Parliamentary Monarchy

Share/Save/Bookmark

Parliamentary Monarchy
by IRANdokht
29-Oct-2009
 

A friend of mine is starting to bring up the Pahlavi family more frequently as an example of how well Iranians used to have it. He’s now sending more emails about them and reminders of their different anniversaries and special dates: the Shah and the Queen’s birthdays have been one after the other and tomorrow it’ll be The Prince’s birthday. I still recall how pro-democracy my friend used to be so I had to ask what was it about the monarchy that he thought resembled democracy?

I have nothing against the monarchists especially my dearest friends and the ones who have recently opened up about their true feelings on the subject. Personally I don't hold a grudge against the Pahlavi family either, especially Reza Pahlavi who was a teenager in 1979 and cannot possibly be held accountable for any of the policies of the time, good or bad.

After many conversations, it's become clear that some of these friends are seriously trying to prove that a monarchy is actually democratic! No surprise there, most people in Iran and around the world want a democratic system. Democracy is probably the most popular form of government. Nobody advertises their ideals by saying: we’re fighting to have a hard core dictatorship in our country.

Unfortunately the idea of a King and a Queen and a Royal family seems the opposite of “democracy”, so lately all I am hearing is the catch phrase: “Parliamentary Monarchy System”.

What does that really mean? In a Parliamentary Monarchy, there is an elected parliament and an elected president or prime minister like in England (which they love to bring up as an example) so what's the King's role? Is it a purely symbolic role for nostalgic reasons? What would such a King actually provide for the country besides putting a huge burden on the nation to financially support a very high maintenance family that does nothing?

Try asking a “Parliamentary Monarchists” that question. They will most likely inform you that Monarchy is a part of our glorious 2500 year history. They have already adopted all the great kings of Persia as solely their own heritage anyway, so they will bring up Cyrus the Great and the brave Xerxes to prove their point.

But wait a second, was a Parliamentary Monarchy ever part of our history? As far as I know our kings have always had the ultimate power and were never "symbolic", even the most admired Cyrus the great was not a symbolic parliamentary and democratically elected King (whatever that means).

My monarchist friends are speaking of a referendum where they would have the option to elect Prince Reza Pahlavi to claim the throne that is his “birth right”... but which one of our kings had ever been elected in a referendum? How does that become a continuance of our heritage?

Ok, maybe the traditional way that new Kings took over the throne is not applicable in this day and age anymore. Is that why Reza Pahlavi wants to have a referendum and ask people if they want him to be their king? Then what happens if people change their mind a few years later and don't want him as the king anymore? Will there be another referendum to have someone else be the King?

A friend actually corrected me and said that Reza Pahlavi wants to be part of the referendum as an Iranian citizen not the heir to the throne. So Reza Pahlavi wants to be an elected president? Why is it that the people who surround him call themselves “monarchists” then? Are the monarchists really trying this hard to have the chance to include their Prince in a presidential election??

I believe Reza should start clarifying his position to his fans first and then to the rest of us, and the monarchists should stop beating around the bush and come out and say it: "I want a King and Queen, just like we used to have them, whether it's democratic or not". For the sake of argument, lets not even get to issues of why would anyone think that certain people have a richer blood and deserve to be in commanding roles and the whole idea of monarchy that is completely incomprehensible to me. I won't even go there, but I need some clarification because this is a very confusing game they are playing. I think it's time they come out clean and speak their true intentions.

Do you Reza Pahlavi want a democratic referendum in Iran? Will you be participating in such referendum and throwing your hat in? In which role would you be participating: Future King or Elected President? Do you believe in Democracy? If “elected” the parliamentary King, how much would you like to be paid by the nation of Iran? How many of the Royal Family and your relatives would have to be financially supported and provided for by the people of Iran?  What will you be doing for Iran in return?

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by IRANdokhtCommentsDate
Iran's Oscar Victory Over Israel?
9
Mar 02, 2012
Abadani Mouse
16
Feb 10, 2011
Ambassador of Death
9
Aug 24, 2010
more from IRANdokht
 
Nousha Arzu

Propagandists

by Nousha Arzu on

Mammad, it is amazing how easily you facilitate misinformation about the Shah -- if you're not an IRI employee, then you must play one on the internet.

