An Iran Fairy Tale

[BackAgain]

When trying to set up a government in a nation with no prior experience with any form of democracy, I have long believed so long as the previous dynasty was not absolutely despotic that the best start would be like what was done in Japan.

Set up a strong Constitutional Monarchy, with a Parliament to run the nation and the monarch to be a unifying figure. The big problem with just a Democratic Republic in a nation with no history in that form of government is simply that many do not trust them. Seeing them as little more than "mob rule". That is what doomed both Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those governments were able to actually unify the nations, and each largely fractured along factional lines.

We’re a bit off topic.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

I am hoping for warring factions, no reunification for Iran.

Could well happen. Only about 60% or so of the population is ethnically and culturally Iranian, at least it was the last time I checked.

In other news, just because 'nation building' is a waste of resources and effort for Arab cultures doesn't mean it would automatically fail with Iranians; they're not Arabs, and are distinctively different in mindset. I taught a few classes at a university from 1978 to 1984, and the distinctions between Iranians and other ME peoples was pronounced and definitely superior, even the relations between the Shah supporters and the Mullah supporters was mostly civil, at least on campus. Some were even roommates with each other.

We did well with 'nation building' after WW II, quite successfully, in fact. Culture matters. Persians built a great empire and have a history of literature and science. Arabs were mostly bandits and murderers, and their Koran reflects that.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

If they don’t engage in battles with each other,

... they would be battling with somebody else.

 

[Mushroom]

We did well with 'nation building' after WW II, quite successfully, in fact. Culture matters. Persians built a great empire and have a history of literature and science. Arabs were mostly bandits and murderers, and their Koran reflects that.

Because they tried to work with the previous cultural history to make a government that at least resembled in ways what they were familiar with. And in the last two decades, most have forgotten the lessons of history.

Even in nations like England and France, the journey to "Democracy" was long and slow, taking a century or more as things kept screwing it up. The US was actually lucky it was founded when it was, as the excesses of the Lord Protector of England (and his wart) were only a century in the past. Where the Monarch who ignored Parliament was replaced by essentially a dictator who also ignored Parliament. Which led to the Stuart Restoration which is the basis of England to this day.

The entire American Revolution started because they felt their guaranteed rights were being ignored. And even the US had a stumble the first time, under the Articles of Confederation.

And no, the Arabs were not "mostly bandits and murderers". They were also scholars, most of the works of European Antiquity like the Greek philosophers survived because of Arab scholarship. Only in the Renaissance seeing many of the original works being translated back into European languages as they only survived in Arabic translations in their libraries. As well as explorers and traders. So not forget that one of their most well known fictional characters worldwide is a mariner and trader commonly called "Sinbad the Sailor".

 

[Mushroom]

We’re a bit off topic.

What is the topic? Is it not ultimately the best way to rebuild a stable government?

 

[EdwinAMartin]

And no, the Arabs were not "mostly bandits and murderers". They were also scholars, most of the works of European Antiquity like the Greek philosophers survived because of Arab scholarship

Not really. Most of their 'scholars' were Christians and Jews, some converted and took 'Arab' names. Christians and Jews made up their bureaucrats, doctors, and even soldiers; Jews were the garrison troops in some major cities captured by the Moors in their invasions of Spain, one of the reasons the Reconquistas didn't trust them and they had to convert or leave. Some of them lied and kept their religions underground, hence the Inquisitions; they were considered a sort of 5th column of traitors, and some of the local Jews aided the Muslims in their conquests of the cities.

In fact one of their alleged 'golden ages' was under three generations of a Persian royal family, that also supported Christian and Jewish scholars and artists. I will look up their names and the years in a while, if anybody is interested. Other than the Persian 'enlightenment' and the one in Spain, mostly by Jews like Maimonides, there wasn't much in between re scholarship except dark ages, Most people forget Constantinople was still a seat of scholarship up until it fell in 1453, and the West had access to their still significant contributions, often erroneously attributed to 'Muslim scholars' disseminating science and literature in the West.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

The entire American Revolution started because they felt their guaranteed rights were being ignored. And even the US had a stumble the first time, under the Articles of Confederation.

The colonies weren't entirely in the dark re self-rule; they had their 'Houses of Burgesses' and the local councils and the like, in some cases religious institutions, in others more secular, so they had local govts. in place before the Continental Congresses came along, and bicameral legislatures modeled after Parliament. It wasn't a big stretch for them like it would be for the ME's absolute monarchies, you're right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem then would have been that the fractured nations would have started fighting with each other. Especially over farmland and water, not to mention the oil reserves.

You know, kinda like what happened in former Yugoslavia.

