Some questions for monarchists

[Old-Faraz]

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.

 

[Iranpaak]

Good questions Dear Faraz; may I add two questions of my own:

Why a system that was tried, failed and rejected should be resurrected?

Both Pahlavis, at first started with little power, they gradually (thru various means) increased their powers and became tyrants, why would you think RP would not behave similar to father and grandfather?

 

[AMirza]

Faraz Jaan -
Good topic - let's have a civil debate and hope the dicussion is not side stepped by so called VIEWS such as Iranpaaks !! You see - right off the bat he concludes the Pahlavi era was a failure !! Do you agree with that ? If you do - then I don't think anything I write here is going to make slightest bit of sense to you. I realize that things could have been handeled better on many fronts - but can any sane Iranian call the Pahlavi era a failure ??? Not one who has any idea about the shape Iran was in when Reza Shah took over.

I have to attend a meeting now - but I will have a comprehensive response for you after lunch. For now I will leave you with 2 thoughts;

1- International policies generaly require 10-20 years to implement. If George Bush had not won the second term - regardless of right or wrong - all his efforts on foreign policies would have gone to waste - especialy since Kerry did not believe in majority of what Bush is doing. You may say: OK - what if Kerry is right and Bush is wrong ? To that I would say: Can you guarantee that there will never be a case where a wrong will replace a right ? especialy in international politics requiring long-term plans.

2- Historicaly - we have always had a problem with our politicians selling out. In fact that was the main reason Reza Shah (who initialy wanted to be a president), MRP, and even Mossadegh - acted like dictators - by over-riding and even cancelling the parliments (as Mossadegh did) which were full of sell-outs. If you have not seen the movie (Kif Ghemez) - I suggest you do - it's about how the British bribed and bought "majority" in Iran's Parliment.

 

[keyvan_pars]

monarchy is bullshit.

shah did not have what it took, his father however has balls the size of TAJ mahal.

he put the akhounds and their malijaks where they belonged,

ROTTING IN SOIL.

 

[beystr]

Old faraz jon,
I didn't see this thread and guess part of my reply is in a seperate thread,

It seems one of the biggest hang up people have on monarchies is their cost of maintenence, however if u have ever studied the system in America, or if u pay close attention to it, if u ever lived in D.C. u'd know that the cost of going from republican to democrat and the reverse each 4 or 8 yrs is enough to pay for a monarch's life time expense, and ingeneral having a king every 4 or 8 yrs (which is the way in U.S.A.) is a very ineffecient way of running a country. I'll reply to ur other questions later

 

[Iranpaak]

Why do I refer to Pahlavi era as a failure? I think the article written by Masoud Kazemzadeh Ph.D. (which I have summarized below) best describes the failure of Pahlavis, during their fifty years of tyrannical rule:

More than ninety years ago, Iranian people succeeded in winning a Constitution, in spite of its shortcomings, it had many progressive liberal ideas such as:

a) rule of people (hokumat mardom),
b)Freedom of Press (Azadi matbooat),
c) Freedom of Political Parties (Azadi ahzab),
d) Modernity (tajadod) and e) Separation of religion and politics (hokumat orfi)
These values and principals were supported by Azad mardani such as Dr. Mossadegh and Dehkhoda among others.

The problem that the Constitution had was that it gave political power to unelected person which in and itself is anti-institution. The Europeans succeeded in forcing a reduction in the real powers of the monarch through a long bloody struggle. A constitutional monarchy is democratic so long as the monarch has no real power, as soon as a monarch decides to use any power (Constitutional or extra-Constitutional), then the system is not democratic and longer, and the system plunges into crisis.

From the beginning, the despotic Kings such as Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar, Reza Shah Pahlavi, and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi continuously violated it. The 1906 Constitution was a document that democracy activists embraced, defended, and as a result were imprisoned, tortured and were eliminated by those Kings. The freely elected Majles and free press were obstacles to those Kings despotic rules. Reza Shah for example suspended the Constitution until he was removed by Allied Powers in 1941.

After the WWII, Dr. Mossadegh led the movement, his aims were, nationalization of Iranian oil, restoration of Iran’s sovereignty, implementation of the 1906 Constitution and the compelling of Mohammad Reza Shah to abide by the Constitution, he wanted the monarch to reign not rule.
We all know what happened next, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came back to power thru a coup d'état, smashed democracy, and destroyed all civil liberties. There were no free elections, no freedom of press, no freedom of political activities or parties.

