These are the comments of the members of the bulletin board
of Jebh Melli on Mr. Pahlavi's letters.
I received the following email from
a reader of this bb who did not want to be identified. But I thought it is worth
sharing and I hope I am not violating his/her trust.
My very precious and valued friend Dr. Sina,
I thought that I write you this note and tell you how much I enjoy reading the
post, “The King and I”. I have several observations. Let me start, however,
with a self-evident disclaimer. I am not involved in partisan politics. I am
neither a monarchist, nor a republican. I am an Iranian who is wholeheartedly in
support of any system of government that serves the well-being and interest of
all Iranians. That government, in my view, must be a 100% a democratic form of
government. Now, the observations:
1. I think that in your what seems to be innate kindness, you give a great deal
of credit to Mr. Pahlavi. You call him charming, intelligent and so forth.
Again, you just can’t help being kind to all, whether we deserve it or not.
2. I see a number of problems in this debate. I am not going to go line by line
and word by word and point them out as I see them, simply because it might drag
me into partisan politics and might give the impression that I am in favor one
faction and opposed to another. I would like to point out at only a couple of
points.
In his latest response to you, Mr. Pahlavi writes, “There has been enough talk
and debate”. That is interesting. My understanding of “democracy” is that
it is an ongoing debate that will never reach the point of being “enough”.
Anyone who takes it upon himself/herself to declare that debate must cease can
hardly be a committed democrat.
Furthermore, in his unity message of a few weeks ago, he writes, “I intend to
have a dialogue with each and every one of you”. Then, in response to you he
writes, “I have a job to do, and will not waist my time in ideological or
academic debate”. Aren’t these statements internally inconsistent? I was
always under the impression that debate to democracy is air -- without it
democracy will suffocate. Also, he doesn’t say what is the job that he has got
to devote himself to.
This person also writes poorly, both in form and content. Errors of form can be
overlooked to some extent. After all, English is not our native tongue. His
writing is full of spelling and grammatical errors as well as incorrect use of
words. He writes, for example, “waist”, instead of “waste” in the
preceding quote.
Surely we all are guilty of some errors of inconsistency and even flaws of
composition. But, if I were a contender to the peacock throne, or any throne, I
would be a great deal more careful in what I say and how I say it. In this day
and age of record keeping, what we say today may come back and haunt us
tomorrow.
Incidentally, if we are ever going to have a king/queen, I would much rather
that the royal be a person of unwavering integrity with unconditional commitment
to high human values, than an individual of great charm or superior mind.
Charisma is not always the best thing to have at the top. And as for a great
mind, we do better using the collective wisdom and knowledge of the citizenry
than the genius of one person, no matter how great it may be.
As for you, “keep on trucking”, as the not so “academic” saying goes. I
don’t see you as just an idle talker. You are doing more than your share of
pulling the table. You are doing so with the acute awareness of where the table
is headed. You want it to end up on a level ground where all members of our
Iranian family can have a seat with equal rights and responsibilities.
My very best comes your way,
The same reader wrote again
My dear friend Dr. Sina,
Earlier today, I sent you an email with some observations about the wonderful
thread, “The King and I” that you have started on the Jebhe Melli Board. A
friend and myself took some time and re-read your dialogue with Mr. Pahlavi and
we came up with some observations. The friend suggested that we share them with
you in the hope that you, with your keen and impartial mind, can see some of the
fallacies of Mr. Pahlavi’s reasoning. Please feel free to use any or all of
the present comments, in any future dialogue with him. If you decide, you can
correctly say that some readers have supplied you with these reactions, or use
them as you see fit. Neither my friend nor I are interested in receiving
personal credits/discredits for what we have come up with. We just wish to
remain anonymous. Our only aim is to assist your valiant efforts at clarifying
things for everyone.
With our best wishes,
Mr. Pahlavi writes, “You raised some interesting points. If you, as one
thinker, believes that today's youth ought not be held accountable for the
doings of their parents, then I hope that those who would agree with you would
treat other members of the same generation with the same standard. In other
words, I deserve the same treatment by my father's most passionate opponents;
unless of course, some of the "doctors" who sign their names in these
debate forums, actually believe that I have inherited the political
circumstances and policies of my predecessor genetically...”
