Some questions for monarchists

[Old-Faraz]

Thank you oldman for somewhat of a reply. If Norway and Denmark, etc are examples as potential models fine. Then my conclusion is, there is no committee; succession is hereditary; the King/Queen will have some powers; these powers will be transferred to his heir (almost always first born).

Now it is fine to argue that this is a good model for government, one may agree or disagree. But, you have to admit that any time you have hereditary powers, you cannot have a truely democtratic system, since some people (e.g. the king) will have power and he has not been elected. Is this not true???????

If you feel like to answer the question regarding YOUR opinion on whether or not RP has any legitimate claims to the throne, feel free to do so. I was unable to pry an answer out of Amirza and other participant only repeat tired old slogans.

I would also like to know what advantages a system like Denmark has over a system like Finland? Please elaborate. I just told you the disadvantge (not truely democratic), now you tell me the advantage. { as an aside do you agree that Monarchies in Iran have been closer to the Saudi model than the Danish model????}

Also please feel free to discuss how we will go about picking the first Monarch. Will it be an election? Who can participate as a candidate for the monarchy? Can I be the King? Will I need some Royal blood? How much will do? Is it 1/16, 2/16, 1/2 needed or should I be full-blooded? Which Royal blood counts, does it have to be Pahlavi blood or will Qajari relatives be able to be stand for the election to be the Monarch? These questions are not sarcastic, I am just trying to point out that instituting a monarchy is not feasible in a democratic system. Again you may argue that Monarchy is better that a democratic system, but I have not heard that argument yet.

 

[Oldman]

Ba dorood:

Old Faraz, sorry for late reply but much is going on these days.

Thank you oldman for somewhat of a reply. If Norway and Denmark, etc are examples as potential models fine. Then my conclusion is, there is no committee; succession is hereditary; the King/Queen will have some powers; these powers will be transferred to his heir (almost always first born).

Well, it is the constitution of Mashrootiat does call for the first born son to be the crown prince. There are exceptions if the monarch has no son then he may nominate his brother or anyone (really) however Majlis MUST approve.

So, it is not just being born into a Monarch family as first son that makes one the next king but Majlis does.

Even if the crown prince is approved as a crown prince,STILL it is not over as Mjlis has the final say and MUST approve.

So, if the constitution is as such that Majlis Members are TRULY elected by people then Majlis, people’s representatives, HAVE THE FINAL SAY.

Now it is fine to argue that this is a good model for government, one may agree or disagree. But, you have to admit that any time you have hereditary powers, you cannot have a truely democtratic system, since some people (e.g. the king) will have power and he has not been elected. Is this not true???????

I am afraid you are not quite correct here. First, it is the constitution that has to be democratic and not A PERSON. I think that you are ONLY considering Monarch as the sole power thus it is not democratic. Well, if the person is democratic or not is not the question but ARE THE LAWS DEMOCRATIC?

Second, as I explained above the appointment of Monarch is TOTALLY in hands of Majlis so it is not ONE MAN SHOW. And, in fact, Majlis can and has the power to dismiss any monarch.

If you feel like to answer the question regarding YOUR opinion on whether or not RP has any legitimate claims to the throne, feel free to do so. I was unable to pry an answer out of Amirza and other participant only repeat tired old slogans.

In my personal opinion, Mr. Pahlavi is legitimate to ask for the throne however as I explained above Majlis MUST approve him.

I think that our Majlis would be questioning him if and when the situation exist (people have voted for CM).

I would also like to know what advantages a system like Denmark has over a system like Finland? Please elaborate. I just told you the disadvantge (not truely democratic), now you tell me the advantage. { as an aside do you agree that Monarchies in Iran have been closer to the Saudi model than the Danish model????}

First, as I explained above it is the constitution that has to be democratic.

Second, I am not sure if I can say either one is better than the other as both are recognized as most democratic nations (government & constitution).

I agree that our Monarchy system has not been democratic by any means but to say it is close to KSA, I am afraid, I can not accept it.

At least we had the name of Mashrootiat which meant to have parliament but KSA!!!!

Also please feel free to discuss how we will go about picking the first Monarch. Will it be an election? Who can participate as a candidate for the monarchy? Can I be the King? Will I need some Royal blood? How much will do? Is it 1/16, 2/16, 1/2 needed or should I be full-blooded? Which Royal blood counts, does it have to be Pahlavi blood or will Qajari relatives be able to be stand for the election to be the Monarch?

Yes, anyone could be elected by MAJLIS (not population election) and it does not require royal blood.

These questions are not sarcastic, I am just trying to point out that instituting a monarchy is not feasible in a democratic system. Again you may argue that Monarchy is better that a democratic system, but I have not heard that argument yet.

Well, you keep repeating that Constitutional Monarchy as a system can not be democratic but I gave you examples from around the world as you are WRONG.

Please do not word your point as CM system vs. democratic system (which could have many types of government according to the nation’s desire) to say that CM is not democratic. YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG.

In conclusion, a constitutional Monarchy or a republic system is not the problem for having a democratic system but it is the CONSTITUTION.

That is why you read these days that a referendum on new constitution that is secular and respects human rights while protecting our land MUST BE devised.

Once a democratic constitution is devised then based on its laws, people can have a vote on what type of government they wish to run the constitution.

So, it is not the type of government that makes a system democratic or not but its constitution is.

Hope that I have done better than “SOMEWHAT” reply you called my previous reply.