I started on this in a different thread and was encouraged to start a new thread. Here are a few questions for the Monarchists to answer, if they decide to enter into a logical debate about the merits of each system of governance.
1- What powers will the King have?
a. If it is just a figure-head, a symbol, with no powers, why have a King at all? It is not like people have spare money to support a luxurious life for a whole family that does nothing but attend weddings and funerals.
b. What is the actual benefit to the people who would pay for the Royal family’s expenses?
c. What do you suppose the salary (and benefits of course) of the King should be? Will the people get to vote on it?
d. Can people individually opt out of paying for the Royal family’s expenses; you know like the US tax system where you chose to contribute a few bucs to the election fund? If not, why not?
2- If the King will have any powers whatsoever (including dismissal of the prime minister or the parliament), then does it not fly in the face of democracy to have a hereditary position have such powers?
3- Who will be the King, what will be the selection criteria?
a. Is it going to be RP? If so why?
b. If it is going to be RP, will Women have exactly the same rights as men in his kingdom? If so, why should it not be Shahnaz’s descendants rather than RP. You know, Shahnaz was Shah’s first born and if women have the same right as men, then the throne has to pass through her and her descendants.
c. Indeed is succession going to be hereditary? Can we not think of a better selection criteria than accident of nature, which is what hereditary succession is?
4- Why not make one of the Qajars the King?
a. In fact why not make one of the Zands the King. There are plenty of prince and princesses from both dynasties left.
b. What makes the Pahlavis any more legitimate heirs to the throne than the Qajars. Mossadegh was a Qajar. Why not pick one of his descendants.
c. Why do most of the monarchists call RP the King? See question 1.
5- Will the people get to elect their king? If so, then how is it different than a figure-head president (like Germany), except it will be for life and his successor is hereditary.
6- After all these questions, can you articulate exactly what benefits a monarchy will have over a republic? I mean in terms of actual, tangible benefit to the people.
a. Can you tell what are the disadvantages of a republic compared to a Monarchy, you know a pro and con list.
May be when some these questions are answered, in a logical manner, when someone articulates exactly why we should go back to Monarchy, perhaps then more people can take the Monarchists seriously.
1- What powers will the King have?
a. If it is just a figure-head, a symbol, with no powers, why have a King at all? It is not like people have spare money to support a luxurious life for a whole family that does nothing but attend weddings and funerals.
b. What is the actual benefit to the people who would pay for the Royal family’s expenses?
c. What do you suppose the salary (and benefits of course) of the King should be? Will the people get to vote on it?
d. Can people individually opt out of paying for the Royal family’s expenses; you know like the US tax system where you chose to contribute a few bucs to the election fund? If not, why not?
2- If the King will have any powers whatsoever (including dismissal of the prime minister or the parliament), then does it not fly in the face of democracy to have a hereditary position have such powers?
3- Who will be the King, what will be the selection criteria?
a. Is it going to be RP? If so why?
b. If it is going to be RP, will Women have exactly the same rights as men in his kingdom? If so, why should it not be Shahnaz’s descendants rather than RP. You know, Shahnaz was Shah’s first born and if women have the same right as men, then the throne has to pass through her and her descendants.
c. Indeed is succession going to be hereditary? Can we not think of a better selection criteria than accident of nature, which is what hereditary succession is?
4- Why not make one of the Qajars the King?
a. In fact why not make one of the Zands the King. There are plenty of prince and princesses from both dynasties left.
b. What makes the Pahlavis any more legitimate heirs to the throne than the Qajars. Mossadegh was a Qajar. Why not pick one of his descendants.
c. Why do most of the monarchists call RP the King? See question 1.
5- Will the people get to elect their king? If so, then how is it different than a figure-head president (like Germany), except it will be for life and his successor is hereditary.
6- After all these questions, can you articulate exactly what benefits a monarchy will have over a republic? I mean in terms of actual, tangible benefit to the people.
a. Can you tell what are the disadvantages of a republic compared to a Monarchy, you know a pro and con list.
May be when some these questions are answered, in a logical manner, when someone articulates exactly why we should go back to Monarchy, perhaps then more people can take the Monarchists seriously.