It has been said: [al valado serreh abehoo] -- the son is the mirror of his
father. Or, “like father, like son”. Believe it or not, there is a great
deal of truth to these common sense sayings. An entire field of GENETIC
PSYCHOLOGY, an interdisciplinary field of genetics and psychology, has a great
many empirical studies that show that indeed many human traits, both positive
and negative, are heavily heritable. This concern aside, why is it that this
person bases his claim to the throne on his linkage with his father, but he
wants people to overlook the rest of his connections with him that don’t help
his cause?
Mr. Pahlavi writes, “... monarchs don't grow on trees or crowl out from under
a rock.”
He could’ve fooled us. Many “monarchs” seemed to have crawled out
precisely from under a rock, judging from their worm-like behavior.
He goes on, “The truth is that most of our "intellectuals" have
remained absent for the scene, mostly because of no serious commitment to the
common goal, and because of some emotional nostalgia about their past agendas
and ideological frame of mind.”
Wow! What a repugnant piece of rubbish the statement is. What data, if any, that
his excellency is supplying to support this claim, other than his own “royal
divining?” Does he see himself as [zellullah] -- shadow of God, like his
predecessors?
He goes on, “You want guarantees, get involved yourself. Grab a piece of this
table, and help the rest of us lift it. There has been enough talk and debate.
It is high time that these valiant thinkers actually do something about what is
going on.”
What heavy lifting he is doing! He must tell us about the "rest of us"
so we can all write to them and offer our eternal gratitude for laboring for so
long for the rest of us -- the talkers, the loafers and the shirkers. You
already have my reaction to the “table” thing and I need not repeat it.
He further writes, “I am asking them to accept the message, regardless of who
the messenger is.”
This statement sounds very insincere and the motive is too transparent.
Oftentimes, the medium is the message. In this case, the messenger is hardly an
impartial deliveryman. He can be sweet:-)).
Then, he admonishes, “It is up to them to either lead, follow, or get out of
the way.”
Wow, again! This man is really a first-rate mind! Anyone who regurgitates a
banal political slogan like the above is not a very educated or smart man. He
doesn’t even have the decency of saying that the phrase is not his. Does he
intentionally wishes the readers to assume that he, with his not so bright mind,
has come up with it? He must have the same level of intelligence as his father
-- not very bright, we are afraid.
Now, he is getting really hot under the collar, “I have a job to do, and will
not waist my time in some ideological or academic debate.”
The above statement is the real clincher. What is it exactly that his royal
highness has to do that demands his time and talents? Would he mind telling his
to-be-subjects? Or is it that it is none of our business; that we should just do
what he says? Too many people thinking and asking questions is a waste of time.
He will do the thinking for all of us. That’s what real kings are for and he
wants to be a real king. Just like his father and grandfather?
Most importantly, he reduces this vital debate about the future of Iran to an
“academic debate.” Does he really know what “academic debate” stands
for?
Any debate or issue that is called “academic”, is a different way of calling
it “moot”, “pointless”, “irrelevant”, or “worthless”. He either
knew the connotation of it or he is ignorant of it. In the case of the former,
he is showing his true color without realizing it. In the latter case, he is
displaying his ignorance. In either case, he is not even a worthy opponent to
debate with.
=======
An aside.
In this same dialogue with Mr. Pahalavi, you allude to the fact that some people
who had known and admired your father treat you with the same respect and
affection that they afforded him. You seem to imply that these people’s
treatment of you is a form of what I call “social inheritance”. It is partly
that. Yet, it is, I submit, partly due to the fact that these folks see in you
many of the same admirable qualities that they had observed in your father.
Qualities that made them love and respect him. You, for your part, may not be
even aware that you are displaying the same endearing qualities. To you, they
are almost reflexive responses. Parts and parcels of what Genetic Psychologist
contend to be heritable dispositions that have evolved and become embedded in
you.
The converse process is also true. I do admire you without even having met you.
If I were to meet your father or your mother, my tendency would be to treat them
with similar love and respect, partly due to the esteem I hold for you and
partly for observing the same sterling qualities in them.