I do not want to get into the financial corruption of the father, son and their extended families here. I have personally seen Savak in action, a friends of mine was imprisoned for six months for reading a banned book, I have seen students complaining about the dormitory’s food being put in prison.

If what the father and son did to the rule of law is not a failure, I don’t know what failure is.

 

[Oldman]

Ba dorood:

We need to look at some facts on what was the progress (if any) was accomplished during Pahlavi.

I will try to provide a summary of what was accomplished for Iran during Pahlavis. The following list is not to credit individual but what took place during a specific era.

Please do not take my post as I wish t o back to the exact condition during Pahlavi but I am for CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. I hope it is clear.

Iranian Gas/Oil Industry:

1-Nationalization of Iranian Oil (I know that Dr. Mosadeq is the man owever it ws accomplished during Pahlavi).
2-Construction of oil refineries in Abadan, Isfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz, Kermanshah with Abadan’s being the largest in the world.
3- Ten oil tankers were purchased so Iran would pocket more money.
4- Control of the natural gas in south and pipelining it to Europe via Russia.
5- Steel Mill in Isfahan was part of the gas pipeline to Europe.
6-The gas company of Iran being the youngest in the world was the most profitable and increased Iran’s income substantially.
7- increase of Iranian Oil income from 25000 to $22 Billion. The first most profitable company amongst the top 5000 most profitable companies in the world.

Iranian progress

1-In 1900, Iran leases out the Customs (not including Persian Gulf) to Russia for 2,500,000 Lira for 50 years. In 1911 Iran leases out Persian Gulf’s customs for 1,500,000 liras to England. In 1970, lends England $1,000,000,000 which is 500 times what she had received from them in 1911.
2-Iran owned ONE small vessel as her Navy fleet in 1920 while in 1977, Iran was the seventh strongest Navy in the world.
3-Iran had an income of 35,000,000 Rial in 1920 but she had an income of $34,000,000,000 in 1963 and $568,000,000,000 in 1977.
4-Iran was named the top ten economic power of the world.
5-Personal income of $74/year in 1963 increased to $2540/year in 1977.
6-There were 40,000 students in the entire country without any Universities in 1920. There were 400,000 students in the entire country in 1944. There were 10 million students and 18 universities/colleges.
7-Reza shah sent the first students abroad for education and there were 100 students. In 1977 there were 100,000 students studying abroad of which 18% had financial supports by the government.
8-The first electric company of Iran had a capacity of 10,000 Kilo Watts in 1940s (purchased from Belgium). In 1960s, it increased to 2,300,000 Kilo Watts. In 1977 it increased to 20 Billion Kilo Watts. For the future, the plans were to incorporate nuclear energy with the major one at Bushehr and 12 others around the country.
9-Our Boarders were safer when Iran could cover up to 500 kilometers into Russian territories via Radar.
10-Iranian agriculture was based on rainfall and Iran improved to have 13 major dams with capacities of 13 Billion Cubic water, which improved agriculture.

These are some of what I have gathered so far. I am sure there are tons of other improvements.

 

[Old-Faraz]

With all due respect, we can start a thread about accomplishments or failures of the Pahlavi era, and I would be happy to contribute.

However, I do not see why a discussion of the Pahlavi era should be a pre-requisite for answering/clarifying some fundamental and practical questions about the wisdom of going back to Monarchy.

I await some opinions on the the original list. If you want, please start a thread on the Pahlavi era. I promise to contribute.

And Dear Beystr:
Yes there is a cost to change administrations, but under a constitutional monarchy there may also be changes in the administration at every election, may be even more frequently if the system is like that of UK. Or are you advocating a absolute-monarchy where there is never a change in administration; i.e a dictatorship? Please clarify.

 

[Oldman]

Ba dorood:

Valid point Old Faraz.

I only saw the replies to head in that direction thus I though that it would be helpful to start with what was done.

I will reply to the original list by:

Going towards Constitutional Monarchy (CM) is not going back so right there we need to stop and see which is true. Do you agree?

To answer some of the repeated questions/points about CM like "if just a figurehead then we don't need MOFTKHOR (forgive me for stating it as such but that is LOOP E KAALAAM, right?!).

When you speak of CM then using Pahlavi era to say that CM was a failure is not accurate.

There are two different issues, one is the system we discuss which many democratic system exercise it and the other is our own history of it (only 2.5 years of CM during Dr. Mosadeq was exercised).

