If Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi was a freeper, he'd probably be flamed by the "we're not a democracy" crowd on FR who claim that having a "Republic" is always a good thing, and having a "democracy" is always a bad thing and leads to "mob rule" (though they seem to have plenty of mobs in their current Republic)
The Ayatollah transformed Iran from a Kingdom into a Republic. So he's a great guy, right?
We should hope the Iranian constitution gives Imanutjob power to unilaterally appoint all his fellow nutjobs to the Iranian legislature. Then they'd have an even better Republic!
Can't allow dreaded democracy in these dictatorships!
The Shah had re-instated the same Parliament that his predecessor, Mossadeq had dissolved, while Mossadeq was well on his way to becoming a communist-leaning dictator.
The form of Parliamentary Monarchy re-established by the return of the Shah, is much like the British model was, in times past.
I say was, since now, the British Monarchy seems as much a figurehead, as anything else...
The difference between a democracy and a republic is that a democracy is governance by the people, and a republic is governance by law.
Neither is good nor bad in and of itself, it is how they are implemented.
The French Revolution was a democracy all right and fit the definition, just as one could make the argument that Iran is a republic. A democracy ruled by a mob is no better than a republic ruled by tyrannical laws.
The point I am making is that if you want to apply the labels literally, what you seem to be implying is simply wrong. One can make the argument that the USA is a republic just as Iran is a republic, but there is not question that how they are implemented in each case is completely different, and that is significant.
It’s kinda ironic to see Iranians riled up about this Presidential election since it really doesn’t matter too much. The clerics are in charge no matter who wins the elections.