Interview with Afshin Sajedi, Director of Research and Analysis at the International Organisation to Preserve Human Rights (IOPHR), and an expert on the Middle East affairs on a speech delivered by Prince Reza Pahlavi at the National Conservatism conference in Washington D.C. from 8.-10. July 2024.
Constitutional monarchy in Afghanistan
Part II focuses on the passage where Reza Pahlavi criticizes the US-administration for imposing a government of their like to the tribal society of Afghanistan, instead of agreeing with a choice Afghans preferred. „In Afghanistan, when 70% of the country’s post-Taliban tribal parliament wanted to restore the constitutional monarchy of Zahir Shah because his people saw him, even in his old age, as a symbol and source of national unity, the American administration denied this national claim and this sovereign right.“ We evaluate the importance of this passage and its relation to a future Iran.
This analysis by Mr Sajedi will mainly refer to the following passage in the speech delivered by Reza Pahlavi:
„Perhaps some of this makes you weary. I know. It should. Some conversations like this in decades past have led your political leadership down the wrong road. In Afghanistan, when 70% of the country’s post-Taliban tribal parliament wanted to restore the constitutional monarchy of Zahir Shah because his people saw him, even in his old age, as a symbol and source of national unity, the American administration denied this national claim and this sovereign right.
By forcing an inauthentic Western construct on a society with its own traditions, norms, and means of governance, the result was corruption, chaos, and collapse of the state. It was a devastating mistake, the consequences of which we continue to see today.
This did not achieve security for America, nor was it successful in defending your values. Today, terrorist attacks are once again launched from Kandahar and women are once again enslaved in Kabul. Because although America’s aims may have been well-intentioned, the failure to listen to Afghans led it down a road to hell, paved with those very same good intentions“
Main takeaways from the interview:
- Hidden deals between the US-administration and the regime in Iran wrecked the future of a self-autonomous Afghan state in its own style, this should not happen to the Iranian Nation.
- Reza Pahlavi is the legal heir of the throne in Iran, needs to be confirmed by a general assembly of the Iranian people.
- The Prince can act a symbol of unity and integrity of the whole Iranian nation.
- Danger: US-administration might give credit to forces who want to destroy this integrity to their own avail.
- Iran still has a constitution (constitutional monarchy) that has not been nullified.
If you want to listen to his full speech, you can watch here. Reza Pahlavi at National Conservatism conference in Washington D.C.:
In an earlier interview with the German outlet Der Spiegel, Reza Pahlavi offered to be in service of the people in a time of transition: „I offer myself to the Iranians in this process as an honest broker of the transition to a new era. I am trying to tell people that they should not just hope for better times, but tell them: Let’s start believing that we can actually do this. My goal is to guarantee the rule of law for every single citizen – including women’s rights, ethnic rights, religious rights and LGBTQ rights.“
If you prefer to read the interview, here you find the edited text:
mehriran.de: Let’s focus on another part of Reza Pahlavis speech where he mentions the situation in Afghanistan where the American administration did not follow the wish of 70% of the Afghan people who wished to have a unification figure for their country which was Zaher Shah and they impose a model and government by themselves which went quite the wrong direction, so why do you think he criticizes that?
Core message
Afshin Sajedi: I think that this passage of the speech of prince Reza Pahlavi contains and delivers the core message of his speech because he shows us in fact and he refers to events which has happened 25 years ago and it goes about that devastating mistakes that were made by the United States by its destructive intervention in establishing the government and a state in Afghanistan; first of all I have to give you a small and brief information about this events then I will compare with the situation of Iran and make a conclusion.
In December 2001, after the Operation Enduring Freedom, the Taliban government of Afghanistan was overthrown, the German city of Bonn hosted a conference widely known as the Bonn Conference, to choose the leader of an Afghan Interim Authority and establish an initial political agreement for reorganising the governmental institutions of Afghanistan.
Former Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif acknowledged in an interview with a media inside Iran that at first the global consensus was on the return of the monarchy to Afghanistan, but Iran prevented and changed the global opinion.
Regime in Iran mingled in the future of Afghanistan
Let me repeat that, it’s an important point: you say that Mr Zarif claims the regime in Iran prevented this step?
Yes maybe in negotiation or in a hidden deal with the United States. Then Mr. Reza Pahlavi in his speech a few times says that we don’t ask your intervention we don’t ask your permission we don’t ask your destructive intervention.
He means just your friendship and your acknowledgement of the Iranian people’s right to choose their government by themselves and I think that he goes about these historical facts.
I have to point out that Mr. Mohammad Zahir Shah was the last king of Afghanistan, ruling from 1933 until 1973. His early reign was marked by relative stability and modernization efforts.
During his reign, Zahir Shah pursued a policy of gradual modernization. He focused on education, infrastructure development, and economic reform. In the 1960s, he introduced a new constitution that aimed to make Afghanistan a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. Zahir Shah’s era saw the introduction of democratic reforms, including the establishment of a bicameral legislature and granting more political freedoms. However, the country remained largely traditional, and the reforms had limited reach in rural areas.
Later this very important fact was neglected by the US. The structure of the society in Afghanistan mostly, maybe we can say more than 90 percent, is made based on triable relations and not citizenship relations and it is very important.