Would you please start by addressing WHY YOU SAY THAT GOING TO WARD A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY IS A BACKWARD STEP?

Do I need to remind you that three out of top five most democratic system in the world were exercising CM (stats from 2004)?!

 

[Old-Faraz]

Ba dorood:
Would you please start by addressing WHY YOU SAY THAT GOING TO WARD A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY IS A BACKWARD STEP?

Well, the Pahlavi regime was nominally a CM, so adopting a CM is nominally going back to a system which we were supposed to have. I agree that in reality it was not a CM.

But feel free to call it going forwards to backwards. I await some explanation on why we should adopt the system and answers to some of my original questions.

 

[Iranpaak]

Dear Old-Faraz, Our recent history since the Enghalb e Mashroote is deeply influenced, impacted and is so intertwined with Pahlavi’ dynasty that one cannot discuss Mashrouteh Saltanti records in Iran without reviewing the performance of the Pahlavis during their more than fifty years of Saltanat. The pros and cons of Monarchy in Iran cannot be discussed in vacuum without a point of reference, and that point of reference cannot be the European model of Monarcy but the Iranian model that we all experienced.
We had a good Constitution, which was not respected and ignored by the Shahs from the date it was signed, why do Saltanat talaban think that history will not be repeated?

 

[Oldman]

Ba dorood:

You did not fully answer my question and I disagree to say that what was exercised during pahlavi was anything (even nominaly) close to CM.

With the exception of Dr. Mosaedq's 2.5 years in office, we cannot and SHOULD not consider what was exercised anything close to CM.

The main difference is when King has the power to close Majlis!!!

Base of CM is majlis thus with change of this law (rather amendingthe constitution with such power for king), it is nothing close to CM.

I tried to answer your questins by providing the fact about CM to be very democratic so why not?

It should be clear as it works better since many use it.

How many of the countries in Europe do exercise such system. Please note that Europe is cradel of modern democracy.

If it is not democratic with all the questions/points that you have raised then I wonder if the cradel of democracy in Europe do recognize this poinT?!!

Am I clear as your questions are not really to be answere one by one as you have listed them since there are live examples to see your (stombling) points are not that important when there is accountability.

 

[Saeedb]

In a democratic system you are allowed to remove your president if you are not satisfied with his efforts. You have a free media which could freely critisize if say there is curroption in shahrebani’s.The president is therefore dependent on peopl’s vote and If media agrue he has not done what he has to he will be removed. In a monarchy specially of shah’s type there will not be freedom of press, shah will apoint his priminister himself, Member of parliamant will be filterd excactly like today. RP says he is not like his father. But Khomeini also promised he would not be
The chief of Iran! It is up to you if you want to believe in that. Just rember once RP seats on his
Chair he will be dificult to remove.
Why do you think people did this revelution? 1- Shah decided every thing 2- curroption. People thought Islam is the answer. That was a stupid mistake. I know but if people raised against Shah
They will raise against RP too. If Bush really want democracy in Iran he will press RP too. Then
The difference is that googosh will be able to sing on TV Wemen can go without chador otherwise everything is the same as IRI. I say Federal republic for Iran.

 

[Oldman]

Ba dorood:

Seedb, no you are wrong to say that King will appoint PM as it is not so under CM. Majlis elects the PM and in fact it can be done differently as people could camping for PM position.

King under a CM system is held accountable through Majlis.

I suggest that you pay attention to the issues rather than personalities like Mr. Pahlavi.

Have you heard him saying, "I want an environment for Iran that Iranians can FREELY vote AGAINST ME".

Is that wrong?

You see, the environment for Iran of tomorrow is an environment that press has to be free, Majlis has to be completely elected by people, and above all, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HEAD must be elected by people as oppose to what they do in USA, president recommends it (personal preference).

Now, if you like the republic system just because you can replace ONE MAN (president) when she/he is not doing his/her job, aren't you looking for ONE GOOD MAN?!!

Can you tell me if we find such good man, then we won't change the laws to keep him in office for life?!! Don't say no as we know that is a possibility.

Would you then consider that republic as a democratic one?!!

You see, in any system, we must have the administrators accountable and the only way to do so is through our CONSTITUTION.

So long as we have a democratic constitution then we can enjoy liberty.