To the joker who writes that Reza Shah did not know anything about modernity... the above applies to you as well, but you should know that the overwhemlming majority of Iranians respect and admire and treasure the efforts of Reza Shah in modernizing a country that was mismanaged for 200 years.

Reza Shah did more for Iran in a short 16 years than all the kings in Iran in the last 1,000 years put together! Only a die-hard hezbollahi would refer to him as "Reza Mirpanj" and diminish his modernizing accomplishments. As a die-hard hezbollahi, you already are living in your own hellish nightmare and will no doubt experience the real thing when you pass, so I won't be too hard on you -- have a great day ruining our motherland and being an accessory to monumental crimes against humanity.

Irandokht -- are you really obtuse or just stubborn? You write, "Thanks for your well written comment, as I said in my blog, I am used to seeing monarchist claiming they're democrats."

What don't you believe about my statement, that I'm an independent democrat? You don't think there are democratic people in England or Spain or Japan who stand for their monarchy? I gave you my reasons for a constitutional monarchy in an ethnically diverse nation as Iran, why do you have to doubt my motives?

In fact, Spain restored it's monarchy when it did NOT have to whatsoever -- their monarchy was abolished and the peopel of Spain restored it -- and they are in fact a democracy! Are you doubting the democratic instincts and aspirations of the people of Spain as well?

No need to comment, I'm privy to your agenda. 

 

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 


Azarin Sadegh

Thank you Jamshid!

by Azarin Sadegh on

Dear Jamshid,

I just wanted to tell you how much I've always enjoyed your intelligent, thought provoking, direct and passionate comments...a perfect mixture of heart and reason! Plus, I find your calm and respectful (yet strong and determined) voice/tone very convincing! 

Thank you!

Your fan, Azarin   


Manoucher Avaznia

Irandokht Geraamee;

by Manoucher Avaznia on

Mr. Pahlavi several times has mentioned that he has capitalized upon his heritage; and so he has entered his so-called campaign.  What is the legacey he is speaking of except what he has mentioned in his Oath of Kingship in Egypt a quarter of a century ago?  From any angle that you look at Mr. Phalavi, he is pursuing his goal of kingship in which he has taken oath and in Iranian traditions (except for the time of Ashkaanees who fought for Iran's independence, gained that independence from Hellenic occupation forces and northeastern invasions, and preserved it for nearly four hundred years and laid the foundation of what is called pure Iranian achievement in civilization and, as a matter of fact, they have been very much due to the same very factor that they were moving towards something uniquely Iranian in nature) no right has been given to people as it has been in democracies.  Therefore, from the very beginning, there is a problem of trust with those who follow the path of monarchy while depicting a false and distorted shining image of Iran under the kindgdom especially monarchy before Islam. Did Mr. Pahlavi forget his oath as a king?  Did he break his oath? What kind of oath and oath-taker are these?  I see a pure and vicious deciept from the very beginning.

I quoted a few lines of the so-called cylinder upon which they have put so much weight and emphesis.  They have almost never given the details of its original translation so far as human knowledge has been able to desipher.  Public Iranians' knowledge of it is almost zero while everyone is chanting based upon hear and say that there was such and such human rights declaration.  My purpose was to first show that this cylinder is not written in Parsee Bastaan which was the langauge of the people with Iranian origin.  There is nothing Iranian of it except a few names including Koorosh's and Anshaan.  He does not forget to bring his son's name Kamboojeyyeh (Kambeez) though.  Second, it does not speak about all citizens of the land that Koorosh was ruling.  Third, there is no mention of Iranian gods who have bestowed kindom of Babylon to him.  Rather, it is about an alein god (to Iranians) named Marduke whom people of Mesopotamia (Bein'o Nahrein to be specific Babylon) knew and respected and not any other nation in that empire which, at least, comprised several nations under its sway until then.  Forth, derived from the the previous statement, everything clearly indicates that Koorosh wants to show to the people of Babylon that their god has appointed him as their ruler.  Again, the rights of people towards electing their rulers has been totally denied because heavens' hand is at work; and anything food the the king has done for comes from from his own benevolence and special favor.  The value of the contents of this cylinder does not go beyond propaganda for justification of Koorosh's capturing Babylonia.  Fifth, the cylinder has been burried beneathe the foundation wall of Marduke's temple.  Somehow it has been dedicated to him.  Sixth, the concept of Almighty's hand in choosing kings that has been brought in this cylinder, in fact, lais the concrete foundation of concept of "Farreh Eezadee" which was expanded to the fullest in Iran under the Sassanids and has stretched to Iranian folk tales told to kids since their infancy.  Even it has been mentioned that people saw that a white lamb (barreh) leaving Ardavaan the fifth's camp and joining Ardasheer Babakaan's; and so, the Ardavan's kingdom was doomed in favor of that of Ardasheer's.  Again, the divine selection of the ruler has nothing to do with democracy.