As an example, we can say that in 1973, while Zahir Shah was in Italy for medical treatment, his cousin and former Prime Minister, Mohammad Daoud Khan, staged a bloodless coup and declared Afghanistan a republic. Zahir Shah went into exile in Italy and did not return to Afghanistan for almost three decades.
Zahir Shah returned to Afghanistan in 2002 after the fall of the Taliban regime. He was given the honorary title „Father of the Nation“, which means that for most of the people of Afghanistan he was a nostalgic sign of the good days of Afghanistan but unfortunately the destructive intervention of the ruling regime in Iran prevented a local government or a local compatible government to be stablished as democracy can never be exported. Democracy should be established by the people themselves but if can never be exported.
As result we can see than the republic of Afghanistan which was stablished later by Mr. Hamed Karzay was accused to full corruption so that the US after 20 years left the country without making any infrastructural change in Afghanistan and now we see the country in disaster as before and nothing has changed in Afghanistan.
mehriran.de: Perfect, so I think you make the point very clear about Afghanistan what happened there and now let’s get back to the initial question why is this important to Reza Pahlavi? Why does he mention it concerning Iran?
Who is Reza Pahlavi?
Yes, Reza Pahlavi, was born in 1960, in Tehran, Iran, is the eldest son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, and he is the Crown Prince of Iran, having been the heir to the throne. Reza Pahlavi was educated in Iran until the age of 17, when the Iranian Revolution broke out and then he left the county.
From the other side, the Constitutional Revolution in Iran 1905 was a significant political and social movement that aimed to establish a constitutional monarchy and introduce democratic reforms. It marked a major turning point in Iran’s history, leading to the creation of the country’s first constitution and parliament. The constitutional revolution divided the history of Iran into old and new eras and the new era in Iran begins with the constitutional revolution and later Iran had a constitution based on secularism. Mr. Reza Pahlavi advocates for a secular democratic government which is guaranteed in constitution.
The point is that when the – as some say – revolution or others say chaos or anarchism happened in 1979, there was no procedure of nullifying of the old constitution exercised and thus the constitution was never cancelled.
Constitutional monarchy
From my point of view it is still the current constitution – it is still valid. It can be changed or modified by the constituent assembly. There are some mechanisms inside of the constitution if some articles or some principal should be changed or the whole constitution should be changed, then the complete assembly is needed and that definitely there will be the representatives of all the people and all the Iranian citizens. During the 52 years of the monarchy, a few times the constituent assembly was gathered and they changed some of the articles or they added or amended or added amendments to the main constitution.
So anyhow, the constitution is a legal act and the legal points and the legal priorities always are prior to political priorities and the Constitution of Iran has never been nullified and has never been cancelled. That’s why Mr. Reza Pahlavi according to this constituation is the legal king of Iran. He has also sworn in Egypt in 1980 after the death of the late King.
So practically he is the king of Iran. Just he has to swear in the national assembly, to officially be able to be legally addressed. That has to wait until he goes back to Iran because the national assembly should be the assembly of all the representatives of the Iranian people and at this time it’s practically impossible
mehriran.de Yes I see. So now you explained about Reza Pahlavi and his current role and why it is not possible for him to go back to Iran it is clear. So why does he mention this episode of Afghan history? How is it related to his own image of the future of Iran what do you think what is his image of how to continue to build a new Iran after the fall of this brutal regime?
Fundamental right to self-determination
Afshin Sajedi: Yes usually the superpowers have to respect the view of the people or the citizens. It is the right of self-determination, it is a substantial and fundamental right but it’s very important to note that this this right (in case of Iran) that was already exercised by the Iranians 120 years ago and we have already made a constitution and we have made already its articles and amendments and its mechanism in this constituation in which the king can reign but cannot rule.
It’s very important for both internal and external relations; from an internal point of view we know that we will have a king as a symbol of unity but he’s always limited and the other players the other parties and the other ideas even the opposite ideas they have sufficient space and sufficient time to expose their programs and their ideas for the people and eventually they can choose for the future government of Iran.
But why the United States have to have negotiation with other parties than the King? Reza Pahlavi is now the legal king of Iran and he is symbol of the unity of the people and he represents all Iranian citizens whether they are against him or they are not against him, like in any other monarchy in Europe; they have security and they are safe.
In Belgium they are citizens of the King, opposite or not opposite. The government in Iran should be shaped by the parties, by the ideas, by the people themselves, by the figure by the political players. The King’s key duty will be just keeping the unity of the values the cultural values and political values.
But I think that Prince Reza Pahlavi sees that this very primitive principle is not respected by the United States and its government and they are going to make once again a devastating mistake to give credits to the people who don’t believe to Iranian integrity or don’t believe to Iran and just the want to take their fish from this sea and they have no sympathy about the Iranian people or Iran by self; if somebody really believed to Iran, they have to know that we have already a constitution which is not yet nullified.
mehriran.de: Thank you so much Mr. Sajedi you really hit the nail I think it is very clear you precise very much what Mr. Reza Pahlavi mentioned in his speech and I think by saying this model can include everyone there should be no fears that Mr. Pahlavi will be a monarch who will reign without any Parliament.
Afshin Sajedi: Thank you very much.
Part I of these analyses by Afshin Sajedi is also available: The risk for Western civilizations and the unholy alliance of reactionary forces.
@mehriran.de, 2024
