We want democracy in Iran! What type of system for governing should Iran have?


Only people from iran please. Iranians who live abroad are welcome.
Feel free to add any comments.

By admin

Dear people,

it is very good idea to begin such effort for future of Iran. To be sure it need support of some prominent persons. We also need an agenda and control instance that promises have to be keeped. I hope this to happen and go ahead successully. The political independence of this movement must be underscored. To trust the effort we need a common slogan which express the main will of people: independence freedom and a democratic Iran.

Best regards
Anonymous writer from Iran

By Anonymous (not verified)

It is very important, to any genuine future government of Iran, that the majority of it's people are a part of making whatever type of government that they wish to form. If the majority wish to retain some visage of the Islamic Theocracy then the world's people that support Iranians now will continue their support in the future. This is not about the world changing Iran. This is about Iran being free.

از آن بسیار مهم است ، به هر دولت آینده ای واقعی در ایران ، که اکثریت آن را مردم هستند که بخشی از ساخت هر نوع دولتی که مایل به فرم. در صورتی که اکثریت مایل به حفظ بعضی از چهره از بنیادگرایان اسلامی ، و سپس مردم جهان را که در حال حاضر به حمایت از مردم ایران حمایت خود را در آینده ادامه خواهد داد. این است که در مورد ایران در جهان تغییر نیست. این است که در باره ایران آزاد می شود.

By Anonymous (not verified)

Isn´t the first option also a secular one?

Even the third option, because the power of religious leader is clearly limited?

By Anonymous (not verified)

Yes, I guess option 1 is a secular idea even though there is a monarch.
Note: if you read our constitution, even if the Supreme Leader or monarch is elected, he or she still holds a great deal of power. They are just democraticly elected and can be removed from power by the people.
Option 3 would not separate church from state even if the Supreme Leader's power is limited. Still would be called Islamic Republic and symbols of religion would be mixed with state business. Level of religion would depend upon how people voted for different laws.

By admin

Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Administration_and_politics) is a secular democracy and constitutional monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy).

The monarch is not elected, he holds NOT a great deal of power, but is limited to official and ceremonial functions.

I suggest this as a forth option.

By Anonymous (not verified)

Oh, who is going to be king?
I want the job.
How do you choose in a constitutional monarchy? Because my family was on the throne before Pahlavi. I trace by roots from Safavid. So, that means I should be king. Right? So, just give me a call when you are ready to crown me. Thank you.

By Anonymous (not verified)

You look at it from the side of justice. You are right in that. I don´t contradict.

I take it from the side of psychology for 2 reasons:

1.) Danger of unbalanced power:

You know in Germany we have mad bad experience in giving a single man to much power, even if elected. That is the danger I see in option 1, the democratic monarchy.

If we look at the power of american presidents like Bush there is a similar danger. Same for Putin.

2.) Danger of a missing face:

The answer is to share the power amoung multiple institutions and people, say checks and balances. The problem with this is, that the power becomes rather anonymouns.

If a face is missing, people get discontent. Remember democracy of ancient Rom. People finally wanted a Caesar and established a tyranny.

It´s the inborn psychologie of men to follow a leader. Inside and outside iran there are still a lot of Iraniens dreaming of a Shah. You have to deal with this animal like nature of the human being, wich does not ask for the idea of absolute justice.

Two alternative solutions:

The german solution for this two problems is to share the power by canceller and ministers to addresse 1.) and to have an official face in form of a mainly representative president address 2.)

The swedish solution is similar. Instead of a president without power they have a king that is merely representative.

In a country with a lot of fans of monarchy having a king that is mereley representative may be a solution to integrate these people without bringing democracy to danger. This way the King/Shah can fullfill a usefull task in the system.

