Re: IRAN, the Shah, and Mullahs, and power of negative campaigning
Nushin Namazi from Iran writes: Istvan Simon raises an important issue and shows how powerful the media is in distorting the record of one of the most democratic leaders of the 20th century who brought reform and modernization to Iran and engineered Peace in the Middle East. Was the Shah of Iran "undoubtedly a despot?" The American Heritage Dictionary defines a "despot" as a ruler with absolute power, a person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant. In what way was the Shah of Iran a despot? Which of his actions categorize him as a despot? From the perspective of the clergy, the Shah was a despot for he ripped away their oppressive power over the Iranian people, but to the Iranian people, he was a liberator, a democrat, an economic reformist, and a humanitarian.
During his regime the Shah of Iran formulated, initiated, and instituted the following policies in Iran for the Iranian people which went into effect after a public referendum in January 26, 1963 --named: the White Revolution. Would a tyrant hold a referendum?
1) Agrarian reform --much longed for by the peasants and small farmers but feared by big landowners. In the middle of the 20th century in Iran, 95% of arable land remained in the hands of a privileged few while the peasant class was badly off like the serfs of medieval Europe. This inequity was the basis for agrarian reform in which those who owned several villages could keep only one and had to sell the others to the government which the parceled the land to the peasants. Two years after the implementation of the agrarian reform law, 8,200 villages out of 18,000 were shared among 300,000 families. This movement continued in spite of the violent opposition of the clergy and some myopic landowners who became his bitterest enemies.
2) nationalization of forests and pasture land --
3) corporate/ labor reform where workers were allowed to participate in the profits of their companies. About 20% of all shares in Iranian companies were reserved for workers and managerial staff.
4) liberation of women and right to vote and allowing women to vote to the great dismay of the clergy. In 1936, Reza Shah, the Shah's father, who was anxious to give women the same rights as men, forbid veils (chador) to be worn and required the police to remove the chador from women who persisted in wearing it. Although the clergy claimed it was an attack on modesty, it was a mark of respect for women. The queen mother and her two daughters appeared in public wearing hats and no veils. Women were to be citizens in their own right. The Shah however abolished his father's edict and allowed women the choice and freedom to wear the veil or not. Are these actions consistent with those of a despot? Khomeni's regime reduced the legal age of marriage for women from 18 to 9 and stripped away women's rights! Can you really compare the Shah of Iran to Khomeni and his Islamic Regime? Its like night and day!
5) created literacy corps --which were made up of high school graduates whose mission was to bring literacy to villages. In the 1960's the illiteracy rate in Iran was 70%, this gap in illiteracy was closed 25 years later. Use of high school graduates to accomplish the task won world attention.
6) he pardoned men and women who attempted to assassinate him and educated them, particularly the communists, about his policies. He pardoned Ruhollah Khomeni, who led an uprising against the White Revolution in March 1963 in Qom, the center of the clergy. Would a despot pardon his enemies?
7) he was the first leader in the Middle East to recognize Israel and to establish economic and trade relations with Israel. Is this a despot? He was respected by the leaders of the Arab nations. The Shah peacefully solved the border problem with Saudi Arabia. Is this a despot?
8) Iran is a diverse country consisting of people of many races, religions, and ethnic backgrounds. The Shah gave all these people the freedom to worship as they please. He established a secular government --separating state and religion. Is this a despot? Yes, a despot to the islamic clergy, but not the people of Iran.
Many of the lies and propaganda against the Shah of Iran have failed to materialize over the past 25 years. In fact, Iranians today are beginning to realize they made a grave mistake! My impression is that the young Iranian students were influenced similar to others by the vast network of anti-Shah propaganda fueled by the clerics and European press. Although I was the beneficiary of our own American educational system and received full scholarships from California, my sense is that those Iranian students whose education was funded by the Shah but were anti-Shah were influenced by the anti-Shah propaganda. Many of those same students were receiving free round-trip tickets and other monetary incentives to protest against the Shah. This shows the power of money and gullibility of students.
RH: I am copying this to Kenneth Pollock, Director of Middle East Research at the Brookings Institution, inviting him to make comments. He is a leading expert on Iran, and his The Persian Puzzle has been well received. He says that now in Iran there is a nostalgia for the Shah. I can understand that. We visited Iran during his administration at the end of a tour of Asia. It was a relief to get back to an orderly country.
Your comments are invited. Read the home page of the World Association of International Studies (WAIS) by simply double-clicking on: http://wais.stanford.edu Mail to Ronald Hilton, Hoover Institution, Stanford, CA 94305-6010. Please inform us of any change of e-mail address.
Ronald Hilton 2004
last updated:
November 29, 2004