

Such acts may be desirable, or popular with the masses, but democracy has rules, and we all need to play the game according to it's rules.

Sometimes we win, and sometimes we lose, but as we all learned on the first day of kindergarden, rules are rules.

Yours,

Ali P.

Here we go

again. For the last time SP agha. Imagine:

• Phone rings in Iran and you pick it up.
• They ask what you think of AN
• You say he sucks
• Basiji show up; rough up your family and maybe beat you up.

Why does anyone take that chance? Therefore they will instead say "sure I like AN; he is great". No one beats you up and you are fine. Now get why the polls are pro AN? For Gods sake I have explained this a dozen times. 

This is the same reason people pretended to love communism in Russia. 

Now I am moving to other discussions.