Ancient Persia invented human rights when an imperialistic king conquered much of the then-known world. But today, Iranians struggle with the semantics around governance.

A paradox of Iran is that the founder of the Persian empire, Cyrus the Great, is credited with introducing human rights (one of Iran’s many incredible inventions), but some would say that Iran does not have democracy in its DNA. The reason for this, however, may be more semantics than history or genetics. It’s easy to conflate:
– forms of government: monarchy, republic
– economic systems: capitalism, socialism (or communism)
– degree of social freedoms: democratic, autocratic (or tyranny)
– the role of religion: theocratic or secular, etc.
A democracy is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state. A republic is a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president. Akin to a slot machine, you find all types of countries around the world, i.e.
– Turkey is (on paper) a democratic secular republic, where elections are held, religion is not the foundation of the government and a president is its head of state.
– Iran is a theocratic republic, but the theocratic part – and how Velayat-e-Faqih has ruled social norms and impeded on Iran’s tradition – has tainted the republic part.
This is a unique dynamic that many in the West don’t understand, especially when they conflate the different types/forms of government.

For 2500 years, Persia (known as Iran since 1935) was a monarchy where new dynasties would emerge, with Shahs occasionally usurping power from existing kings to launch new dynasties. Add to this, you had foreigners (Arabs, Turks, Mongols) who coveted the geo-political attributes, resources, etc. before modern empires in Russia, UK & America asserted their influences for their interests. For a look at Iran’s history starting from Ancient Persia, read this. For a primer on the 20th century, read this. For a breakdown of the political and economic influences from foreigners, read this.

When in 1979 the clerics aligned with the marxists to topple the Shah, they subsequently purged the marxists and usurped total control. While in name Iran is a democratic, theocratic republic, it’s not really a democracy relative to some Western nations (and to be fair, even Western democracies are limited in their freedoms and liberties). But because “the business of Iran” has always been lucrative, the ruler of Iran has been a well-compensated leader, be it Cyrus the Great, the Shah, or Imam Khamenei.

If you fast forward to today, even the many Iranians who oppose the regime do not actually believe in a democracy whereby ANYONE can aspire to lead the people. In a recent of Iranians living inside the country by Gamaan:

  • 34% chose a “secular republic”
  • 22% the “Islamic republic”
  • 19% a “constitutional monarchy”
  • 3% an “absolute monarchy”.
  • more on the surveys here.

But when it comes to trusting an actual person, this is where the republic goes sideways. I don’t follow the micro details or personalities involved; I discuss the global matters and trends, in the context of history and social sciences. But even I’ve noticed that those who have raised their hand to “represent the people” are called controlled opposition, seen their characters assassinated & thrown under the bus. Some of this has to do with the assumption that everyone and anyone is interested in financial looting of the nation’s riches – and given the country’s history, that’s not surprising, either.

In any case, to me, this shows a fundamental lack of belief in true republican democracies when anyone can lead the people. As a Canadian, I’ve lived in a constitutional monarchy, but one in which the head of the monarchy has no real impact or role in the day-to-day affairs of the country. Our prime ministers are voted in and out of office, and they are the de facto heads of state. America is a republic through and through, one that was borne after rejecting the monarchy and commonwealth of the British empire. Similarly, existing constitutional monarchies in Belgium or Scandinavian nations is a bit of a stretch, given they don’t really share Iran’s tragic history.

As I navigate from the history of Iran to the current reality, I can see that the “republic” mantle has been tarred in the eyes of Iranians by how the clerics have used the form of government to consolidate total control. Some put their blind faith in the exiled crown prince, Reza Pahlavi, which to foreigners (to some extent, like me as well) seems beyond strange who view “republics” as better than “monarchies.” To Iranians who oppose the regime, a republic is a tainted term, and there exists no greater insult that one who seeks to reform the system. And, given Iran’s history of monarchy and the recent grip by the “republic/regime,” I suppose it’s not shocking, either.

Having attended at a lyçée français for my formative high school education, the French philosophers “enlightenment” period made one thing clear: by default, monarchies were bad. Having been born in Iran six months before the 1979 revolution, I actually didn’t (then or now) have a pro or anti bias to the Shah, I just knew that certain factors and factions had come together to topple a king after 2500 years of monarchy, and a theocratic republic had replaced it, which was in most ways autocratic but also democratic by virtue of having elections (albeit with pre-selected candidates). Thus, even to me as an Iranian who knows history, it takes a while to understand the cries of the Iranian people who complain about republics, and even, to some extent, democracy, because they are conflating many parts of it. It’s not hard to understand the rising interest in the exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi.

Iran is different than any other nation. Take sports, for another anecdotal example.

Nelson Mandela once said: “Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does. It speaks to youth in a language they understand. Sport can create hope where once there was only despair. It is more powerful than governments in breaking down racial barriers. It laughs in the face of all types of discrimination.”

That, one would think, applies to all people and nations. But not Iran, where some call for a boycott of the national football (soccer) team Melli, because they represent the Islamic Republic regime.

When I say Iran is a paradox, you have no idea: none of the rules of understanding a people, history and culture apply – and this is just one more example.