P.S. I thought that you might like my “psychoanalysis” :))) No invoices will
be sent your way. This is only in appreciation of the fine work that you do for
all of us.
The following are some of the
comments of other members of the boards and their unanswered questions from Mr.
Pahlavi.
Dear Mr. Pahlavi:
I believe there will be some form of civil war and lots of bloodshed in the
future. Unfortunately I do not think there is any strong enough political party
or organization which is capable to prevent this from happening. I personally
find myself closest to Jebhe Melli and trust them the most. But even INF is not
in any position to prevent the bloodshed. I do believe that in order for this
transition to take place with a minimum killing, there should be some kind of an
international effort in order to facilitate this transition.
The best example is the role of the United States in the Peace negotiations of
Palestinians and the Israelis. I think limited involvement of a powerful force
as a referee or a broker might be necessary. I am suggesting this only because
there seems to be so much hate and hostility in our culture. There is so much
revenge mentality in our society that I don’t think any body is capable to
prevent the future bloodshed. So the presence of a major power only for
facilitation of a smooth transition of power is needed very much.
My question is how do you think your role in orchestrating such a brokerage of a
major power like US would play into this situation. How this partnership and
collaborative efforts would be implemented?
Sepass
David
My Nobel Friend Dear Dr. Sina:
Thank you very much for posting this valuable message in here. I think it would
be a great idea if Mr. Pahlavi participates in our dialogue. I think we all can
learn a lot from him. I have some questions myself. If he decided not to come to
this BB, is it possible for you to send my questions to him and ask him to
respond. I will appreciate it.
Dear Mr. Pahlavi:
1. As you probably know that the political trend in the form of the government
in the world has been reduction in the number of Monarchy systems and an
increase in the number of Republicanism. What makes you believe that this
pattern would not or should not apply to Iran?
2. The Iranian political spectrum just like any other country consists of wide
range of political groups and organizations. How are you going to propose a
political platform, which would be appealing to the groups in the far left to
all the way parties at the far right of this political spectrum?
3. Usually when a country goes through a revolution, the biggest damage on the
society is psychological and the cornerstone of that is the LACK of TRUST on any
group. What steps have you taken or are you going to take in order to earn this
trust. What confidence-building steps are you offering to our people in order to
restore the TRUST.
4. Is it your intentions to play a figure head role or is it your plan to assume
some or all executive power?
5. I personally don’t believe in casting aside any individual in order to be
groomed for a specific purpose. I believe we should compete with our opponents
in a leveled field. The outcome of this competition should be the source of the
legitimacy for the executive power. So how are you going to convince these
groups of people to subscribe to your view and the method of governing?
6. The biggest asset that you have is your name and your own young age of
innocence. However the amount of influence that your family might have on you
could very well put you in a disadvantage. How are you going to prevent their
influence on you?
7. You are still being overshadowed by the image that has been projected of your
father Mr. Mohamed Reza Pahlavi. How are you going to prove to the whole
Iranians in general and the opposition in particular that “you are your own
man”? How are you going to establish the distinction between yourself and your
father?
8. What prompted you to make your public plea for UNITY at this stage of the
movement and not earlier or later? What has change at this stage that you think
it necessitates the Unity of all of us?
9. How far are you willing to go in order to accomplish your objectives?
10. What is the next step for you to take in order to materialize this unity?
11. Do you have a step by step plan, which you are willing to share with us
regarding the direction you would be taking in the future?
Ba Sepass-e Faravan
Payandeh Iran
David
Dear Reza Pahlavi,
As our friend afreethinker has mentioned above, your best bet is to forego the
claims to the throne and to join the forces of democracy. You do not have a
chance as a future king (or monarch) of Iran. Let's say that there is a
referendum and you actually win some votes (which I don't rule out). Does a 1 or
2 percent vote give you any pleasure or satisfaction? Please show some maturity.
Please show our people that you are sensible (and sensitive) enough to
understand their many reasons for removing your father, and making themselves
prey to a religious monarchy instead. This was not out of thoughtful research,
but sheer desparation.