By Anonymous (not verified)

Do not be Anonymous if you want to be speak a free world means you can say what you want as long as you do not say some thing that is not TRUE

By Anonymous (not verified)

Do not leave your name or address as this may be a regime website looking for dissedents

By Anonymous (not verified)

was not listed--anything hereditary can go wrong and legal strictures and strict guarantees of universal liberty and gender-blind secular education with bi-or tri lingual education in the lower grades. A representative parliament, inclusive of all parties and restricting monarchs primarily to tabloids, dedication of cultural sites etc. The Shaw presented his as a Democratic monarchy, where censorship did not exist, as in conversations and small rallies, there was some freedom, but also the shadow of Evin. The Shaw never presided over a monarchy--preside he did, so detachment of the monarch from politics is essential.
I doubt the former prince of Iran will want this soon--until all necessary groundwork can be laid--he has more influence outside the country as a private citizen now.

America has some flaws as a democracy or Bush would have otherwise been impeached, there should have been a run off after such a close vote in the Gore/Bush election.

By Anonymous (not verified)

I know, I am not able to vote. And I should not, since I am no Iranian resident nor am I iranian in any way possible. - For me this vote is therefore quite simple.

But for all of you Irani/Persian out there, you have to remember that you are voting on a country of 70 million people. Are you going to dictate what they really want? Make up your mind, select what you think is best, or refrain from selecting and let the people of Iran choose for themselves.

I don't expect very many from inside the Iran to be able to even look at this page, so there is not many votes that comes from people who live in the country, under the resources and regime that is present. The people in Iran do not know what to choose yet, so what gives anyone the right to choose for them? The Iranian people are not stupid, but they are the ones that have to live under whatever solution they choose, not any of us currently living in exile or abroad.

I've already been in contact with Iran115 through twitter, and I think the work done is great, and it will likely be the basis of further development and possibly of a new constitution, but until this has been properly addressed by everyone having to live under this constitution, we should not take any of our decisions here as an absolute.

Depending on the outcome of the current uprising, and depending on the leaders that will emerge, the country and population must choose for themselves, we can not and should not intervene in this process.

Yes we can help them to our best ability. Some will show support, others will give their lives. We can send aid, money, soldiers and advice, but in the end, no matter what - residents of Iran will have their say and that will be the future.


By Anonymous (not verified)

Let me assure you, 90% of the work on this web page was done inside Iran.
There are reasons other than the obvious as to why the constitution is in English. However, that will change soon.
People in Iran want democracy. people in Iran want more jobs. People in Iran want freedom and justice. People in iran want better educational oppotunities. People want better salaries and more hope for their children. People in Iran want democracy. We have traveled through iran. We have visited different town, cities, and villages. We know what people in Iran want. And we promise to deliver hope, justice,, equality, security, prosperity, and democracy.

By admin

Wonderful news. This is the information I was looking for. It is essential to have visited and talked to people, so that everything becomes evident from the standpoint of the involved in this big decission. This is too difficult to put in 140 characters.

Weither the work writing this is done inside or outside of Iran is irrellevant, as long as it is based on the real issues inside the country and the written contents is based on the ideas of the people living their daily lives under the current regime.

You have my support, and that of many others. And you have my thanks to allow me to voice myself on this matter.


By Anonymous (not verified)

After what happened in Iran in 1979 and what has happened over the past three decades I would say that neither monarch nor supreme leadership is anymore, attractive to the Iranian population. Moreover, at this point promoting one would infuriate the other and thus increase the gap in ideology and tolerance between two major minorities in the Iranian world today, inside and outside of the country. In my opinion the second option will give the best representation of the majority of people and will more likely satisfy all other factions of Iranian politics. Basic democracy with all of its fundamental principles is applicable to everyone since it promotes the idea of freedom, prosperity, respect and tolerance.

Democratic Republic of Iran with some elements of federalism (not necessary like the ones found in North America) costumized to the country, is the most suitable form of government for future Iran.

By Anonymous (not verified)

Gov't is not important. The removal of these Mullahs is all that matters.

Iranians will find the path afterwards without ill effect.

By Anonymous (not verified)

Along with a democratic regime, let's throw in the Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, and a prime minister. After all, Pahlavi is an active advocate for freedom, democracy and human rights.

