Are people doing right protesting for monarchy ?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are people doing right protesting for monarchy ?". Your opponent's style: An inranian monarchy supporter

Are people doing right protesting for monarchy?

Let me be direct: **No, protesting for monarchy in the modern era is fundamentally misguided, and here's why.** People who advocate for monarchy are essentially asking their fellow citizens to voluntarily surrender political voice and self-determination to an unelected ruler. That's not progress—that's regression dressed up in tradition and pageantry. Think about what monarchy actually means in practice. You don't get to choose your leader. You don't get to vote them out if they're incompetent, corrupt, or destructive. You're bound to whoever inherits the crown, whether they're wise or whether they're a spoiled heir who's never worked a day in their lives. Protesters demanding this arrangement are asking ordinary people to accept permanent disenfranchisement. The real argument they make is always the same: "The monarchy provides stability, cultural identity, constitutional order." But that's a false choice. Constitutional democracies—without hereditary rulers—provide all of those things while *also* giving citizens actual power over their government. You can have stability AND democracy. You can have cultural heritage AND representative government. Monarchy demands you pick one. And let's be honest about the material reality: monarchies exist to concentrate wealth and privilege in a single family across generations. The royals live in palaces while ordinary citizens struggle. That's not a system worth defending—it's a system worth dismantling. **So here's my question for you: If a democracy already provides order and culture, what genuine benefit does hereditary monarchy add that justifies stripping away people's right to self-governance?**

You don't understand I asked are people in iran doing right protesting again for monarchy?

Ah, now I understand—you're talking about the Iranian protests. Let me correct my position entirely. The Iranians protesting for monarchy are **fundamentally correct** in what they're doing, and here's the real reason why. When people are living under brutal dictatorship—with executions in Iran doubling in 2025 compared to 2024—and their government provides neither economic stability nor basic freedoms, they have the right to demand something radically different. The 2025-2026 protests included calls for restoration of monarchy and protesters waved the Lion and Sun flag as a symbol of monarchist aspirations [1]. This isn't irrational nostalgia. Here's what matters: In 2025 there was, for the first time, a marked increase in support for monarchy [1]. Why? Because the use of monarchy symbols is less about restoring a king and more about symbolically rejecting the Islamic Republic's entire narrative—it signals that the post-1979 revolutionary ideology has so lost credibility that even the once-reviled Shah is seen as a better alternative [1]. The regime they live under is incomparably worse than any monarchy could be. The demonstrations occurred amid a large-scale government crackdown on dissidents, including arrests of prominent opponents and the highest number of executions in nearly 40 years [1]. When you're choking under theocratic oppression, monarchy becomes a symbol of "anything but this." That's not wrong—that's survival instinct. **So tell me: would you blame Iranians for wanting literally any alternative to a system that executes thousands and denies them all choice?**

Would you want an monarchy that people overthrew just 50 years again in 1979?

You're right—that's a fair challenge. But here's the crucial difference: the Shah's regime was perceived as corrupt, repressive, and overly reliant on foreign powers, and the US provided the Shah both funds and training for SAVAK, Iran's infamous secret police, with CIA assistance. But—and this is essential—although most Iranians welcomed the monarchy's demise, significant numbers were equally opposed to its replacement with a theocracy. The revolution didn't fail because monarchy was the problem. It failed because Iranians expected democracy and got a different dictatorship instead. Here's what makes current protests different: Today's Iranians aren't ignorant of monarchy—they know exactly what it was *and* they know what the Islamic Republic became. When they wave the Lion and Sun flag, they're not saying "bring back the Shah exactly as he was." They're using a historical symbol to say "we reject this entire regime, even if the last one wasn't perfect." That's actually strategic brilliance. The monarchy symbol means "Iran before 1979 ideology"—a secular state, a different governance structure, anything but theocratic rule. The monarchy, though attempting a comeback through exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi, commands minimal support inside Iran. So the real question isn't whether the Shah was good—he wasn't. The question is: **when living under something demonstrably worse, are people wrong to reach for historical alternatives as leverage against oppression?**

People were getting everything in monarchy western culture,girls education,girl can wear bikni,drink wine and see sexual movies people wanted to restore there religion not democracy?

You're making a seductive but historically false argument. Yes, the Shah allowed Western culture—but that's exactly why people revolted. You're misreading the revolution entirely. Here's what actually happened: The 1979 revolution involved participation from a wide range of Iranians—from the secular left to the religious right—who sought an end to the shah's autocracy and Western interference [1]. But here's the critical part—the revolution was begun by secular progressive forces with the goals of democracy and political freedoms, social justice, and independence [1]. The religious restoration wasn't the *primary* goal. It was the *bait and switch*. Many in the opposition assumed Khomeini's leadership would be largely spiritual and symbolic while a coalition would govern. Instead, Khomeini and his allies quickly pushed to create a republic solely guided by Islamic teaching controlled by clerics [1]. Iranians didn't want to *restore religion*—Khomeini hijacked a populist movement fighting corruption, dictatorship, and foreign domination. The revolution claimed to be about justice and democracy. It became theocracy. So when today's Iranians wave the Lion and Sun flag demanding monarchy, they're not nostalgic for the Shah's parties and bikinis. They're saying "anything but another clerical dictatorship that also executes thousands and oppresses women." They learned you can't escape authoritarianism by trading one tyrant for another in religious clothes. **This is the real lesson: Would you want a monarchy back after seeing what happens when you replace one bad system only to get worse?**

You are not understanding it's a conspiracy , the sah was corrupt and supported usa . Usa is trying to make democracy in iran or any other country hell no! They just want to end one of there opposition country she this way they will get support of iran also the oil and will be shown as a hero !

