The “concept” of Monarchy

Abbas Goya

A comment starting w/ an aggressive statement such as “That’s Because you don’t understand the concept of monarchy” is supposedly to tell us what the “concept of monarchy” is. Nope, not a word about the concept. This statement as aggressive as it is, it is to serve the “I know but you don’t know shock”. What does Darius know that we don’t? At best Darius tells us an arbitrary and (chronologically glued) slots of the history of monarchy and humbly ask us to accept it as is because “nations” has chosen it. The immediate conclusion therefore is this: if someone has hard time to explain or understand the “concept of monarchy” on this thread, he is Darius.

Now, since we’re asked (I’m guessing “you don’t understand” is a ‘shy’ question).

What is the “concept of monarchy”?

It simply is this: Tyranny of a man over the population living under the King’s boots. That’s the first common ground for a Mullah (in power) and a King.

What’s this tyranny for after all? Ownership of the wealth created by that very population. What about the history and origin of monarchy? One can trace it as s/he wishes evidently. For Iranian pro-monarchists for example, “The Great Koroush” is the role model of a KING. Koroush was an emperor in an slavery society. What is in common between “pro-constitutional-monarchists” of Iran in their adoration of Koroush and the constitutional King of Iran, Reza shah?

Shah’s main slogan was: God, Shah, Motherland. Koroush too respected the variety of religions. {Changiz Khan’s policy of respecting religions, read “multiculturalism” of the time, was one of the key factors to his success. Alexander the Great would identify himself as the Zeus son, a God. Almost all emperors are associated w/ a religion, the last one of which lived up to early 1920s, [the Islamic] Osmanian Empire. Except for the Middle Ages where Church officially acted as the masters, Western emperors are all associated w/ religion }.

The common denominator between theocracy and monarchy/kingdom/Empiricism (between Shah and Mullah, between Reza Shah and Koroush) is this: Ownership AND control of wealth by the chosen, by the appointed King/Mullah. These two, therefore always completed each other. No wonder, every emperor in the history is not only associated w/ some religion but in many occasions his expansion of territory was justified by the promotion of religion.

Let’s move on from ancient history to more recent one and the role of Kings in countries like Sweden and its common ground w/ the constitutional Mullahs.

Sure history can be told in variety of perspectives. But then the history teller has no choice but to have assumptions. Darius’ assumption of “nation” for instance is the corner stone for his story telling. But then what is nation? I claim that “nation” is a man made concept like god is a man made concept. Both are used to justify the superior and hence the inferior. In the case of less obvious “nation” here is an example: “Sweden is the best country” – an ongoing Swedish Social Democrats slogan. The slogan means that “other countries are less good/no good/bad/worse/worst” because “best” is simply a comparison adjective.

Having said that, I belong to the objectivity school — not post-modernist relativism that in the end justifies everything that exists, that hates revolution. That “respects” and “tolerates” the core elements of our current society. And it fails to provide a reason why human society evolved if history is about acceptance and tolerance? How could capitalism, in its all social and political forms including “constitution” & “chart of freedom” come to birth if there were no French Revolution & American Revolution?

How come “constitution” in and by itself and in the case of monarchists, is equivalent to democracy as per Darius’s statement. But Mullah’s constitution is not, assuming “constitution” is an indicator of democracy? After all, where on earth these constitutions suddenly popped up if it wasn’t because of REVOLUTIONS? How come Iranian monarchist constitution – which was a result of 1905 Mashroteh REVOLUTION – is fine but 1979 REVOLUTION is regrettable?

{Let me also add that both 1905 and 1979 revolutions were defeated, one of them by a King and the other by Mullahs. The Mashroteh constitution ended up w/ amendments to favor the influence of Mullahs and the power of the King, while the Mullah’s constitution (birth on 1981) was established on theocracy and hence exclusively Islamic}.

Democratic Monarchy!

There are a few monarchy states that pro-monarchists in Iran are using in their propaganda to tell us about the possibility of a democratic monarchy in Iran. The often mentioned are West European UK, Scandinavian (Sweden, Denmark, Norway), Netherlands (Holland, Luxemburg, Belgium).