 

[Old-Faraz]

So, I will go back to my original questions:
What are the powers of the king?
If he has no power, what is his use? Advantage of having one vs republic?
If he has any real-power whatsoever, does it not fly in the face of democracy to have that power inherited? i.e passed on based on a game of chance (which is what hereditary succession is).
And other questions.....
With all due respect, I am trying to keep the discussion focused and not let it become sidelined by auxiliary issues. Again, I will be more than heppy to contribute to any other threads on other issues.

 

[Saeedb]

Oldman wrote:
"Seedb, no you are wrong to say that King will appoint PM as it is not so under CM. Majlis elects the PM and in fact it can be done differently as people could camping for PM position."
You got that wrong if we are talking Shah's system. He appointed Sharif emami, Azhari, Bakhtiar, ...Howeida .. himself. Bakhtiar was not even MP
before he got it.
Oldman wrote:
"I suggest that you pay attention to the issues rather than personalities like Mr. Pahlavi.

Have you heard him saying, "I want an environment for Iran that Iranians can FREELY vote AGAINST ME".
"
That's what I say. Before the revelution Khomeini claimed he will not be the chief of the country. He did. It is up to you if you want to believe in it Remember it can be too late. About the rest I have to say at different time
a country need diferent leader with different talent.
When Shah was asked why he did not want a system like England he said
Why should Iran be like England? What is good about England? This is RP's Father we are talking about.

 

[Saeedb]

Old- Faraz,
Nothing!

 

[AMirza]

OK - I am back

I was quiet surprised to see Faraz not commenting on my 2 points !! I will take it as a POINTS NOTED. But I do appreciate his silence on the issue instead of struggling to argue.

To me - A monarch is a person (or a committe as I suggested before), the nation puts in a castle and gives him/her/them a great life and security - just to make sure he/she will never compromise national interest over personal interest. This will also assure the monarch will not sell-out to outsiders. Also, as you can see in today's republics - because of the systems are set-up - all politicians are out to plaese the qualified voters - with no regards for future generations. Another words - those who spend will be loved and supported - and those who preserve will be quickly voted out of the office. In today's world - the only heads of nation who think for the interests of future generations are the monarchs.

As Beystr said - continuity is also important. Let me give you an example. Right here in America - in a decade or so a ton of money was alocated to educate the young in the fight against the tobaco industry. Remember the "This is your mind on drugs ads" ? What happened to that whole campaign ? It just went away - why ? a pro tobaco politician replaced an anti tobaco politician. This happens in every sector of a republic - not many long term policies are sustained - and many of these long term plans are not sustained - only with changes of a few congress seats. Seats that can be influenced with a few hundred thousands of campaign funds.

What should the powers of a monarch be ? That is totaly up to us to decide. Most advanced monarchies give the monarch only the rights to "Veto", actions of the judicial system as well as the government. In cases of such veto - the monarch shall not provide guidelines. He/She shall only form a commiittee to further disect the issue. What is important to establish is in fact a strong parliment which would not be influenced - wether we go with a monarchy or a republic. A parliment in which members will vote based on their concience and what they think is right. Not like the joke we have in Iran, and not even what Congress does in America. Here in America very few politicians cross the bi-partisan lines. Another words - on every issue just about all republicans or democrats, vote based on their respective party positions.

Does RP have to be the next Monarch ? I do not know. There are many aspects about him I like and several I find as weakness.

As if a monarch can be a female - I would say indeed - we just have to figure out something for the times she is PMSing !! joke

 

[beystr]

I absolutely meant Mashroote king

Amirza already said a lot of what I was gonna say ..and yes the king or queen will be basically a do gooder and symbole if u believe having a good symbole is worth alot.and will undoubtedly enhance the tourist attraction in a country like ours. I'll anwer ur other questions later...a lot of what u asked can discussed in the majles elected by people.

 

[tabrizi]

Well, the Pahlavi regime was nominally a CM, so adopting a CM is nominally going back to a system which we were supposed to have. I agree that in reality it was not a CM.

But feel free to call it going forwards to backwards. I await some explanation on why we should adopt the system and answers to some of my original questions.

Mohammad reza shahanshah aryamehr was a patriotic person and he loved Iran until his last breath and those who believed in him know what he had done to Iran that is namely destroyed in the last 26 years thanks to khatami and amsaalohom but

His government was not a CM at all and if any one thinks it was ,is deeply wrong.

I will answer your certain questions on my behalf as well to night when I come back .