Your claim to a bygone "throne" at this time comes across as really
preposterous. I must say it is also extremely self-serving of you to claim that
you can be a wanted "symbol" of unity for our people. Doesn't your
stomach turn when you see a royal family parade of the British or any other
nation? What good and of what use is a "symbol" or a shadow of a
person who has no power, no influence, and no will? "in Adamake pooshali be
che dard mikhore? oon takhto taaj che arzeshi dare?" The Iranian people
don't need any such symbol. They have shown enough maturity to denounce phony
humans who wear regal atire and pose in front of wall-sized mirrors in the
isolation of their palaces. Whose dinner parties are held over the pain and
hunger of people who are devoid of the basic necessities. Indeed, some people
still think of you as an uncorrupted person who has the sincere interest of his
countrymen at heart. Please do not ruin your image by advocating monarchy.
Or else you must be misrepresenting the truth when you say that you want to be a
symbol alone. We the Iranian people know all too well that the
"constitution" will soon turn into a play tool in the hands of a
monarch. It has happened in the past and it could happen again. That's why we
need a system which guarantees and safeguards that this would not happen.
In my opinion, the people of Iran have outgrown the system of monarchy. This is
a great honor and advantage, and it puts us ahead of nations such as Great
Britian in that respect, where the glory and glamour of a "symbolic"
Royal family still appeals to the hearts and minds of the general public.
In conclusion, I hope you would take the well-meant advice of your compatriots
to heart. Give it up, or the Iranian people will treat you as one with the rest
of the forgotten (but not forgiven) "royal" crew.
User Unknown
I asked my above questions that I posted in here from Mr.
Pahlavi and this is what he responded to me.
Mr. Pahlavi's response:
It is impossible for me to answer at length to these and so many
other questions asked by others. I think we can cover much more by
means of actual meetings and discussions. I hope this situation will
become possible down the line.
Reards,
R.P.
www.rezapahlavi.org
David
I think that RP has shown his cards quite clearly. There
does not seem to be any passion in what he says. Basically he says that here is
an institution called monarchy. I do not particulary ask you to join it, but if
people want, it could be used as a rallying point. If people rally and get rid
of the mullahs, then I'll accept the role of a constitutional monarch.
This is indeed laughable and regretable. Is like saying that I have a god given
right. To replace the mullahs with such a system is no progress. What he says in
fact keeps the mullahs happy.
I do not believe that with this attitude he would find any acceptance in Iran.
he said in his interview some years back that when the war with Iraq started, he
wanted to go back and be a fighter pilot. Well then RP why don't you come down
your throne now and join the people in thier fight against the mullahs. Only
then can you find acceptance amongst people, who knows they might even vote you
in as their president.
If you leave it to the people to fight it out, well then they'll choose whoever
they want, and leave the outmoded form of constitutional monachy for the pages
of history.
Tavana
Mr. Reza Pahlavi,
I am driven by more than polite custom to thank you for your 'indirect'
participation on this board.
Alas, as the poster responsible for, and perhaps justified in, reciting some
less than savory records of your predecessor in proportionately angry tones (!),
I feel obliged to reitterate a number of clarifications.
Sir, as far as I am aware, no sane person could ever hold any other person
responsible for crimes or misdeeds of a third person. Neither I, nor any other
poster here have ever done that.
It is however, equally true that by nature all human beings are sensetive. With
reference to our last monarch, no amount of logic or reason could make the
experience any less painful for one who has to hear and read so much that there
is to hear and read about.
On that front, and not widthstanding your political stance in these historical
times, I would like to express my most sincere sympathy to you as a person,
while congradulating you on your notable personal resilience and commitment.
With reference to the dangers of monarchy in Iran, my fears are based on a very
legitimate idea which advocates learning from history.
This concern is particularly more relevant, when all the negative (yet
overwhelmingly powerful) factors, that played a role in forcefully transforming
a young insecure shah into a most feared dictator, are still there, alive, and
as active as ever before.
I do share the view that were you to discard one overriding pre-concieved, but
highly questionable claim (to throne), then your ture contribution (to
unification for democracy) would be elevated to the level of historical
uniqueness in consequence.
Having said that, I am already taken by surprise by your personal strength in
carrying so much past that wasn't even your own doing. It may be well above
wishful thinking for me to assume you could, or would, be able to carry that
strength to an absolute ultimate expression of sincerity and service.