Sooooo.......where do you see a problem with that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

When trying to set up a government in a nation with no prior experience with any form of democracy, I have long believed so long as the previous dynasty was not absolutely despotic that the best start would be like what was done in Japan.

Set up a strong Constitutional Monarchy, with a Parliament to run the nation and the monarch to be a unifying figure. The big problem with just a Democratic Republic in a nation with no history in that form of government is simply that many do not trust them. Seeing them as little more than "mob rule". That is what doomed both Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those governments were able to actually unify the nations, and each largely fractured along factional lines.

:"....not absolutely despotic....."


There is something wrong with you.

Bet you hear that a lot, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Could well happen. Only about 60% or so of the population is ethnically and culturally Iranian, at least it was the last time I checked.

In other news, just because 'nation building' is a waste of resources and effort for Arab cultures doesn't mean it would automatically fail with Iranians; they're not Arabs, and are distinctively different in mindset. I taught a few classes at a university from 1978 to 1984, and the distinctions between Iranians and other ME peoples was pronounced and definitely superior, even the relations between the Shah supporters and the Mullah supporters was mostly civil, at least on campus. Some were even roommates with each other.

We did well with 'nation building' after WW II, quite successfully, in fact. Culture matters. Persians built a great empire and have a history of literature and science. Arabs were mostly bandits and murderers, and their Koran reflects that.

I believe the OP covered that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

... they would be battling with somebody else.

Would they be the threat that Iran is?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the topic? Is it not ultimately the best way to rebuild a stable government?

No, you oaf, the dream that Iran falls inot a balkanized entity.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

I believe the OP covered that.

The difference is you're hoping it stays anarchic, I don't; I've seen that first hand and not just on the History Channel while snacking on popcorn and soda. I want them to succeed at putting together a stable country.

 

[Lockback]

The difference is you're hoping it stays anarchic; I don't; I've seen that first hand and not just on the History Channel. I want them to succeed at putting together a stable country.

As do I. And I think it can be done.
We shall see ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not really. Most of their 'scholars' were Christians and Jews, some converted and took 'Arab' names. Christians and Jews made up their bureaucrats, doctors, and even soldiers; Jews were the garrison troops in some major cities captured by the Moors in their invasions of Spain, one of the reasons the Reconquistas didn't trust them and they had to convert or leave. Some of them lied and kept their religions underground, hence the Inquisitions; they were considered a sort of 5th column of traitors, and some of the local Jews aided the Muslims in their conquests of the cities.

In fact one of their alleged 'golden ages' was under three generations of a Persian royal family, that also supported Christian and Jewish scholars and artists. I will look up their names and the years in a while, if anybody is interested. Other than the Persian 'enlightenment' and the one in Spain, mostly by Jews like Maimonides, there was much in between except dark ages, Most people forget Constantinople was still a seat of scholarship up until it fell in 1453, and the West had access to their still significant contributions, often erroneously attributed to 'Muslim scholars' disseminating science and literature in the West.

He is correct, but long, long ago.



"Indeed, the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. The report noted that Arab rulers stay in office all their lives and create dynasties that inherit power, and the peoples are unable to institute change."
Arab Human Development Report - Worldpress.org

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Would they be the threat that Iran is?

Who?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The difference is you're hoping it stays anarchic, I don't; I've seen that first hand and not just on the History Channel while snacking on popcorn and soda. I want them to succeed at putting together a stable country.

I hope for no such thing.

I simply hope it is not as strong as the current set of 7th century barbrians.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

He is correct, but long, long ago.



"Indeed, the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. The report noted that Arab rulers stay in office all their lives and create dynasties that inherit power, and the peoples are unable to institute change."
Arab Human Development Report - Worldpress.org

They were 'converted into Arabic' because the Arab rulers demanded it, not because Arabs were great readers; they were mostly illiterate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The difference is you're hoping it stays anarchic, I don't; I've seen that first hand and not just on the History Channel while snacking on popcorn and soda. I want them to succeed at putting together a stable country.

first hand?


I've spent time in the Middle East....but not Iran.

Have you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who?

4. Iran was led by a powerful dictator known as the Ayatollah. He ruled with harsh repression to keep these ethnicities together:
AI Overview

Iran is a multi-ethnic society, with Persians forming the largest group (~51–61%). Major minority groups include Azerbaijanis (16–24%), Kurds (7–10%), and Lurs (2–6%). Other significant populations include Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Arabs, Baloch, Turkmen, and Qashqai,




5. If the current regime of Ayatollahs is ended, and if the daydream of the Yugoslavian pattern resulted, we would never see the resergence of the Iran threat again.