Jump to content
Forum | Bia2.com
Sign in to follow this  
pourya

What Do You Consider Yourself To Be?

What Do You Consider Yourself To Be?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. What Do You Consider Yourself To Be?

    • Monarchist
      5
    • Republican
      18


Recommended Posts

My dear, I just explained that I live in a country that has combined what Iranians call ”Paadeshaahiye mashrouteh” or constitutional monarchy with socialism! Sooed yek padeshahiye mashrooteh mibashad, be estelaahe degar "NoPedarshaahi"!! and at the same time also ruled by a socialist government! The constitutional  revolution of Iran 100 years ago was meant to deliver such a conditional system! But it was later plagued by external interests and internal corruption! The monarchy Pahlavi dynasty personified is far from what was meant to be! compromises made it to a constitutional monarchy only in theory! Just like the fact that the Islamic republic is a republic by name and in theory! In practise they both suffer from dysfunctional composition and lean towards an authoritarian rule!

 

Now as I have discussed in another thread such fusions are possible in a country like ours, but only in theory! In reality we do not have a socio-political base for it, YET! We suffer from severe retardation in terms of political maturity! That cant be taught over night, its rather a process that needs patience and determination!

 

Sara jaan, thank you!

120661[/snapback]

 

Now i undrestand it better !. Thx Pourya jan :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well you have to fit it in a system! it fits in both alternatives! Being a monarchy Sweden has a constitutional secular parliament, so does US with a president (though the secular aspect is disputable !lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest arian

Monarchist like for example The Netherlands, Spain or Norway...

A king or a Queen will be a nice symbool for a country like Iran...

 

If I am not wrong...earlier it used 2 be also an Monarchist..

With king shah??!!

 

 

So is this Jerk Iranian or not?! Why would an Iranian even pose that question?

 

pftt... more like a mullah-loving Afghan shi'ite who wish he was Iranian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this Jerk Iranian or not?! Why would an Iranian even pose that question?

pftt... more like a mullah-loving Afghan shi'ite who wish he was Iranian.

 

OK .... so now that he's banned everyone is happy!!!

 

except there is nothing to debate about here!

 

Well, to corrent, I will say "fight about" !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monarchist like for example The Netherlands, Spain or Norway...

A king or a Queen will be a nice symbool for a country like Iran...

 

If I am not wrong...earlier it used 2 be also an Monarchist..

With king shah??!!

 

 

So is this Jerk Iranian or not?! Why would an Iranian even pose that question?

 

pftt... more like a mullah-loving Afghan shi'ite who wish he was Iranian.

 

:haha: :))):))):))):))):))):))):)))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that iran sould become a republic with laws as liberal as in Holland (where i currently live) or like in Denmark. I also think that the pahlavies sould get a chance to get woted into government. (kinda like the hariris in lebnon are)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that iran sould become a republic with laws as liberal as in Holland (where i currently live) or like in Denmark. I also think that the pahlavies sould get a chance to get woted into government. (kinda like the hariris in lebnon are)

 

Hariri ? u mean Rafigh Hariri ?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes like rafig harriri. Or you know what would be cool if the king or queen would be the chairman of the government. it would be a honorble thing without any political might. Because one thing is sure. The shah never wanted bad things to happen to the iranian people some thing the mullahs do want ( otherwise they wouldent keep up a war for 8 years when the conflict could had been solved in a mather of months)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican For Ever .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer a secular, constitutional/parliamentary monarchy. I favor a republican form of gov't, but I also would like to have a symbolic monarchy overlay. I think framing the question as Monarchy vs. Republican MAY be misleading in that a monarchist gov't may not be democratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The framing is not "Monarchy vs. Republican" as you say but rather the question of the thread is whether you are a "monarchist" or republican! Not what kind of monarchy or rebublic you ask for! Even the nature of republics vary! No matter if you adhere to totalitarian monarchy or a constitutional version you are still a ”monarchist”!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In developing countries that have abundant natural resources, like Iran, liberal democracy only leads to popularist governments coming to power, governments that can’t do squat. Do you think the Chinese would have gotten where they are with a jolly-come-jolly-go government?

 

In order to fix the economy of such countries, the people have to go through a period of economic hardship, as if they have no abundant resources. The government needs to tax the hell out of everything from land to income and spend it on advancing the industry (in socialist style). But liberal democracies can not achieve this. Only a despotic government that implements Socialist control of the economy can.

 

The problem with the current government is that it is highly popularist. You might say "oh, but a third of the population is in poverty". But I say UNESCO defines the line of poverty based on the price of essential needs on the global market. That is while the current government is subsidizing the hell out of everything from bread, meat and sugar to gasoline, so the line of poverty in Iran is much different from that defined by UNESCO, and the average Iranian is living a rather good life while having low productivity.

 

When a state reaches a point where it can only function by the government selling off natural resources to feed its people through subsidization, that state is a "failed" state.

 

But the sorry thing is that Iran has been in this state long before the IRI. If people were living easier lives during shah's time, it is only because the population was smaller then and subsidization filled more stomachs.