I recall once in Iran I was watching two boys aged no more than 6 or so each.
They were standing by the side of a waste-water channel, contemplating a heroic
jump!
The channel was too wide for their small legs, and they concluded it wasn't for
them. One told the other: "only big boys can jump this one".
There was a brief pause, then the second child replied: "No one can jump
this one, only shah can do that"!!
On my honor this is a true story of some 30+ years ago.
The extend of repression was such that even a "non involved" 6 year
old was not immune from its psychological effects.
Whilst we may wish to believe we have changed and improved, the reality remains
that your good person, does not see fit to engage in direct exchanges here, but
would like "monarchists" to do that, or to reply through a single
correspondant.
These are expressions of "royal protocol", not rules of engagement
amongst equal citizens.
Perhaps we still collectively suffer the notions of "the ruler" and
"the commoner".
May Kaaveh awaken and join us here...
For without Kaaveh, our youth shall continue to perish at the hands of Zahhaak...
And "one" only wants to play King of Kings, not the commoner Kaaveh !
(-:
With outmost respect (and from the heart)
One "commoner" MarGazideh!
RP says:
"We are not historians."
YOU HAVE TO LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES OF HISTORY SO YOU WON'T REPEAT THEM OVER AND
OVER AGIAIN !!!!!
NO MORE MONARCHY ! NO MORE DICTATORSHIP !!!!
HamMihan
Genetic inheritance is about boilogical inheritance.
Merit, demerit, humanity, or inhumanity, are acquired and nurtured
characteristics of an individual.
No newborn is guilty of any crimes, nor could be accused of 'assumed inevitable'
criminal tendencies in his/her future life.
"al valado serreh abehoo" is NOT 'analysis'.
It borders on nazist genocidal prejudice.
Respectfully
Margazideh.
My Dear Friend:
You write:
"My dear friend, People of Iran spoke already against monarchy 22 years
ago. It was a laud and unanimous voice. It was a cry from the heart. If you did
not hear that voice I don’t know what else can convince you. Your father was
not dethroned by a military coup but by the popular revolution. Those millions
of people marching in the streets, facing the tanks and bullets, shouting marg
bar Shah were Iranians and they did cast their vote with their blood in that
eventful day. Please face the reality. History is moving ahead and there is no
going back. You can either toady people to give you the lucrative and cushy job
of your father and lose respect in their sight or stand up as a man who really
believes in some ideals and who really cares for the people."
By the same analogy, the very same people shouted in Iran, "isteghlal,
azadi, JOMHURIEH ISLAMI." In fact most JM advocated Jomhurieh Islami when
they called for the overthrow of monarchy. 99% of those Iranian who shouted
Death to Shah also wholeheartedly supported Khomeini and oppossed DR. Bakhtiar.
However, I think this is the best discussion I have seen on this board and I
thank you for starting it. WE have to remember that no matter what Mr. Pahlavi
says there will always be people who will scrutinize every line of it for
criticizing it. And that is good. That is the basis of democracy. And it's time
of Mr. Pahlavi not to fear criticism and to face the people, that is what leader
do.
I wish I had more time on my hand to write long responses. But I am extremely
busy with work. In short I like to say that my defense is not so much of the
institution of monarchy. I have more faith in the person of Mr. Pahlavi than any
one else. As I have said earlier, prior to 1991, the brutal and coward murder of
Dr. Bakhtiar, I found Mr. Bakhtiar the most credible and honost patriot for the
cause of freedom. Today, I think Mr. Pahlavi possess the greatest potential of
being a leader by the virtue of being most well-known. Secondly, I personally,
find him most sincere.
I think Mr. Pahlavi has a point. We have to understand that he cannot just say
no, I don't want to represent the throne any more. He has said that he will have
no quarrell if majority of Iranians vote against monarchy.
It is false to assume that only corrupt beauracts of the past are the supporters
of monarchy. In my neighborhood there are many honost Iranians who were memebers
of the Imperial Millitary in 1979, just joniour officers. In 1979, it was
honorable officers who were the first victims of this brutal, inhuman regime.
and lest not forget that Bazargan in early 1979 lauded the executions of the
generals.
