Parham

To Parham: you are wasting you time

Iran will never ever have true democracy (i.e. rule of law, respect for human rights, and FULL TRANSPARECNY of the government), not that people do not want it but because Western powers will do anything in their power to prevent it as long as Iran has the oil and gas that the greedy world is after and want to exploit.

It looks like mullahs are very much eager to play ball and establish relationship with the U.S. in order to secure their hold on power for eons to come, regardless of what Iranian people want or desire. I refer you to Rafsanjani response to Obama's overtures on today's Friday prayer sermon along with the enormous pressure on Obama by influential American oil company lobbyists to lift sanctions on Iran in this bad economy (read today's article in Christian Science Monitor)

Mullahs will compromise and play by the rules of the U.S. and Europe in exchange for their absolute silence and indifference towards Iran's human rights violations and stifling of dissent inside. I bet pretty soon we will not see any more references to Human rights abuses in Iran in any of the Western media. Human rights is not on American and European agenda any way vis-a vis Iran. Nukes, threats agaisnt Israel and then trade and commerce is what is on their mind. That's all!

Do you see any refreneces to human rights abuses in Libya, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt?

The big differnce is that mullahs will not make the Shah's mistake vis-a-vis big powers SIMPLY because they do not have any love for Iran so they will keep it in this mediocre, fully dependent, sub-standard status that America and Euorpe want, just to be able to rule and hold onto power for good and eternal absolute rule they will have.

Farah

I would suggest that you refrain from condescending and arrogant remarks. That is if your mannerism allows you to do so.

No one claims to be father of anything, so chill out and conduct yourself in a respectable and civilized manor.

one more thing, Who gave you the right to [TELL PEOPLE] what to think? You are only allowed to present your view in a civilized and logical manor.If not then you will be talked to your own way. Get it?

Dear lady, belligerence is first sign of ignorance. and if you do not like any ones comment, well don't read it.

Have a wonderful day

-YT

Dear Appalled

I'm actually appalled at the fact that there are people (like yourself, apparently) who think (or who would like to make others think) what is going on right now in the IR is democracy. This blog and that piece of news and its discussion are perhaps about you if you think about it a bit more deeply.

And I am in no way your friend, so please don't call me that. Nonono.

Dear "Parham",

Now you´ve got the answer to your question, and it took only 60 comments :)))   I wish you all best.

Dear "Ari Siletz",

Very interesting question, but no answer I believe to tell the absolute truth:

Democracy can only work, if the members of the society both participate themselves and respect others participations (views, opinions). So democracy needs an improved civilised and educated culture, not necessarily an economically developed society.

1) In 1978 almost 50% of the Iranians were illeterates. How could they learn to think independently?

2) Iranians love to blame others and circumstances for their sufferings, agree only with their arguments and are very impatient. How can this social culture create an environment of trust?

The one and only solution I see is to educate the people toward a respectful society, and I think this is going on quite well. As already mentioned Iran´s birthrate of 1.689 (2008) and infant mortality of 35.78 (2009 est.) are very good evidences that Iran is already a secular society (but still not the country).

It takes time, but this can be a lesson which in the long run brings a good result.

Dear Parham

I read the two comments you left on the Kazemzadeh news post:

//iranian.com/main/news/2009/03/25

My answer to your question in this blog is that Shah was talking about people like you when he said Iranian's couldn't take democracy. I find it ironic when people who have no intention of listening and learning ask others questions!

Your post was a sar-e-kaari post, my friend! People like you who think voting is a waste of time don't deserve a democracy.

Probably last set of replies unless there'll be more posts...

Farah Rusta - Watch not to trip as you get out the door, darling.

Maziar058 - So you know Baskerville? My, my. Anyway, as to your reply: Google it! Also, look up "stomach" in Merriam-Webster.

I see the discussion turned into mud-slinging in the end nevertheless. Oh well.

How democracy can be earned:

In reply to Mr Siletz question, and with apologies to capt-ayhab, otherwise known as the self appointed father of demcracy on Iranian.com, for contradicting his fully flawed and mixed up interpretation of democracy, not to mention the wrong dates and the cliche understanding of the Pahlavi era's governmental system, allow me to tell you how the Western nations earned their right to be governed by the demcratic institutions.

The answer is very simple but mighty difficult for us Iranians to believe in it or to put to practice; they did not put their ideological interests before their national interests. 

