Monarchy Means Discrimination Based on Ancestry- Second Edition
سلطنت یعنی تبعیض بر مبنای اصل و نسب
The ideology of monarchy is based on discrimination. It is true that in England after the revolution, parliament brought back the monarchy but English Revolution of 1642 contrary to the French Revolution was not for overthrowing monarchy and it was basically like an uprising of the parliament against Charles, and after Cromwell, parliament again brought back the monarchy. The point being that when countries such as Sweden and Belgium have monarchy, it is exactly because those societies to avoid the cost of changing monarchy, have accepted this much discrimination at a point in their history when *ruling* monarchy also allowed them a democratic life. Otherwise, even in those democratic countries monarchy means discrimination because the child of a king of England or Sweden from the day of birth gets a social right to have the highest position of power whereas an ordinary citizen lacks such a right from the day of birth. This means monarchy has nothing to do with democracy, pluralism and removal of discrimination, although in those societies at some point in their history it has been accepted as a *deal* with the existing monarchy.
But societies like the United States which did not need to make such a deal, they never accepted such a discrimination. Jefferson for a long time did not trust Hamilton because he thought Hamilton wanted to establish monarchy in the U.S. George Washington stepped down from presidency after two terms because he wanted to prevent a tradition to take shape in the U.S. that could lead to monarchy. In contrast, in history there are examples like Kim Il-Sung in Communist North Korea or Hafez Al-Assad in Syria or Heydar Aliyev in Azerbaijan who have made hereditary sovereigns out of the position of president of a republic. In France, with all the ebb and flow of the five republics finally all these discriminations were ended and perhaps in more backward republics these discriminatory hereditary governments will experience such a course.
A government office based on ancestry is a clear discrimination and a republic that acts this way is exercising such a discrimination in an extra judicial way, whereas monarchy by its nature is a legal acceptance of such discrimination the same way in an Islamic Republic many of the extrajudicial despotic practices have become legal practices such as the discrimination against children born in non-Islamic families which is again a discrimination based on ancestry although it takes the religion of their ancestors as a basis to discriminate against the child from the time s/he is born. Legal discrimination is the worst kind of discrimination. Therefore for anyone trying to bring back the legal discrimination of monarchy back to Iran, it surely is for interests that are at times hidden or at times very obvious.
Hoping for a democratic and secular
republic in Iran,
Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher
July 16, 2017
Related Book and Article
FUTURIST IRAN: Futurism vs Terrorism
ایران آینده نگر: آینده نگری در برابر تروریسم
گزینش شاهزاده رضا پهلوی به پادشاهی، حتی در انتخاباتی کاملاً آزاد، دموکراسی نیست
آیا پادشاهی نوع سوئد برای شاهزاده رضا پهلوی
The following paragraphs are from the first edition of this writing which was published on February 1, 2008; but, in the current edition, have been transferred to this appendix:
During the last 25 years I have written many a lot about monarchy and my purpose here is not to write another article about monarchy. Those interested can find my writings about Iranian monarchy and Prince Reza Pahlavi at the following link (1). If Pahlavi monarchy was overthrown in February of 1979 inside Iran, in the United Stated with the support of some influential groupings the Pahlavi Monarchy not only has been kept alive but a view has been conveyed to American people as if Iran’s alternative is either the monarchy or the Islamic Republic. In many of the human rights and news institutions in the U.S., where the monarchists are in power because of their past relations with former American partners of Pahlavi regime, just like Shah’s era, they have created as much obstacles as they could for opponents of monarchy. And if they have allowed those who are not monarchist to do any work, it has been as long as those individuals were harmless for the monarchy, otherwise for the independent activists in those news and human rights who want to provide service for the Iranian people, they create all kinds of stumbling blocks.
If in the Iran of Islamic Republic the health insurance of the family of a reporter critical of IRI is cut off, in the U.S. in the institutions where monarchists are the sole power, the situation is not much different. Monarchists just like communists when they are in opposition talk a lot about democracy but when they got to power position in the American institutions just like when they were in power in Iran during Shah’s regime, are discriminatory because the monarchist ideology is based on discrimination. Communists also when in opposition are active with the flag of democracy but when they come to power for example when they reach their goal of closed communist system which has nothing to do with democracy and open society, they commit all kinds of discrimination which results from their ideology (2). About the relationship of philosophical viewpoint and dictatorship I have explained in details in the past and there is no need to repeat here (3).
At any rate, for Iranian people monarchy is finished. It would be better if American politicians draw a proper picture of of Iranian people, when Iran's civil rights movement is neither support the Islamic Republic nor a monarchy and sees its future within a secular republic, and to inform American people about this reality of Iran and Iranians, would diminish the animosity towards Iranians and will also help the struggle against the Islamic Republic of Iran (4).
Unfortunately the discriminations of monarchists in the U.S. against secular republican Iranians has helped the IRI Lobbyists. An independent Iranian individual does not have the financial and legal means to ward off the monarchists and thus those who are subjected the discriminations of the Iranian monarchists oftentimes go to the IRI lobbyist groups for help and these groups have equal power with the monarchists in the U.S. and they equally can get government assistance and grants and are able to get equal voice in the human rights and news programs, in other words because of their power if the tribune is taken away from them, they will sue the American news or human rights institution by legal means and they both have the money and the lawyers to do the job and often times they are the winners in the court and this way they are getting more supporters among the Iranians as they have been able to help Iranians with various anti-discrimination lawsuits.
It is as if the Iranian 1979 Revolution is now repeating right inside the U.S. this time. If the opponents of monarchy because of monarchy's killings, torture, and discriminations in Iran united with Khomeini to get rid of Pahlavi regime, in the U.S. for independent democratic and secular forces now avenue is left except to unite with IRI lobbyists against the hidden and open discriminations of monarchists using their power in the U.S. news and human rights organizations (5).
1. Prince Reza Pahlavi
شاهزاده رضا پهلوی
2. Related Article about Cults and Iranians in English
آینده نگری و کالت های بازمانده جنبش کمونیستی- ویرایش دوم
3. Futurism and Aristotle's Pluralism
آینده نگری و پلورالیسم ارسطو
4. FUTURIST IRAN: Futurism vs Terrorism
ایران آینده نگر: آینده نگری در برابر تروریسم
5. Iranian Students Tale of Two Regimes
دانشجویان ایران-داستان دو رژیم