|
An Open Letter
to Prince Reza Pahlavi
Sam Ghandchi
It is now 20 years since the overthrow of Monarchy in Iran and the
establishment of Islamic Republic in Iran. There has been enough
time for all different political tendencies in Iranian scene to
re-evaluate the plans and programs that they had been advocating
for Iran's future. The most important development has been among
the intellectuals sympathetic to the left. After the fall of the
Soviet Union, they saw the atrocities of the Communist system they
had supported, and they have been distancing themselves from the
programs that even justified dictatorship, by calling it dictatorship
of the proletariat.
One point is
important to note though, that the Left was never in power in Iran,
and so the Left in Iran has basically not done any crimes in Iran
and it is good that the experiences of Killing Fields of Cambodia
and the collapse of the Soviet Union helped the Iranian Left to
open its eyes to the dictatorial system of Communism. And thanks
to the world developments, the former Iranian Left are basically
supporting a secular democratic republic for Iran.
Another political
tendency in Iran, namely the followers of political Islam, as a
consequence of the atrocities of Islamic Republic of Iran, are becoming
more and more believers in a secular Republic. This is the result
of developments of the last 20 years in Iran and Afghansitan, which
has opened the eyes of these intellectuals. Among them, the members
of Nehzat-e Azadi are being disillusioned about any Islamic state,
and this trend will continue among the Iranian Islamic intellectuals
who support freedom; and more and more they are asking for a secular
democratic republic, and for religion to become the private matter
of the individual.
The separation
of state and religion is highly supported by forces close to the
Jebh-e Melli and the nationalists in general and for them, constitutional
monarchy or secular republic, as long as it is independent and democratic,
they are OK with it.
It seems like
the "Islamic" element in the state is only present in
mojAhedin-e khalgh's program, which is calling for a Democratic
Islamic Republic, and in practice, they try very hard to say that
their intended republic is a secular system, although they insist
to have their rank and file women wear Islamic scarf. This force
is basically looked at as a non-democratic force and the majority
of the people who are looking forward to a *secular democratic*
future in Iran, do not see the mojAhedin alternative, to be fully
democratic or secular, and until the time they change their platform
to a secular republic, and change their structure to a democratic
organizational plan and practice, there is not much hope in any
alliance with this force, although because of its armed strength,
regardless of its popularity, it may become an alternative in Iran,
in case the government of Islamic Republic suddenly falls apart.
Another major
force in the Iranian scene is Khatami, and the groups and individuals,
that in various degrees, associate themselves with it and call themselves
the "reformists". Basically until they drop their support
of Religious Apartheid in Iran, they are not a force that can drive
the country to a secular democracy. They are calling a dictatorship
of Religious Apartheid, an Islamic Democracy, just because some
Islamists are enjoying limited political rights. This is not something
that can make Iranian people happy and certainly does not put an
end to tyranny and corruption in Iran. But as the forces looking
for a secular republic gain strength, the ones siding with the reformists
will join this new force of Iranian political scene, and the ones
who have been instrumental in the atrocities of Islamic Republic
in the last 20 years, will go back to their hardliner friends, or
will leave Iran for a safe haven.
Now let's look
at the monarchists. There are two forces in the political scene
that have actually been in power for a significant length of time
and have long records of violations of human rights and atrocities
against the Iranian people. These two forces are Islamic Republic
functionaries and the Monarchists. All other forces have basically
been on paper, or in plans, or in limited organizational entities,
trying to get to the power, but none has ruled Iran in for any significant
length of time. The periods of rule by some Kurdish groups in Kurdestan,
and some Azeri groups in Azerbaijan, and Mossadegh's government
in Iran, have been very short and this is why all criticisms of
such groups is limited to their programs or to the criticism of
similar groups in other countries.
Now looking
at the monarchy in general and the Pahlavi rule in Iran, in particular,
one can see that it has been a history filled with dictatorship
and repression and you can ask about the specific atrocities of
Savak from many of the Iranian intellectuals who still live abroad
and have had first hand experience in Savak dungeons. Evin was not
built by Islamic Republic, it was built by the Shah and its torture
chambers were used by Savak long before there was an Islamic Republic.
They can tell you many sleepless nights, fearing Savak, for their
life, for having a book of Samad Behrangi in their house.