I know that this is not the kind of answer that would satisfy the pallets of capt_ayhabs of this world or Parhams, if you prefer. They need to enrich their ego with the pseudo intellectual discussions peppered with references ranging from MW dictionary to aristotelian quotes! The superficiality of certain Iranian-Americans is beyond farcical. Sorry Mineum71 but I can't help hiding my contempt for the ignoramous.

FR

GET THIS

Mr. Parham you keep going to 1905-1907 ;wasn't that the same year Rev. Baskerville (an American Priest) was killed in Tabriz ? [just curious].
the irony of it all is me and you sitting in the belad-e kofr and some of our hamvatans probably go to sleep EMPTY STOMACK capisce ? that's the question you should ask about not what a dead king said.
Iranian will rise again; doolathah miayand va miravand een mellat ast ke hamishe mimmanad .

Back...

Farah Rusta - Yes I do have an agenda actually, I'd like to overthrow the Shah again. Do you mind? :-)
And I guess it was the Belgians who created the entire concept of Velayate Faqih way back already... Baba pas Marg bar Belgium! One learns new things everyday!...
What else?
Oh, and how could the Shah "give" democracy: Step aside, hold free elections - and if you don't like the constitution of 1905, have another constituant assembly made up of people's representatives create another constitution, just because you and M. Adjudani don't like the original constitution. How's that??

capt_ahyab - I guess "Factual" gave you a reply before me, so...

My two euros - That sounded a lot like what Ali P. was saying earlier. So I'd just refer you to my answer to him, in case you wanted a reply from me specifically!

Parham,

I answer you one more time, if one does not know what democracy is, one is not able to offer that to anybody.

Now, if you believe that people travel to different countries or study for few years, they are DOONYA dideh and have learned something about democracy, then, personally I can’t dispute your logic!!!!

Mohammad Reza was 13 years old when his father (Reza Khan) sent him to Switzerland Le Rosey boarding school, """because he has to learn to become a KING, since he was born as non-royals""", he had to be around “Bozargaan “kids in order to learn how to act as an Bozorgzadeh, he was too busy to learn anything about democracy, Specially, when his father (Reza khan) advised him DO NOT trust anybody. Hookoomaat kardan tou sareshoon bekhooreh….but, He was a good Football player and Capitan, dough…

Factual

I am perfectly aware of the date, without getting technical can you tell me, how was it before rastakhize meli?

How much power did Majles[Shora] have? Wasn't true that most every post in government  was by appointment of shah only,  from Mayors to Governors etc etc etc?

can you tell me if it was a democracy? wasn't Sena[Senate] by appointment only?

-YT

To: Parham

I am following this blog with much enhusiasm, and I appreciate all the views expressed.

 You are doing a great job moderating it.

Thanks!

Ali P.

Ari Siletz

Your question, although very proper and to the subject is extremely broad and complex, however i shall try my best to summarize my answer.

First, Role of an organization such as military is important in more than one reasons:

1. Military is a tool by which the the security of the nation is ensured. 

2. Challenge is how to match the old traditional view of military with democratic values of a nation, and how big and powerful can military get before posing any danger to the core values of freedom and democracy.

One major concept is that military HAS to take orders and report to 100% none-military [civilian] government so it can be held on a complete check and balance.

There are trends in some countries that military has scaled down to a point that has taken the role of protecting the democratic values as opposed to protecting the country from outside forces. One example of this is in Sweden. In only 15 years, Sweden's military organization has gone through a massive restructuring, going from a large-scale defense force designed to protect the national territory to being small, flexible and focused on taking part in international operations.

This is not to say that every and all military forces can and shall go through the same restructuring. But the key is:

1. Military is under the full control of civilian government, which is elected by the people.

2. their role is in protection of the national territories and democratic values set forth by nation.

Second part of your question:[ Or to make the question available to a different mindset, what factors
set the price of individual freedom for the average "earner" of
democracy?]

Fundamentally I have some problem with the way you have structured your question. Democracy and freedom is an inherent and natural right of an individual, no matter how you look at it, whether being theoretically or ideologically.

Lets keep in mind that democracy, at times, must be TAKEN, or fought for and not given away[age bacheye khubi bashin, in case of shah]. The right to freedom is natural and not a gift from a let say tyrant.

With all that in mind, there are times in history of a every nation, that for the sake of nation as a whole, certain aspects of freedom must be limited, or given up[not taken away]. These represent extraordinary times, i.e. time of war. During these times for instance all the citizens give up certain aspect of freedom in order for military to function more properly, prime example is rationing during war times of various good and services.