For me, if a person speaks of his legacy (which is not democratic and is purely inherited) that Mr. Pahlavi has inheritted from his "bozorgvaar pedar" is exactly like the bozorgvaar himself.  If someone is Bozorgvaar, it necessitates that Koochakvaar to put step in his foot step.  It is not logical to ignore the greatness and pursue the path of decline.  This is my opinion about Mr. Pahlavi for whose birthday I had to march for many years as a patriotic duty.

 

With regards

 


Manoucher Avaznia

Irandokht Geraamee;

by Manoucher Avaznia on

posted twice.


ex programmer craig

Mammad

by ex programmer craig on

I think it should be pretty obvious I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm not even Iranian, but:

Britain and countries like that did not get up one day and found
themselves with what they have now. They went through a 200 years
process in order to arrive at what they have.

That's really only true if you want to talk about the entire process from start to finish, in the case of the UK. The immediate cause was the English Civil War in which the monarchy was deposed:

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

End result wasn't democracy, but rather a power sharing agreement between the crown and the nobles and the clergy. But that was the pivotal event that led to Britain's current form of government. Hasn't Iran has a similar pivotal event?


Mammad

Secular Velaayat-e Faghih

by Mammad on

I would add one more point to your wonderful piece:

Those monarchists - or Palavists as Jamshid put it - who point to, for example, Britain, as the model based on which they propose their Parliamentary Monarchy, forget one thing: Britain and countries like that did not get up one day and found themselves with what they have now. They went through a 200 years process in order to arrive at what they have.

The last experience that Iran had with monarchy just before it was overthrown was a quasi-fascist regime in which even the cartoonish political "parties," such as the Iran-e Novin and Mardom, were not tolerated, the quasi-fascist Rastakhiz party had been established, and the Shah had declared that, "If anyone does not like this, they can get their passport and leave Iran," completely similar to what Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi said a few years ago," If anyone does not like the velaayat-e faghih and dowlat-e eslami, they can get their passport and leave Iran. "

Yes, so far crimes are concerned, Reza Pahlavi is innocent. But, he cannot even get himself to acknowledge his father's crimes that were simply too many. He attacks the revolution that overthrew his father, but says that history should judge the 1953 coup, an event that preceded the revolution! 

The era of monarchy has ended. Monarchy will never be restored in Iran. People are simply too sophisticated to settle for a secular velaayat-e faghih.

Mammad


میرزاقشمشم

I'm here to stay...

by میرزاقشمشم on

Your agitated remark shows that you have no time for discussion. And that's just fine; first you called my remarks Islamic so to speak and, if I continue to make my voice heard here you might even call me an agent of IRI.

I am just wondering why you guys bother with open forums like this site.

Isn't Paltalk with its behind closed doors meeting rooms and exclusiveness more suitable to your draconian style of debating (which is actually non debating)?


mostafa ghanbari

Dear Irandokht

by mostafa ghanbari on

mg

Dear Irandokht thank you for your thoughtful points. I went through the responses to your post. Honestly some of them made me feel a little bit disappointed with our general views towards our vital problems; so instead of commenting your main views, I prefer to write a little bit about Reza Pahlavi and...

