Posted on 06/13/2006 3:16:04 AM PDT by qlangley
Can Reza Pahlavi, heir of the late Shah of Iran, play a role in bringing down the current Iranian régime?
There is a precedent. Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia played a key role in organising opposition to the Milosevic régime. Alexander's only criterion for inviting opposition leaders to his conference was that they had to be advocates of democracy. He, properly, kept himself out of debates as to whether Yugoslavia or Serbia should be capitalist or socialist. The illegal decision to strip the royal family of their citizenship and their property, made by Tito immediately after the war, was reversed, and the Crown Prince now lives in Serbia again.
Despite an article I wrote on the subject, there has been little discussion of restoring the monarchy to a constitutional role. If the Crown Prince wishes to put this on the agenda, he needs to find a way to serve, non-politically, in government. Perhaps he should become head of a commission to promote inward investment or tourism. His business and financial contacts in the west, and his royal status, would bring a great deal to such a role.
But Iran is not Serbia. There is a long history in Europe of constitutional monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II and King Juan Carlos set standards of public service that others envy. There is no such tradition in the middle east. There, the word 'king' has a different, and much darker, meaning. The last Shah of Iran may seem benign by comparison with the monstrous régime which followed him, but at the time he had one of the worst human rights records in the world.
Can Pahlavi succeed? No doubt he can play a role in organising and focussing opposition. But if he hopes to restore the monarchy, he faces a less favourable climate than Crown Prince Alexander. And Alexander has not succeeded.
Quentin Langley is editor of www.quentinlangley.net an academic at the University of Cardiff and is a columnist with Campaigns & Elections.
Your 'analysis' is very old-fashioned. I am a citizen of the UK. The term 'subject' disappeared years ago, except from the mouths of those who want to abolish something that has already been abolished. The reality disappeared long before the terminology.
The history is neither here no there. The fact is parliamentary systems have provided very good, accountable government. Whereas the US is the only example of good government in an executive presidency. Not all parliamentary systems are constitutional monarchies, of course. But some of the best run are. And most of the others are pseudo-monarchies, in which the role of the presidency is constitutionally restricted to being ceremonial.
Refighting the battles of 1776 seems pretty pointless today. If you see monarchy through that prism, you are simply looking at it wrongly. You are centuries out of date.
If you have the least concern for democracy, human rights, or good governance, then no doubt King Juan Carlos of Spain is a hero to you.
But you are engaging in pointless debating tactics. I don't know any royals that have even taken any IQ tests. (Though I would point out to you that the Universities of Cambridge and St Andrews are both pretty demanding places.) The job is a ceremonial one. It doesn't require IQ.
He can play a role bringing down the regime. He is.
As for the monarchy, that's up to the people to decide. He has said that over and over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.