Hope i answered your question properly.

Respectfully

-YT

MiNeum71

To Capt-Ayhab: u got the dates mixed

Women's right to vote was granted in 1963, Rastakhis party was established, abolishing all other parties in 1975!!!

In 1963, the Shah granted female suffrage and soon after women were elected to the Majlis (the parliament) and the upper house, and appointed as judges and ministers in the cabinet. In 1967 Iranian family law was also reformed to improve the position of women in Iranian society which was the most progressive family law in the Middle East. After granting some of these equal rights legislation in the 70s, all these gains were replaced when the revolutionary government came to power in 1979.

Iran's Parties, terminated:

People's Party. The Mardom, or People's, Party had evolved into a type of token opposition in the parliament. The shah had dissolved parliament in 1962, but appointed Asadollah Alam, the Mardom leader, prime minister. It was during Alam's term in office that the shah launched his "White Revolution" program of economic modernization and secular reform. The shah chose, however, to create a new government party, Iran Novin, to back his effort. In the elections of 1963, Mardom obtained 14 percent of the seats in the Majlis?a percentage it was allowed to retain in the 1967 and 1971 elections. When the shah announced before the 1975 elections that all parties should disband and form into one new one, the Mardom leaders dutifully obeyed, ending the party.

National Party. The Melliyun, or National, Party was the mate to the Mardom Party, both created with the shah's blessing in 1957. The Melliyun was given the role of the government party, but it lost that part following the abortive 1960 and 1961 elections. It certainly was dead by 1963, when it was assigned no seats to win in the election.

Communist Party. Once considered the best organized party in Iran, the Communist, or Tudeh, Party was virtually stamped out by the shah's police forces by 1963, and for practical purposes the party ceased to operate in Iran, its leaders being driven into exile (Yearbook on International Communist Affairs, 1978, p. 431). But the political disruptions of 1978 may give rise to a new Communist Party formed from the ashes of the Tudeh Party.

New Iran Party. The shah created the New Iran Party in 1963 to symbolize his White Revolution and mobilize popular support for his program. The party enjoyed huge majorities in parliament and was preparing for the 1975 elections when the shah abruptly announced that all existing parties would be replaced with a single party. The New Iran Party obediently folded in 1975.

National Resurgence Party. Established by imperial decree in 1975, the Resurgence Party (Rastakhiz) did as well as could be expected, winning all the seats in parliament. It should be noted, however, that the party slated multiple candidates, sometimes three or four, for the same seat, thus offering a measure of choice among the party-selected candidates. The National Resurgence Party ended with the shah's fall in early 1979.

Original Parties, Continuing:

National Front. The National Front presents a reason for being cautious when calling a party dead. Heir to the mantle of Mossadegh, the National Front was generally regarded along with the Communist Party as moribund in 1977 (Iran: A Country Study, 1978, p. 363). Its token representation in the Majlis in the 1960s came through the Pan Iranist Party (Iran Almanac, 1967, p. 201). But in the disturbances of 1978 and after the revolution in 1979, leaders of the National Front suddenly reappeared. Mehdi Barzagan, who headed an allied party, even was appointed prime minister by Ayatollah Khomeini, religious leader of the revolution.

//ezinearticles.com/?Women-Suffrage---A-Compa...

//www.janda.org/ICPP/ICPP1980/Book/PART2/7-Mi...

capt_ayhab

Non-democratic organizations are essential to any nation, democratic or not. An obvious example is the military. There is unanimous agreement among all nations that the military cannot perform its vital function if run as a democracy. A less obvious example is corporations. Decisions are made by a few, and information is tightly controlled. Democratic corporations would be devoured by non-democratic competition.

The question itself:

What survival (or efficiency) factors determine how much freedom a nation can afford to dispense to its citizens? Or to make the question available to a different mindset, what factors set the price of individual freedom for the average "earner" of democracy?

To Parham

I am not here to defend the late Shah but he was a product of his own era and time! was there any true democratic or semi-democratic government in any of Iran's neighboring countries back then? Even in now semi-democractic Turkey, there was military coup, one after the other back then.

Also remember Russia was the Soviet Union back then and quite ambitious in taking over and controlling the geostrategically important oil rich Iran. Believe it or not, they had a lot of underground operatives inside Iran, regardless of the fact that Savak had tracked down and eliminated a lot of their elements.