Sepas ghozaram,
HJT
The Iranian
Dear The_Iranian,
You state that you are not specifically promoting monarchy.
You also state that as a 'second best' to Dr. Bakhtiar, you see Mr. Pahlavi as
the best choice.
You also elaborate on the factual plight of those officers.
In the absence of any fame on the part of Mr Pahlavi, for excellence in any
specific area of expertise, or past deeds, or experience, I remain wondering as
to how your choice is influenced.
Is it derived from careful comparison of one candidate's track record and/or
abilities, with many other potential alternatives?
Or is it emotionally driven, as in a simple reflection upon, or delayed reaction
to, the very injustices you described?
Or is it that the idea of a "monarch" is what you find attractive;
despite not being a monarchist?
(-:
Baa dorood
Margazideh.
My Dear Ham'mihan Reza Pahlavi,
First I would like to thank you for the time you have given us to speak with you
directly. Second, I have always enjoyed listening to you both on TV/Radio, and
in person on many occasions. You are a very articulate person and a great
speaker. I am not going to make this a very long-winded and tediously long
letter to you. Just to share a few advices.
Dear Mr. Pahlavi, when civilizations fail, it is almost always man who has
failed--not in his body, not in his fundamental equipment and capacities, but in
his will, spirit, and mental habits. A nation, like a tree, does not thrive well
till it is engrafted with democracy. By that I mean it is the rule of people by
the people and for the people. Monarchy, no matter how good or bad, is just a
bad idea when one man acts like God.
You stated that there have been much discussions and now we should support our
young monarch who has come out of 22 years of darkness, demanding to rule our
country or according to you, stay on the side-line of the game and be an
observer. But, does that make any sense? How in the world you have come up with
that idea sir?
I have always admired you because I know from the bottom of your heart you know
the era of Monarchy is over. You are an intellectual man. An intellectual is not
only a person for whom books are essential but one for whom an idea, an idea
that you should have known and should have given up any idea of monarchy for
Iran if you had the slightest love for our country long ago. Nothing is more
dangerous than an idea if it's the only one you have. "The intellectual is
constantly betrayed by his vanity." God-like, he blandly assumes that he
can express everything in words.
Now what makes you qualify to be a king? Don't you think the sense of being a
little "SHAH" is in every heart of Iranians? Yes, my dear friend, that
sense of being a little "SHAH" is in every Iranian blood. So for the
sake of logic and for the sake of our country, come down from your high chair
and help us to fight the evil. Help us emotionally, financially to battel with
this "Ahriman" which has nested in our beloved country. I will not
remind you of the past atrocities of your family. Let bygones be bygones. Wisdom
and virtue are like the two wheels of a cart. USE them. Let the Iranians be
proud of you, and not bring the bad memories of Pahlavi's dynasty each time you
come out of the darkness. A word and a stone let go cannot be called back. It is
too late. The damage is done.
I have listened to those 1 to 2% Iranians in Iran out of total desperation want
you to go back on a white horse and save them from the murderous current regime.
Don't you really think, we are all suffering as a result of bad decisions of
Pahlavi's dynasty to begin with? I am not even sure that we do have an opening
position in our future administration for you Reza Jaan. You must first prove
that you are ready to get dirty and fight for democracy. Forget the notion
people should decide your faith. I think you should decide your own faith and
join "Jebhe Melli Iran" hand in hand for the true "UNITY"
that you were talking about.
So say "YES" to the seedlings and a giant forest cleaves the sky. Say
"YES" to the universe and the planets become your neighbors. Say
"YES" to the dreams of love and freedom for our people. It is the
password to utopia. To say yes, you have to sweat and roll up your sleeves and
get into action. Be kind to our people, they have suffered enough. "Part of
kindness is loving people more than they deserve." If you like to be a
leader, then be a good leader. Be a wise leader. Be a gentle leader. Be a loving
leader. Be a humanitarian leader. Lead us towards a democratic nation. Lead us
towards a true democracy. Learn from the mistakes of that past and do not repeat
them. Learn to love before leading. The moment one is on the side of life
"Peace and security" drop out of consciousness. The only peace, the
only security, is in fulfillment. It is in doing what is right, even if that is
wrong. "there is no security on this earth, there is only opportunity. So
use this opportunity to have a great name for yourself in helping the cause of
creating a "TRUE" democratic nation. Reza Jaan, don't you think we
have suffered enough for hundreds of years? Do the right thing my friend.