We should have a regime similar to that of Britain. In this case, the monarch (or Shah for example) has control over approving or impeaching any prime minister, president or any government executive, and that's about it.

In this form of government the Shah becomes the chief of state, and becomes a symbolic figure and oversees the government's operations, but rarely gets involved unless the system breaks down. So in this case the monarch would have little power, and that's fair enough.

By Anonymous (not verified)

Therefore I won't vote but I applaud your efforts. I would just say that without freedom of religion you can't help but have some form of tyranny, and never forget that with a strait up democracy you can have whats known as a tyrann'y of the majority.



By Anonymous (not verified)

The above asks for a vote for democratic monarchy, republic or theocracy. In reality, it does not matter fundamentally which of these you implement but they should be DEMOCRATIC. For example, here are all three explained:

Democratic monarchy: similar to UK, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Japan, etc. The Shah (Reza Pahlavi) has power to veto bills and approve government and acts as a guardian of the people. Laws are secular and a prime minister is elected every 4 or 5 years.

Democratic secular republic: similar to Czech Republic, USA, Germany, etc. Because Iran is so big, the federal republic idea is probably best. Similar to the USA and Germany models. Have a president and/or prime minister and ministers elected every 4 or 5 years and each state elect their own local governments as well.

Democratic theocracy: Here, we have an ayatollah (e.g. Montazeri) elected every 4 or 5 years as supreme leader and a president/prime minister elected every 4 or 5 years as well. All trivial religious matters that are enforced in an undemocratic theocracy (such as alcohol prohibition, enforced dress code and sexual apartheid) are outlawed and the code of law is based on the 10 commandments shared by Islam, Christianity and Judaism. As well as a Muslim supreme leader, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and Bahai's all have their own supreme leader for their communities. Moderate versions of all the religions prevail and no money leaves Iran for outside "causes" such as Palestine. People can drink, eat, socialise and dress what/the way they like. Of course, anti-social behaviour (what Islam really condemns - not alcohol and dressing a certain way) should not be tolerated just as in all countries.

Any of the above is fine and it depends on the people. What went wrong with the 1979 revolution was:

1. The official leaders were way too old.
2. Too many gunmen/terrorists took control early on and nobody could deal with them.
3. A narrow circle of politicians and clergy got besotted with money and power.
4. Iran fell out with too many valuable allies such as the US, USSR, Europe and many more.
5. Saddam Hussein.
6. Instability of government and leadership in the 1980s.
7. Widespread corruption because of point 3.
8. An overemphasis on trivial silly laws like dress code and alcohol prohibition that had little to do with real Islam.
9. Giving away too much money and human resources to fund and support causes like Palestine. Remember Palestinians supported Saddam in Iran-Iraq war!

By Anonymous (not verified)

I say communism..... But you don't have that.. fascist cunt

By Anonymous (not verified)

We need a Democractic Monarchy in Iran!

By Anonymous (not verified)

I support communism but you don't have that listed on here?!


By Anonymous (not verified)

You need more than three choices if you are planning a democratic vote. Before I proposed a youtube debate or an e-conference to bring Iranians together to collectively decide our future however I was considered an outcast by the Iranian online community for supporting the pmoi. No one gave feedback to the 100 page report I wrote on rebuilding iran. In your constitution you ask human rights. I bet all the money in the world that you would never stand up and defend the right of a pmoi member. I read your tweeter messages. You are hater just like most Iranians. You ask for human rights only for your own kind. Here are your tweeter comments: “After all Pahlavi is a dictator while MKO is a known terrorist cultish like communist/marxist disaster.” “Pahlavi no friend to democracy. He just pretends to be. A clear & present threat to the democratic struggle. & has alliance with MKO.” You don’t respect the rights of others. I like to see the day Iranians let go of their hatred. But after reading all the hate messages by Iranians; I really question if that day will ever come.

By Anonymous (not verified)