Besides, the Shah is not alive to speak for himself therefore, how do we know for sure that, what has been quoted and attributed to him, is the truth?

Iranians deserve a taste of true democracy now after more than 100 years since the Constitutional revolution and ABOVE ALL 30 years of theocratic dictatorship, which has pretty much made everybody, specially the educated class in Iran, politically involved and aware of their rights. Of course we shouldn't expect Iranians to suddenly behave like Swedes.

Parham

P/S

You said[ actually women in Iran had the right to vote BEFORE some European countries]

With all due respect sir, right to vote in a country which has ONE PARTY SYSTEM[Rastakhize Meli] is jack-sh!t to put it mildly. Of course same goes to IR.

Men even don't have the right, per se, to vote,  let alone women.

-YT

Dear "Ari Siletz",

The root of the European democracy was the Age of Enlightenment. It took many wars, but after the WWI the first democracies (including women's suffrage) were established.

As long as the people want their questions being answered by theocrats, monarchs, aristocrats or oligarchs and they don´t seek the truth by reason no secular society and therefore no democracy is possible.

Parham Jan

First and foremost, as I said in my first post, it is essential to DEFINE the democracy before any discussion can take place. As you see from the comments ladies and gentlemen have set forth, the discussion lakes one uniform definition of Democracy
Secondly, one can not model one countries form of government after another country due to major socio-economic differences. i.e. Federal form of government works just fine for US, but more than likely will fail in a country like Iran.

you asked:[capt_ahyab- So what about the constitutional revolution of 1905? Would you say the United Kingdom, Denmark or Belgium are dictatorships
then?]

To begin with, the definition is not [man dar avordi] and it was taken from Merriam Webster dictionary. But to answer your question, these countries that you mentioned, in fact are a loose VARIATION of democracy so to speak. 

United Kingdom, Denmark and Belgium, without having to go to extremes as you have done,  are defined as Constitutional Monarchy by definition, and their system of government if 100% different from a country like US or India, by virtue of the fact they are monarchy and not republic.

Monarch, historically been opposed to Democracy, case example are countries such as France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt, which totally abolished monarchy in order to achieve democracy[exception noted Russia & China]. In case of UK, Japan , it wasn't till after recently that unlimited power was taken away from the monarchs and gradually given to parliament. Although in case of UK there is an interesting point. Initially they had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure. But eventually these lost power or else became elective and remained powerful.

Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny or today autocracy/monarchy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity).

For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its
aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases.

Aristotle: Politics

//www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y6704.html

According to him:

[But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the
multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that
each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live
as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a
slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.]

Respectfully

-YT

Dear "Farah Rusta",

Neither I think that anyone said Shah had to give democracy to the Iranians nor I guess insulting people is necessary in our circle, although a favourite Iranian habit.

With regard to contents every of your words is true. But to me the question is not Had Shah to give democracy to Iran, the question is why didn´t he believe in democracy in Iran and didn´t provide the people with political education.

Besides: Irony is a good servant but a bad master. But writing sentences like Moreover, it is clear to me that you have a hidden agenda here: to conclude that the Shah was depriving the nation from their democratic rights is only paranoid and very Iranian ;).

Farah Rusta

Dear "Parham",

I wrote the same line few weeks ago. I haven´t been to Iran for 20+ years and really can´t say what people are thinking. In this case I´m talking about a qualified majority, this can be 1%, 10%, 50% or 90% - depends on the matter. 

Sociological and political studies assume either the will of the leading governance or the effort of politically active leaders and a qualified majority of at least 75% for a change to democracy.

Many different ethnic groups live in Iran, so only a pluralist democracy can work. But: Geo political considirations (oil in only one region), the basic Iranian communication culture (please read hossein.hosseini´s wonderful piece I’m Wrong, You’re Right, Alright?) and the Iranian - sorry for being frank - bullshit social culture are serious stumbling blocks.

I see the light at the end of the tunnel: Political culture is divided into social culture and construction culture. The social culture is daily life´s matter of courses in their entirety. The construction culture has two functions: it must thematize the social culture and it must create and develope new cultural matter of courses. And I think only the new women and the European Iranians can help changing the Iranian culture and society.

Democracy cannot be given, it must be earned.