"The time, the people, and the individual converge only once."
May God bless Iran and all Iranians,
Dorood-e faraavaan va sepaas,
Amil
Dear Mr. Pahlavi,
Today I received this in the mail. I thought it is relevant to the subject we
are discussing. Do you agree with that?
"...the Islamic Revolution ought not be limited to the generation who made
it happen - rather it belongs to the future.
The Revolutionary generation created it so their offsprings could enjoy a free,
independent, dignified and spiritual life because of it...."
- Seyyed Mohammad Khatami
If you think it is not fair why are you proposing the same deal for us? Why do
you think we should vote for you once and that vote should be binding on our
future generations?
Ali Sina
Dear freinds,
Could someone explain this to me, maybe I'm missing something. Mr Pahlavi is
proposing a system in which there is a King (who’s not and elected element)
and a parliament which is elected by the people. In this scenario the King
doesn't have power and yet it exist to spend taxpayer's money and also people
should kiss his hand because he is the king! Now what I don't understand is that
why Iranian people would need the King since I don't see any use for him? Why
not just scrap the King and have the parliament only. Maybe Mr Pahlavi could
answer this question himself.
Sosciant
The question is:
Would people rally behind the institution of monarchy?
Would people rally behind RP?
From what has been said above and if RP's remarks are genuine, it is exactly
what the late shah was doing all his life. That is paying lip service to a
constitutional system and implementing a dictatorial. Hence after 2500 years
experience with monarchs and specifically in the past 200 years, can we trust
another one? Can we trust RP when he says he is for a democratic system?
I think what most people object to is the system itself and not the
"man". Unfortunately the man has not domonstrated that he has any
fresh ideas, but rather that he wants to go back to the good old days (for a
minority that is). Well everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion is
that RP cares more about his legacy rather than the people of Iran.
Tavana
Mr Reza Pahlavi;
In case you decide to take advices of our friends seriously, I recommand getting
rid of "Chaploose" advisors, get in touch with real Iran and Iran
lovers. The people in your current circle are bunch of parasites waiting for an
opportunity to go back and suck the blood of poor people. They will corrupt you
like they did your father.
I can see it in your responses to Dr. Sina that you do not take these matters
seriously, and indeed you are insulting intelligence of the readers by brushing
off on every subject without elaborating. You are ignoring the very basic and
legitimate demands of citizens that is to have dialoque with their leaders. You
are not a king yet, but sure acting like one by telling us that You do not have
time for these debates, you have more important things to do. You simply saying
trust me & make me king, every thing will be OK. well, there is no guarantee
for it.
Ba Sepass
Z
"In a constitutional monarchy, the head of
government is an elected
Prime Minister. "
therefore the monarch is TOTALLY USELESS !!! and therefore NOT NECESSARY !!!
why should Iranians pay for your PALACE and your BENZ and your AIRPLANE and your
BOAT and your VILLA,
when you are TOTALLY USELESS ?????
if monarch has NO ROLE in politics, then it GIVES NO SERVICE, therefore he is
TOTALLY USELESS and UNNECESSARY !!!!
HamMihan
Citizen Pahlavi
Holding on to the monarchy will not do him any good
January 25, 2001
The Iranian
Reza Pahlavi has many things going for him. On a personal level, he's
intelligent, articulate and very friendly. Politically, he's clearly the most
prominent opposition figure outside Iran. The only real political force other
than him is the Mojahedin Khalq, but their extremism and cultist behavior has
made them almost universally despised among Iranians.
Thanks to the religious fanaticism of the clerical establishment, there's an
undeniable sense of nostalgia towards Mohammad Reza Shah. Many think he was not
as bad as they thought he was at the time of the 1979 revolution. Or at least
they think the Shah did the country less harm than Ayatollah Khomeini and the
man who replaced him. And a good many now believe the quality of life was better
under the Shah, despite the political repression.