Why I am writing
you this letter is because I have seen you talking about democracy
and human rights, and trying to discuss a future Iran with these
values. If one is looking for democracy and human rights, the best
way to define them, is by critic of Islamic Republic and the previous
monarchies, as they were both the best exemplifications of violations
of human rights in Iran. Human rights violations in iran were not
done by the Soviet Poliburo or by Hitler's Gestapo. They were done
by the Shah's government and now are done by the Islamic Republic.
I think if you
sincerely believe in democracy and human rights, you should call
the end of Iranian monarchy and be the first one to criticize the
Pahlavi regime for its violations of human rights and for its hope
of using Islamists to offset the victory of the democratic forces
of Iran. You should be the first calling for a secular republic
for Iran. I think this way, you can play a significant role in uniting
the opposition to Islamic Republic. When people voted for Islamic
Republic, they were voting for republic against monarchy, monarchy
which had proven to be a repressive system in Iran, but the mollah's
used the sincere wishes of the Iranian people for democracy and
republic, and by a trick options on the ballot, legitimized their
*Islamic Republic* by a vote.
The programs
of restoration of Monarchy by monarchists and Islamic Democratic
Republic of the likes of mojAhedin have only delayed the transition
of Iran to a secular republic. I think all political forces of Iran
should call for a secular republic in Iran. Of course this is no
guarantee to have a *democratic* republic in the future, but if
this happens with a thorough critique of dictatorship of Islamic
Republic and dictaroship of the regimes preceding it, we can have
a hope for a truly democratic republic in the future. But a monarchy
will definitely be non-democratic in a short while. Not because
of your intentions, but because the forces that have surrounded
monarchy and have legitimized it in the Iranian history, which are
not the democratic forces. I will explain below.
I believe that
because you have never been involved in the atrocities of the past
monarchy, and because in your experiences of last 20 years in secular
republics outside Iran, you can play a significant role in the transition
of Iran to a secular republic and denouncing the platform of monarchy
will pave the way for a united political force for a secular republic.
I have written
elsewhere that the reason why monarchy becomes dictatorial is not
a psychological reason. Current fascinations with pre-Islamic Iran
and the beautiful Iranian cultural heritage, should not make us
lose sight of the fact that Iran's monarchy throughout Persian history
has been one of the main pillars of despotism in the Middle East.
The predominance of state ownership, and ownership of water in the
past, and state ownership of oil in modern times, are main reasons
for strength of state central power. Even today with the pressure
of the non-centralizing forces of different Shi'a Ayatollahs, the
state has not broken apart, whereas in places like Lebanon, the
same forces quickly broke apart the central state. So the state
ownership makes the state in a way the main owner of the country.
It is more the state that pays the people than people paying state
by taxes. The state remains the biggest landowner and the biggest
capitalist, etc.
I also had noted
that one may ask the reason of the above reality? My answer is that
Iran has had many powerful decentralizing forces in its make-up.
The most prominent one used to be ashAyer, which are still a strong
decentralizing element in Iran's social life. The other force is
the enormous number of nationalities and religious minorities including
orders such as Sufis, Izadis, etc. In modern times, political thought
has also grown into a decentralizing element. I think with the exception
Turkey, Iran has had more types of political groups than all its
neighbors. The leftists were hundred flavors, Moslem activists the
same, nationalists the same, tajadood-garas the same way. In fact,
states like UAE are much less "turbulent" than Iran, because
such diversities do not exist there, and Arab dominance over Indians
workers is guaranteed. Only Palestinian element, in some of those
countries was the de-stabilizing factor, and it was the strongest
in Kuwait, for a long time, and that is why Kuwait developed a parliament,
and real parties, long before the Gulf War, and this element sided
with Saddam's invasion. In Iran, these strong decentralizing elements
were controlled by the strength of a powerful central state.
Also in modern
times, education, health, and social services are primarily state-owned
in countries like Iran, because they have been introduced from above,
as the world standards were being scaled up, in these arenas, and
because of the people's pressure from below, the main owner of the
country, the state, became the deliverer for such services. In the
case of education, being a *must* for industrial development, the
state had no choice but to make it happen, when entering partial
industrial development even before Reza Shah, at the time of Amir
Kabir.