Parham, 

It is evident that the original question has completely changed into a showing off exercise involving a number of posters flaunting their patchy knowledge of history in support of their understanding of democracy. I am sorry that I can’t put it to you in a less cruel manner but your suggestion that the constitutional movement of 1905-07 was, using your words, democracy is an example of the completely convoluted understanding of history. Is this your take on the subject or are you saying this based on a reference? The most controversial and critically acclaimed book that was published nearly ten years ago and has since been reprinted 6 times over with an ironically increasing readership among the inquisitive clergy in Qum is Mashruteh Irani and the foreground to the establishment of Velayate Faqih by M. Ajoudani. 

 The constitutional revolution of 1906 had nothing to do with the concept of democracy as is commonly known today. It was a power struggle between two groups of clergy and their related associates: those who wanted to have full control over the throne and those who wanted to curb the absolute powers of the throne and shift part of it to a clerically dominated Majles . If anything the team of the senior clergy who had to oversee the passing of the acts of the parliament had the final say over the law of the land. This is far from what is understood by democracy, unless you twist and turn it to fit into your desired mould. 

 Moreover, it is clear to me that you have a hidden agenda here: to conclude that the Shah was depriving the nation from their democratic rights. Well, the answer to your question, if I can call it a question, was given very shortly after the fall of the Shah. The same nation who was supposed to have been ready to exercise its democratic rights and the newly gained freedom, voted for the establishment of the despotic Islamic Republic of Iran!!!  The same women who were given the right to have their veil taken off (if necessary by force) some fifty years before, were covered under veil at same ease that they were uncovered five decades earlier. Do you know why? Because they had not earned the right to choose what to wear. And guess what? Among them was one so called champion of democracy: Shirin Ebadi.   It is also interesting to note that many posters here went ballistic when Geroge Bush decided to give democracy to the people of Afghnistan and Iraq but the same people insist that the Shah had to give demcracy to the people of Iran!Although the Shah’s reply to question that he was allegedly asked was as flawed as the question itself, he has been vindicated fully and truly.

FR

On another side-note...

MiNeum71 - I had to mention this, because I think this is a misconception that a lot of our compatriots believe in: You divide the crowd into the "civilized" (North to the limits of South Tehran and the Urban Educated as you call them) and "uncivilized" (South Tehran and Rural Uneducated, again according to what you've written below).

Actually, and strictly sociologically looking, my experience tells me that there are so many of those who wouldn't know the difference between democracy and not democracy in the crowd you label "civilized" and also so many who DO know the difference in the population you label as "uncivilized".

In fact, I've seen and heard idiocies (and you can tell this is not strictly sociological anymore!) from affluent, rich, or highly-educated (like medical doctors) Iranians that I've never heard from your basic village-dweller in the remote corners of Iran. Likewise, I've heard so much sense from the same crowd (the village-dwellers) that I've never heard from the other group! So I don't think the distribution is the way you imagine it to be on the map!

This said, I would LOVE to know how the distribution is nowadays...

Dear "Parham",

Women's suffrage exists in Switzerland since 1971, but Swiss women already had equal rights for many years. After the disturbance ´68 they also could put the bill through.

The right to vote is not a sign of feminism. There are many different feminism theories, but they all have one thing in common, as the result of change birth control acts as an indicator for real power.

Dictatorship costs much money (exercising control is expensive). Democracy is a low budget project but costs much involvement. Only when all members of a society is convinced, then they can change the system. That means the implementation needs the women as equal members.

MiNeum71

Just as a side-note, actually women in Iran had the right to vote BEFORE some European countries, like Switzerland... Okay, you could say they voted for nothing drastic, or only voted for what was put in front of them, nevertheless they had the right to vote before... Many people don't know this.

Crossing my fingers that they (and us) will have the right to vote in a REAL democratic process, and not in fake ones...

And

off course shah understood democracy and was an expert in it. Where is he know?

I discuss

I am not surprised at all if shah said;

Are you kidding? You would like me to give democracy to these people? You think these people can take a democracy?

In fact to be fair farah said similar comments maybe even worth. Non of them were grateful what Iran gave them. This is so typical of pahlavies. Shah had every chance to be still in Iran but he kicked the bucket.

One day, when there is no IRI, you will read a lot more of such comments. By no means shah and his cheap wife were decent enough to appreciate what Iran gave them.

And one more think, it was pahlavies who finished 2500 years of monarchy in Iran by losing to mulahs. LOL . DO HIS SUPPORTERS EVER REALISE THIS? King of the kings, bozorgh artesh daran !!!