Reza Pahlavi is the most genuine Iranian who I  have ever seen in whole my life. We are not people of clear insight and have no intuitive abilities to perceive and interprete the issues which are inherently in need of relatively exact scrutiny and deep comprehension. Therefoe  we usually tend to reject and refuse and even to skew the subects which seemingly are not our favorite ones. And on the other hand we are badly self-centred people who are amazingly in favour of lecturing and reprimanding instead of listening and solemnly going through the whole subject in a reasonable and free of prejudice manner.

Reza Pahlavi is the only Iranian who has  completely been clear with his aspirations for his country and his people. He is not looking for power, he is not going to be throned. He is a man of moderation and acclaimed human values. Reza Pahlavi is a real treasure for us in this crucial period in which we are going to stand up to our ever most powerful enemy.Reza Pahlavi is the true source of inspiration and encouragement if we fret ourselves and understand him. Let's not to be so hasty and prejudical with our ways of approaching the vital decisions for our future.

I am not in favour of Reza Pahlavi because of his title; I am in favour of this man as a sincere and genuine person who his words are of a great value for me. for me Reza Pahlavi is not the son of a king; he is a respectable compatrit . He is not goin to be my choice as my king or my president or my prime minister; he is going to be  my voice  and my courage.

 


benross

I guess I made my point

by benross on

I guess I made my point clear. Whenever I wanted to equate Pahlavi with modernity, I do it myself. I don't need anybody's help nor -in this case- a blatant Islamic style 'interpretation' of my 'aayé' that convenience you.

There is a historic document and a historic effort toward modernity, and there is a historic document and a hisoric effort to stop it. Our first stage choice is between the two. My choice is clear which happens to recognize the monarchy and Pahlavi as the representant of the monarchy.

If the constitution of iran prior to IRI was a republic, I would have opted for that as opposed to IRI, while adding a constituant assembly to the political platform in order to give an opportunity to the monarchists -among others- to voice their concerns in a free Iran about the future of Iranian secular regime.

That wouldn't make any difference in my political stance on how we should deal with IRI. We deal with our collective guilt first.


jamshid

Irandokht

by jamshid on

I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. It is not about a Monarchy or a Republic. Let me explain with an example:

Ask any Monarchist which one of the following would they vote for:

1. For a Constitutional Monarchy headed by a family other than Pahlavi, or,

2. For a Republic headed by Reza Pahlavi as its president for 20 years.

I am willing to bet that more than 90 percent of Monarchists would vote for number 2. It would then become clear that it is not about a Monarchy nor a Republic. It is about Pahlavi and what the word "Pahlavi" stands for.

I have said it many times that today's Monarchists are in reality Pahlavists, the form, monarchy or republic is secondary. As you can see the dicussion would then quickly turns into something else.

The same could be said about, say, supporters of "velaayate faghih" (Supreme Leader). Faced with choosing between a Surpreme Leader headed by a complete outsider, or with doing away with the concept of Supreme Leader in favor of a true republic but headed with familiar faces (khodis), they will choose the republic.

Again, one realizes that for them, it was never about velaayate faghih.

The turth is that for most people, the form is irrelevant. It is more about ideologies, views, policies, etc., than anything else.

In my view, Reza Pahlavi stands for secularism, progress and prosperity. If I had to choose between RP and the current regime, I would choose RP wholeheartedly and without reservation, and to me, the title of Shah RP or President RP, would be secondary.

Of course, in a free Iran, we shall have more than only two options. I would vote for a secular republic, but I don't oppose a constitutional secular monarchy either (note the emphasis on secular, which is meant to be a lot more than during the reign of RP's father.)


میرزاقشمشم

It is not about hatred; your documents are lopsided!

by میرزاقشمشم on

Benross is simply trying  to equate the  Pahlavis with historical efforts to achieve modernity.This, in and out of itself, is a biased opinion. Reza Mirpanj had no idea of what the idea of modernity was about; he was an illiterate soldier only.
Without people like Abdolhossein Khan Teymourtash there wouldn't be a modernizing  Reza Shah to begin with.


benross

Ali

by benross on


I could make an argument, for, or against, "constitutional monarchy" in Iran.

What do you want to hear first? :-)

Good point! that's why my take on the issue is totally different.

We have one historic document, the fruit of our half baked modernity movement for the last century on one hand, and another historic document, the fruit of undoing all those efforts on the other hand.