One may say,
70% of the above factors are also true for a republic and why shouldn't
we be afraid that a republic to become a dictatorial state like
Saddam Hossein's republic, or Rajavi's ideal republic. My response
is that yes this is right, and such a danger exists, and this is
why I am very doubtful of state-centric economic platforms to form
Iran's economic plans, although for a country like Spain, with its
European surroundings, and background, I would not be as worried.
Again this is why a republic by itself does not guarantee democracy
in Iran, and the separation of power and *form* of the state is
very important. So in short in a monarchy, for sure we would have
a dictatorship in a short while whereas in a republic, there is
no guarantee to have a democracy but if we remain vigilant, we can
have a good shot at it.
So going back
to the issue of monarchy, I say this is the worst poison to advocate
for Iran and the main threat of falling back to monarchy is not
just from the monarchists. The main threat is a force like MKO to
come to power and turn Iran into a new monarchy afterwards. Iran's
monarchy will never be a Sweden and monarchy is the gate to tyranny
in Iran. We should not try it again to prove it. We did it once
after Ahmad Shah, and again after Reza Shah's departure, and the
first days of democratic monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah. It is not
a psychological factor and the bad intentions of the monarch. It
is, as I noted above, the reality of Iran, that monarchy will be
nothing more than a dictatorship in our land. Monarchy will move
in the direction of despotism, as it gets its legitimacy from its
historical Persian Empires and that is its "natural" way
to deal with diversity. Any sincere monarchist of the past, who
claims to care for human rights and democracy in Iran, as his/her
first step, should repudiate any platform of monarchy for the future
of Iran.
Frankly, any
future monarchy in Iran, may be formed by someone like Massoud Rajavi,
than by someone like you. This is why Ahmad Shah was dropped in
favor of Reza Khan. You hardly believe in the law of Iranian monarchy
that the girls cannot inherit the throne. I wonder if you still
can believe that someone for being born from a woman who has decided
to marry someone in Pahlavi family, should qualify to be the best
head of state for a country and the millions of Iranians are written
off for that position even before they are born. All these could
have stayed put as a tradition, if monarchy had evolved in Iran
like some European countries. Even Bakhtiar was allowed to become
a prime minister when virtually Shah was out of the throne. And
now even the tradition is broken in Iran and even you have a hard
time to believe in it to represent Shi'a king of the 1905 Constitution.
You would be having a hard time to believe that 5 mojteheds should
vito the laws of Iran, which is assumed in the 1905 Constitution.
Times have just passed that constitution and the monarchy itself,
and this is just a block in the development of Iran to its next
stage of political development. Please just look around you and
see some diehard old monarchists who still want to revive the Savak
chambers, to take care of their opponents, and in secret only blame
the Iranian intellectuals for their own failure, which made the
people stand up against the monarchy, and that they are waiting
to come to power, to take revenge against these intellectuals, and
still do not admit that in reality majority of the Iranian people,
at the time of the 1979 Revolution said, that they do not want the
monarchy.
So my suggestion
to you is to denounce the monarchy and call for a united front of
all Iranian political forces to form a secular republic in Iran
and I would suggest that you run for the presidency. If Reza Shah
started with a call for a Republic and ended with Monarchy, I hope
that although you have started with a monarchist platform, to be
instrumental in forming the first democratic secular republic in
Iran.
Advocating for
secular republic is when you can condemn the atrocities of the Shah's
army against Dr. Fatemi. This is how you can come to terms with
great Iranian leaders like Dr. Mossadegh. This is how you can truly
relate to the plight of centuries of Iran's struggle for democracy
and human rights, which you have now joined. And in this light,
one can see the contributions of many states monarchist or Islamic,
in a historical context. This is how sincere people who have been
with a dictatorial regime have distanced themselves and wholeheartedly
worked for a democratic republic, which they believed in. The best
example in our times was Yaltsin in Russia, who came from the ranks
of the Communist Party, who in contrast to Gorbachev, did not stop
short at calling for a fully democratic secular market-oriented
republic in Russia. Fortunately you yourself have not been involved
in the past monarchy and I hope sincere ones who have been part
of that system, can come clean like Yalstin and work for a secular
republic in Iran.
Wishing for
a future forward-looking and a democratic and secular Republic of
Iran,
Sincerely,
Sam Ghandchi, Publisher
IRANSCOPE
Original Version
Written: August 14, 2001
Republished: February 17, 2007
|