At the same time, Iran seems to be heading towards another major crisis. The
reformists, despite winning three stunning victories in the presidential, city
council and parliamentary elections, have been unable to deliver on their
promise of change and greater freedoms. The conservative establishment has
vetoed every major attempt at reform and stepped up its campaign against the
independent press and reformist critics.
The people who voted overwhelmingly for reform in recent elections, have become
deeply disillusioned, as all avenues for peaceful progress appear to be blocked.
Whatever hope there was of seeing the Islamic Republic gradually transform into
a democracy has evaporated to a large extent. The general public's disgust
towards the clergy is at an all time high. So Reza Pahlavi appears to have
picked the right moment to begin what he calls a new chapter in the national
struggle for freedom and democracy. Press conference excerpts here
But the good news for him ends just about there.
No politician or political group outside Iran can have a major impact on what
goes on inside. Iran is very different from 1979. Khomeini succeeded in large
part because he had the backing of a wide religious network. Back then the
clergy had much more clout and respect among the public. Reza Pahlavi, on the
other hand, does not have an organized base inside Iran.
Plus, nostalgia for the Shah's days does not translate into a desire for the
restoration of the monarchy. Iranians have moved far beyond that. Given a
choice, there's absolutely no doubt that the people would choose a democratic
republic rather than the restoration of the monarchy. What Mohammad Mossadegh
stood for is far more appealing to the public than the monarchy.
In his press conference yesterday, Reza Pahlavi at times sounded like a
reluctant monarch. He said he was born into the monarchy, and as the heir to the
throne, he feels he is on a mission set out for him by history not personal
choice. He said he would not insist on the restoration of the throne. Instead,
the people should decide in a referendum what form of government they wish to
have. If they choose a democratic republic, he would accept their choice and
renounce his claim to the throne.
But why even call for a referendum when you already know the clear majority just
want a secular democracy? Why even suggest the monarchy as a possible future
form of government when most people have no desire for it? Reza Pahlavi says
just because his father made mistakes, it does not mean that he would act the
same way. That may be true. But any talk of bringing back the monarchy -- even a
democratic constitutional monarchy -- does not win you political points these
days.
Suppose there's a new revolution and the clerical regime crumbles. Then 20 years
later Ali Khamenei's son comes along and he admits to the wrongdoings under his
father. He says he is different and won't make the same mistakes as his father.
And he calls for the restoration of a kinder, gentler, even democratic, velayat-e
faqih. Would anyone believe him, even if he was sincere? Would anyone be
terribly impressed?
Should the Chinese bring back the old royal family because they have lost faith
in the present communist regime? Should the Russians reinstall the tzar? The
Afghans have been miserable since the fall of their king. Is there any chance of
him coming back to power? It's not going to happen.
The monarchy and velayat-e faqih have one very important thing in common. And
that is the notion that one man, or one family, or one social class, has the
God-given right to rule over a nation. Even under the best circumstances when
the monarch or the vali-e faqih does not interfere in the government's affairs,
the concept of a royal or holy figure head goes against the principles of modern
politics. It does not matter if you are the Queen of England or a modern,
free-thinking molla -- neither should have special titles or exclusive
privileges beyond ordinary citizens.
And the fact that Iran was ruled by monarchs for thousands of years, does not
make the monarchy a legitimate or desirable form of government. We had
monarchies because we had no other choice. Now we do. The people of Iran are
more than familiar with the concept of secular democracy and you are going to
have a hell of a time convincing them to aim for anything less.
That's why Reza Pahlavi's calls for unity among Iran's opposition groups has not
been widely embraced, if at all. Yes, he will always be able to energize his
loyal followers. But the rest see him as a symbol of the past, not a beacon for
the future.
In the world of politics, it does not matter if Reza Pahlavi was not responsible
for what his father did. And it does not matter if he wholeheartedly believes in
democracy. As long as he represents an outdated and undesirable form of
government that never had a popular base to begin with, he will be, for the most
part, ignored.
The bottom line is that this Pahlavi does not come across as a megalomanic
Citizen Cane. He may very well be a genuine democrat. But the only way he can
prove it to the general public, and be taken seriously, is simply to be Citizen
Pahlavi.
HamMihan
Here
is the whole discussion as it evolved in the JM bulletin board.