The real choice at hand is this. Not semantics over different forms of democracy. This, beyond anything else, requires us to face our historic guilt in bringing IRI to power. The current supporters of Reza Pahlavi who were opposed to his father outnumber those who supported him. This is because the choice is not about monarchy. It's about modernity and correcting a historic wrong.

It is obvious that in political platform, there will be a clear mandate for the oppostition to prepare a constituant assmebly AFTER ending IRI and restoring constitutional monarchy. This is when the real debate within a free Iran will be carried out.

Everything else discussed here will only feed fruitless old hatreds and fruitless old sorrows. 

I'm looking forward to your arguments then, after IRI, before Iranian people, on both sides of the issue! 


ex programmer craig

ID

by ex programmer craig on

ExPC, thanks for the definition...

Wasn't a definition! I think the definition the British use is that the Monarch is the head of State and the Prime Minister is the head of Government. I didn't bother with all that because I didn't want to try to explain how the State can be seperate from the Government. Mainly because it doesn't make any sense to my American mind! So instead I offerred my creative interpretation of what I thought they were really trying to say! And there's no need to thank me! You know how much I like to offer you my opinions ;p

I noticed you are defending the
system of monarchy

I'm not defending the system of monarchy. Monarchy is just an extension of ancient tribal systems. Under feudalism the leaders of tribal confedrations became kings, and the chieftains of the individual tribes became barons, earls and so on. It has (some) value in societies which have directly evolved from those systems.

as long as you don't have to put up with it or pay
for it in your own country.

US is not evolved from those systems I just described. This country didn't even exist during feudal times, let alone tribal times. It was created from scratch in the modern era. It would be absurd to try to copy-paste a non-existant royal family and a non-existant monarchy onto the United States, since we've never had either one. There's nothing to either reform or restore - even symbolically.


IRANdokht

Ali P.

by IRANdokht on

Tell me what you want to see in Iran. I know you can argue both sides, what else is new? ;-)

Sean, thanks for your comment

IRANdokht


Ali P.

IRANdokht jaan

by Ali P. on

I could make an argument, for, or against, "constitutional monarchy" in Iran.

What do you want to hear first? :-)


seannewyork

A new leader Every 4 years wont work

by seannewyork on

I agree, i think a system like england might be better.  we need a person to unify the country and not have the power to pull the political levers.

 I think Pahlavi would be a good choice.


IRANdokht

Azarin jan

by IRANdokht on

You are still one of the most closeted monarchists among my friends since you're still only admitting to be a half monarchist ;-)  most of them have already opened up! just kidding Shahi girl! and oh yeah ... don't forget to send him a birthday card on FB ;-)   XO

You brought up a good point hun, a lot of people think that just because this current regime is committing more crimes, mistreating its opponents openly and in a far more brutal manner and restricting people's every day lives in a more invasive way then the old regime wasn't so bad after all...  What if we all agree that we deserve a better system? I don't think we should limit ourselves to preferring one dictatorship over the other. The Shah's reign was not an ideal system at all, maybe some of us who were not affected negatively by Savak did not experience it to remember it, but as you know I have friends with a range of different political views and some hold real big grudges against the Shah and rightfully so.

Thanks for stopping by and I will wait for Darius to come back and let me know what RP is planning to do. I hear mixed messages and I am still very confused.

Mehrdad jan

I hear you, I don't think Iranians would want to keep switching between taj and ammameh either.  

IRANdokht


Azarin Sadegh

Thanks for reminding us of Raza Pahlavi's B-Day!

by Azarin Sadegh on

My dear Irandokht,

You should know by now that I'm a monarchist by proxy on behalf of my Mom (a true hardcore Monarchist)...so I guess I'm a "half-Monarchist"!

But kidding aside, I've always admired Shahbanoo Farah and so far, I've mostly agreed with Reza Pahlavi's speeches (especially his last ones). Also, compared to Khomeini and IRI people, now I find how wrong I was about the late Shah. Maybe he did some mistakes, but at least he loved Iran...unlike Khomeini and his people. 

knowing you, I always thought I was your only "half-monarchist" friend! But now after reading your blog I realize that actually, I'm way behind your other monarchist friends...they seem more devoted and serious than me!