 

So those we have to thank for the state of the country are the very Shahs that some of you hail; Shahs like Fat-ali shah who sold of Iran’s resources to funds his trips to "farang".

 

So I say a despotic government that maintains the appearance of democracy and strives to advance the country, is what Iran needs to get out of the current state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I say a despotic government that maintains the appearance of democracy and strives to advance the country, is what Iran needs to get out of the current state.

 

THAT IS the current state, except for the advancing part!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I say a despotic government that maintains the appearance of democracy and strives to advance the country, is what Iran needs to get out of the current state.

 

THAT IS the current state, except for the advancing part!

 

Well the current government does strive to advnace the country, because they want to present themselves as a buleprint for other islamic countries.

 

I would say the current government 'is' the former, but it istn't despotic enough when it comes to controlling the economy (as I said it is a highly popularist government).

 

The reason for this is due to corruption problems they have (not as bad R. Pahlavie's though), and a long-standing Iranian culture of despising those in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current government is not advancing the country to set a blueprint but rather trying to get back on track and catch up with today’s standard after having stopped its course for decades!!!

 

And your ideal of the despotic government leading the economy WAS realised in the 80's and 90's which led to the severe corruption that has today left its mark on the limping economy! Its that radicalism which led it to this mess! Read last decade’s Payaame Emrooz for facts and numbers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current government is not advancing the country to set a blueprint but rather trying to get back on track and catch up with today’s standard after having stopped its course for decades!!!

 

And your ideal of the despotic government leading the economy WAS realised in the 80's and 90's which led to the severe corruption that has today left its mark on the limping economy! Its that radicalism which led it to this mess! Read last decade’s Payaame Emrooz for facts and numbers!

 

I'm not defending the regimes handling of the economy, but I think its unfair to blaim the state of the country on the past three decades only, as if every thing was going smoothly until the mullahs came along.

 

We had Naser-edeen shah who ruled Iran for 50 years and all he could think about was his "haramsara". Some of the most disgracing contracts that a nation can take under were signed by the shah's preceding the mullahs, they degraded the morality of the Iranian people by placing them in poverty for centuries.

 

The Ghajar's were the ones who capsized the Iranian nation and sold off Iran's resources for centuries.

 

The Iranian economy is and has been like a capsized ship for a long time before the IRI. Just because the mullahs haven't been able to flip the ship over, you blame everything on them?

 

Talking about being Republican or Monarchist is the most absurd thing. It’s like talking about how to serve food to the people in the capsized ship. What difference does it make? If you can't flip the ship over, the air is going to run out and the ship is going to sink and everyone is going to die anyway.

 

What you say about despotisms leading to corruption is correct, whether it be a Mullah in power or a Shah. And I have iterated this before. And that is why I have always been in favor of liberal democracy.

 

But recently, I've come to the conclusion that liberal democracy only works in countries (ships) that are up and running, not capsized ships. Capsized ships need someone to flip the boat over, something that can't be achieved by popularist governments in nations that have plentiful natural resources that they can sell-off. It just won't happen.

 

In the case of Iran, the government needs to stop spending oil money on subsidizing "essential needs" and must start taxing everything from property to income. Oil money should only be used as a bolster for fledgling industries not for feeding people. That is the only way the ship can be flipped over. But because of the financial pressure the people will go through, a liberal democracy will never be able to implement this.

 

What I mean by a despotic government is a government that can say "people, fasten your seatbelts, because this is going to be a rough ride, and if you don't like it your dead".

 

I think you have more understanding of economics than me. Am I not correct in my above observations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iranian economy has never been perfect, however IRI’s version of state controlled economy and Islamic banking managed to screw things up beyond control during the first two decades by taking control of everything, not having a constructive plan for it other than individual exploitations! The seemingly communitarian system caused a parasitic erosion which today is beyond repair by the causes of it!

 

The liberal democracy DID work in a Europe that wasn’t up-n-running! It lifted it up and got things running! Industrialism isn’t the fruit of a communitarian thinking exactly! However there is no guarantee for any formula in the Iranian context unless the public mentality is "mature" and ready for sustainable changes! A functional system is generated through people and not from above! However the system in itself MUST be technically functional and set from above! A constitutional system that has stood the tests in other settings! People shaping an own hybrid political system is doomed to fail! A durable system must enjoy all features of a democratic kind that can ensure its functionality! If the machinery is well-designed and functional you minimise the risks for abuse by people or the elected! the IRI is by nature a dysfunctional system with systematic flaws and gridlocks that can not be corrected unless the "undemocratic" religious features are removed! And then it will no longer be a religious republic, but a secular one ...the fifth French republic! which was initially adopted and then hybridised with the Velayate Faqih formula!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm sorry to say that just one system can not rule iran at the monent i think it's 25% islam 25% shah 50% democrasy we can't have a nation that always whats the change the system so how will we over come this? and no matter what any on is saying iran will always have to have some religios politics we can never change that :diablo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×