First, an innocent observation: Why shouldn’t I believe that monarchy in Iran would be closer to kingdoms in Jordan, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Malaysia? After all, pro-monarchists are very much “culture” and “nation” oriented. Iran, logically, is closest to these countries when it comes to its history, “culture” [AND their role in the current global capitalism, i.e. they are all providers of cheap labor]! How come when it comes to monarchy, Iran is suddenly closest to Western Europe?

Second, Western Europe – wherever possible – did not demolish the structure that existed for centuries. Why should it? Says who that democracy doesn’t need a tyrant; that it is anything but a form of political DICTATORSHIP, capitalism dictatorship? It’s political apparatus consists of a “democratically elected” Parliament, an undemocratically appointed Senate, and a governing body to run it. BUT, in each and every Western model democracy we have the “emergency circumstances” or “contingency plan” in which the current pickled kings and queens have a determining role. {in US and Canada, that role is given to Governor General).

What are these “special circumstances”?
A) When people in general lose their faith in governing body and “undemocratically” rise up against it, to the point that the common “peaceful” methods of suppression (i.e. a multi-billionaire media apparatus) aint work. And that’s when Queen Elisabet can legally play General Pinot Chet role, e.g. she would shut down the parliament, asks army to “restore the law and order”.
B) When there is an irresolvable dispute between the mainstream parties, deadlock within ruling class.

Canadian Governor General Michaelle Jean played exactly that role in Dec 2008 when she made a legal white Coup d’etat by shutting down the democratically elected Parliament and ordering the head of government to restore to the law!.

In a nut shell, if there is a “king” and a “queen” in a “constitutional democracy” it only is there to play his/her historical role, a tyrant. Meanwhile these Kings and Queens are useless elements. Their role is typically justified by being the “role model for the nation/ mother or father of the nation”. They are intentionally subject of entertainment, popular magazine to keep their image alive.

Darius Kadivar
The concept of “Tyranny” was invented by … The Roman Republic … It is an Elected Post to become a Life Long Dictator as Caesar was when he crossed the Rubicon.

But thanks Next time I need a history Revisionist Lesson through the Marxist Leninist Reading of European History I will know which door to knock at.
In the meantime in refering to the 1906 Constitutional Revolution in Iran what you forgot to write in Capital Letters in the word CONSTITUTIONAL …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfb7dqvDNFs

The Goal of that Movement was not to topple the Monarchy but Domisticate it into becoming what the most Progressive European Monarchies had become at the time. The 1906 Constitution was inspired by the British and Belgian Models. And the Constitutionalists were precisely inspired by the European Rennaissance Secular ideas and the European Enlightment philosophers who were not limited to the French as the late Poet, Intellectual and historian Nader Naderpour explained it pertinently:

Naderpour and Iranian Constitutional Revolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LPzibWpjQA

But No worries it’s never late for you to do your homework …

Abbas Goya
Ladies and Gentlemen! The ultimate culture of arrogance AND ignorant: Mr Darius Kadivar! Well, don’t worry about defining the “tyrant”, that’s a common knowledge nor you need to worry about YouTube-d *documented proof of history*. As hard as it appears to be for you, try your best to apply a bit of logic and tell us about the “concept of monarchy” that YOU raised. Can you handle that?

Darius Kadivar
Simply because someone challenges your personal convictions with counter arguments to your Wikipedia Marxist Leninist reading of History shouldn’t make you feel so threatened as to adress the “Ladies and Gentlemen” as if you or I were on Trial …

Abbas Goya
Here is a piece of advice Darius: don’t put yourself in highlight of a debate when you lack confidence, knowledge and ability to discuss. ba bye!

Back to what I was saying earlier, I sum it up w/ this:

Damn Swedish royal family, any “royal” family: “The Swedish royal family has invited the Iranian Ambassador Rasoul Eslami and his wife Mrs. Fatemeh Eslami to Princess Viktoria and Daniels wedding in Sweden for Saturday.”