So now, I guess there's something about you that attracts the monarchists...;-)

Love, Azarin 

PS: I forgot to second our dear DK...As much as I know, he is the best person to clarify your confusion.

DISCLAIMER: My comments on "political" stuff are mostly just a tease!


Bavafa

I completely agree with Fouzul Bashi

by Bavafa on

Very good points made by Irandokht. 

I think with the exception of a very small group, specially outside of Iran, who were connected to the ex-royal family no one in their right mind would advocate monarchy any more. I think even in the countries like England, Sweden and Spain if you talk to the younger folks, they are sick and tired of financing ONE family and for the sake of what?

In this day and age, it is just laughable for me and just as absurd as "Velayate Faghih" is.

Mehrdad


IRANdokht

Thank you all

by IRANdokht on

These are great comments from all various point of views. Thanks for taking the time.

As Mehrban pointed out, in Iran the "constitutional" turns into "absolute" rather quickly. That is a very real concern. With all the people who praise RP even now and want to kiss his feet, what would happen once he's actually in power?

Manoucher jan, thanks for speaking of your experience and for providing the Cyrus cylinder text. I am not sure how accurate the translations are and what those words really meant back then, so please forgive me for not getting into a discussion about Cyrus. Manoucher jan, say if there was such a referendum and Reza got the vote of the people, would you accept him as the symbolic king or even the President? I always wonder what do Iranians really feel about him, I am sure there are many who still loath the Pahlavis and some who are still loyal to them.

Nusha you brought up England, Spain, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, and Belgium as examples. Did any of them vote for their king or queen? or is their situation more like they're stuck with some traditional figure heads, but they took away their power to the point of making them an entertaining symbol? If those countries had to do it over again would they go through with it or just rid themselves of the extra money drain? You're explaining that the symbolic king would act as a unifying figure to bring all the ethnic groups together etc...  Do you honestly think that the Pahlavis are regarded with such respect by all ethnicity and minorities in Iran? Besides the Queen of England is the heir to a very old dynasty. Iranians didn't have time to get used to the Pahlavis the same way. Some Ghajar descendants never even had time to accept the changing of the dynasty... Thanks for your well written comment, as I said in my blog, I am used to seeing monarchist claiming they're democrats ;-)  

Nuri Azal, my point exactly, why not you! why not Darius Kadivar? what is so special about one person to be treated as superior to others? If Reza doesn't want to be in that role he better tell his fans soon!

ExPC, thanks for the definition, I noticed you are defending the system of monarchy as long as you don't have to put up with it or pay for it in your own country.

Irannostalgia I couldn't agree more! I am sure I wouldn't mind if others paid for me to live a luxury life, but I won't volunteer to do that for anyone (at least not knowingly)!

Ahmad_  I know a lot of Canadians are trying to do away with the UK ties all together. In this day and age it's actually embarrassing to have some other country's queen on your money! 

Fouzul jan I wouldn't dare speak for Iranians. I know it's their fight and their vote. I also know that they are much smarter than the 79 generation! Welcome back, I am sure you had a great time. I miss Tehran!

Darius jan

Thank you for the lengthy and educational response. I hope you come back soon and explain to us why we should restore the monarchy because the Islamic republic didn't work out and changed into an authoritarian regime. Why not fix what's broken and move forward? Looking forward to your answers to the questions that have been bugging me for a while :o)

Thanks again

IRANdokht


Fouzul Bashi

Irandokht jan, Let the Iranians be the judge!

by Fouzul Bashi on

Let those living in Iran be the judge rather than the expat community! Having just returned from Iran, what is most clear is that for people living in Iran, regardless of their degree of hatred for the current regime, the monarchy is a dead concept.  As usual, They are way ahead of their fossilized expats ;0


Manoucher Avaznia

Parliament and Democracy in the Cyrus' Cylinder of rights

by Manoucher Avaznia on

On
account of their complaints, the lords of the gods became furiously
angry and left their land; the gods, who dwelt among them, left their
homes, 10 i-na ug-ga-ti Šá ú- Še-ri-bi a-na ki-rib Babili ilu Marduk ti-[. . . .] li-sa-ah-ra a-na nap-har da-ád-mi Šá in-na-du-ú Šú-bat-su-un in anger over his bringing into Babylon. Marduk [. . .] to all the dwelling places, which had become ruins, 11 ù niŠe mât Šú-me-ri ù Ak-ka-dikiŠ a i-mu-ú Ša-lam-ta-aŠ ú-sa-ah-hi-ir ka- [. . . .]- Ši ir-ta-Š i ta-a-a-ra kul-lat ma-ta-a-ta ka-li- Ši-na i-h i-it ib-ri-e-Šu and the people of Sumer and Akkad, who were like corpses [. . . .] he turned and granted mercy. In all lands everywhere 12 iŠ-te-'-e-ma ma-al-ki i- Ša-ru bi-bil lib-bi Šá it-ta-ma-a h qa-tu-uŠ-Šú m Ku-ra-aŠŠar ali An- Šá-an it-ta-bi ni-bi-it-su a-na ma-li-ku-tim kul-la-ta nap- h ar iz-zak-ra Šú-[ma- Š u] he
searched; he looked through them and sought a righteous prince after
his own heart, whom he took by the hand. He called Cyrus, king of
Anshan, by name; he appointed him to lordship over the whole world.

ahmad_

correction

by ahmad_ on

This is op yop of the annual contribution by all commonweath countries.

This is on top of


ahmad_

Canada & the British Monarchy

by ahmad_ on

Every few years the Queen of England and her entourage come to visit Canada. All their expences, plane, fuel, food, hotel, transportaion and etc are paid by Canadian tax payers. This is op yop of the annual contribution by all commonweath countries.

In a few weeks Prince Charles and his wife and the entourage are planning to visit Canada and of course another burden on Canadian tax payers.

A recent poll has shown that majority of Canadian are opposed to having the Monarchy system and want to do away with it. Canadian people don't want to pay some one else's travel expences and the maintenace.

According to the news reports Charles is going to get a cold reception this time a message so that " 2 zarie taraf biofte".

My message to all the so called monarchs and their blind supporters is : go and get a job, live like a human being and not like a leech.


ahmad_

Canada & the British Monarchy

by ahmad_ on

Every few years the Queen of England and her entourage come to visit Canada. All their expences, plane, fuel, food, hotel, transportaion and etc are paid by Canadian tax payers. This is op yop of the annual contribution by all commonweath countries.

In a few weeks Prince Charles and his wife and the entourage are planning to visit Canada and of course another burden on Canadian tax payers.

A recent poll has shown that majority of Canadian are opposed to having the Monarchy system and want to do away with it. Canadian people don't want to pay some one else's travel expences and the maintenace.

According to the news reports Charles is going to get a cold reception this time a message so that " 2 zarie taraf biofte".

My message to all the so called monarchs and their blind supporters is : go and get a job, live like a human being and not like a leech.


irannostalgia.com

Is Mr.Chimpanze writing you checks?

by irannostalgia.com on

Look, all that Reza wants is to secure himself a future in case things start looking promising again in Iran.

But Iranians should at least stick to the one good thing they got out of the Revolution: getting rid of the Monarchic system.

Iran needs to grow and not have any sort of "single" big figure. Iranians need to understand that they have to work for and protect their freedom and not delegate it to some supposedly larger than life figure.

Iran can perfectly well have a strong non-arabic identity without a
King.  I don't even understand an argument linking persian identity to
having to still have a king !!  Identities need to progress with time. 
Germany moved on, Russia moved on, etc etc.  

I am also a spaniard and as for Spain, the Monarchy part comes from the distant past and apart from sucking up our money  all it does is to serve for entertainment for elderly housewifes that dont work and dont understand anything about the economy.  Is that what you want for Iran??

The other day, I was comparing Slovenia with Spain. While Spain wasn't able to move on and let go of some of its old concepts such as its dept to their King, Slovenia has moved on from its comunist past quickly to have a more efficient system with a very high GDP per Capita.

People, don't let yourself feel so desperate to even consider loosers like Reza for your country..

No No Noo...    I refuse to pay for him to have a comfi life at my expense. 

 

//www.irannostalgia.com

irannostalgia.com

 


Nousha Arzu

Dear Saoshyant Nur-Azali

by Nousha Arzu on

You just may have my vote (without the ring kiss however ;-) as you almost always seem pleasant enough, and knowledgable. I specially like "Saoshyant." Long live Shah Saoshyant!

Good luck with your new calling!

Meanwhile...

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 


Darius Kadivar

To begin with there is no such thing as Parlimentary Monarchy...

by Darius Kadivar on

It's called Parlimentary Democracy which can equally be a Republic or a Monarchy. The British were the first to establish this form of democracy earlier than the French Revolution. The Magna Carta being just one of the earliest contributions to this democratisation of British political life.

Indeed misusing or interpreting the term "Parlimentary Monarchy" as opposed to the correct term "Parlimentary Democracy"  would mean that you vote for the King or Queen as you would vote for a President in a Republic. That is not the case in a Monarchy where the King or Queen have No specific Power or function other than representative. In otherwords they reign but do NOT Rule. THAT is the Job of the Elected Prime Minister who is chosen by the People in a similar way as if he were to run as President in a Republic. The Monarchical "institution" however can be subject to a Vote (in case of a Restoration for instance or simply when you wish to amend a new constitution even in a Republic) in order to either abolish it or restore it or even prolong it if the nation wishes to question it profoundly in case of an institutional crisis. 

So to make it short in the case of a Monarchy the most accurate term would simply be Constitutional Monarchy and not Parlimentary Monarchy.

Beyond the semantics your blog opens and interesting and necessary debate which proves that Reza Pahlavi and the possibility of a Restoration of the Monarchy in Iran is not so Irrelevant or utopic as many on this website used to claim. 

The Historical legacy of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 has resulted in the contradictions we see today of a Revolution and regime that claimed to have both the Moral and Popular legitimacy to dismantle and disregard the Monarchical institution as obsolete and unfair. Well the Iranian People have simply proven that this Regime which by nature is a Republic albeit a Theocratic one has no popular support nor legitimacy upon having shed the blood of its own people to maintain its survival ...

Nousha Arzu and ex programmer craig partly formulated the answer I was to give you so I won't repeat it .

But I will try and answer some of your legitimate interrogations regarding Reza Pahlavi's Role and the issues you raise in your interesting blog.

I would like to ask everyone to maintain a mature and respectful level of conversation be it for the sake of clarity and coherence.

Given that I have to be absent today I cannot develope my arguments right now but Will get back to this thread later on.

Thank you in advance Irandokht jaan, for giving me and others the possibility to answer to your interesting blog. 

Best,

DK

 


ex programmer craig

ID

by ex programmer craig on

What does that really mean? In a Parliamentary Monarchy, there is an
elected parliament and an elected president or prime minister like in
England (which they love to bring up as an example) so what's the
King's role? Is it a purely symbolic role for nostalgic reasons?

I think the best way to put it is that the Monarch plays the leadership role socially rather than politically, and also serves as kind of an unofficial chief diplomat on non-political issues. I'm sure you've seen how even in the US - where we've never had a king - Americans love the British Royal family. I wouldn't want to see it here - it wouldn't be a good fit for American society - but there does seem to be a substantial benefit to having a "royal" family that speaks for the society but is legally prohibted from exercising poilitical power.


Nur-i-Azal

Reza doesn't seem to be interested in

by Nur-i-Azal on

becoming Shah or re-establishing a monarchy for its own sake. It seems to be others who are insisting on his monarchy. That said, I also believe that a constitutional monarchy for Iran (with a re-re-revised version of the 1905 constitution) would be a very good long-term solution. A federal democratic Republic would be ideal only to the idealists. Guaranteed, if the mullahs fall tomorrow and Iran makes itself a secular federal democratic Republic, within less than ten years Iran will start fragmenting into ten different directions with all kinds of irredentist and separatist claims. You watch.

Since many don't like the Pahlavis, and as the Qajars are definitely out of the question, I would like to hereby nominate myself as the future monarch and Shahanshah of an Imperial Iran bearing the Royal Name Saoshyant Nur-Azali :)

Kiss my ring!