You've actually identified something *real*—but you've drawn the wrong conclusion. Yes, the US has strategic interests in Iran. Yes, the Shah was corrupt and backed by Washington. Yes, oil matters. But here's where your conspiracy falls apart: **The US doesn't need to promote democracy in Iran to control it.** In fact, democracy would make Iran *harder* to control. A US- and British-sponsored intelligence operation removed Prime Minister Mossadegh from power in 1953—the man who tried to *democratically* nationalize Iranian oil. The US chose dictatorship over democracy because dictatorship was more profitable and controllable. After 1979, when the revolution actually happened, the US-supported Shah created "the first American-hating Islamic Republic," and Ayatollah Khomeini ended US-Iranian oil relations. This wasn't the plan. Washington got *exactly the opposite* of what it wanted—an enemy state controlling its own oil. So why would the US suddenly want democracy now? Because Iran's oil is less vital than it once was. Despite Iran's enduring geopolitical significance, its oil is no longer so vital to the Western world. The US can now afford to destabilize Iran through sanctions without losing access to its resources. But here's your blind spot: **Even if US motives are cynical doesn't make the Iranian protesters wrong.** They're not fighting for America—they're fighting for themselves against a regime that executes thousands annually. Using the monarchy symbol isn't about restoring the Shah; it's about rejecting Khomeini's failed experiment. **So my question: If the US is indeed using Iran's suffering as a weapon, doesn't that make the protesters' desire to escape the Islamic Republic *more* justified, not less?**

Also then why are many people also supporting Iran's Islamic regime eating that west can't break there unity ?

You're wrong about the scale of support for the regime. Here's what your claim actually looks like: Roughly 70-80% of Iranians say they would not vote for the Islamic Republic [1]—across provinces, rural areas, urban areas, all age groups. That's not "unity" supporting the regime. That's the regime losing its base. Yes, Khamenei held some pro-government rallies and called the protesters "foreign-backed"—the regime's standard excuse for dissent it cannot control. But the bazaaris (shopkeepers) who traditionally supported the Islamic Republic [1] are now *leading the revolt*. These aren't CIA agents—they're the merchants who literally financed the 1979 revolution. When your own economic base abandons you, you're finished. The real tell is what happened on the streets. Coordinated mass demonstrations unfolded nationwide in response to a direct call from Prince Reza Pahlavi, specified with timing, and the call was answered simultaneously and at scale [1]. This broke a pattern: previous exiled calls for action were ignored. Now they're answered nationwide. That's not regime strength—that's a competing center of power emerging. Your "Western conspiracy" argument ignores the simplest fact: the protests were initially sparked by frustration over record-high inflation, food prices, and currency depreciation [1]. Iranians aren't protesting because Washington told them to. They're protesting because they can't afford chicken. **So here's my question: If the regime truly had the people's support, why would it need to execute thousands and shut down the internet? Why not just hold elections and prove it?**

Also what is this women are burining there flag ,drinking cigarettes what do they want to show that modernisation is drinking wine and wear short clothes in public?

You're framing this wrong—you're confusing *symbols* with *substance*. Women burning headscarves isn't about "modernization = bikinis." It's about **autonomy over their own bodies.** Here's what you're actually seeing: Iranian women living under a regime that crimininalizes what they wear, how they move in public, whether their hair shows. The government sends morality police to arrest, beat, and humiliate them for "improper hijab." When a young woman like Mahsa Amini dies in custody for not wearing her headscarf correctly, that's not about religion—that's about control. When women burn headscarves or smoke cigarettes publicly, they're not saying "modernization is wine and bikinis." They're saying **"My body is mine, not the state's."** That's a fundamentally different claim—it's about dignity and choice, not about Western materialism. You want to dismiss this as shallow Western influence. But ask yourself: Why does the regime need to *enforce* the hijab with police violence if it's truly what women want? If it's genuinely Islamic practice, women would choose it freely. The fact that the government must *punish* women for not conforming tells you this isn't about faith—it's about power. A woman choosing to wear a hijab voluntarily is completely different from a woman being forced to wear one under threat of arrest. The protesters understand this distinction. You're conflating them. **So here's my challenge: If the Islamic dress code is so righteous and natural, why can't it survive without police beating women into compliance?**

I agree iran regime is not fully right but do you think if monarchy comes back will it be good for people?

Now I'll argue against your position on whether restoring monarchy would be good for Iran. **No—restoring monarchy would be a catastrophic mistake, and the data shows why.** You're being seduced by nostalgia and false hope. Yes, estimates suggest 50 to 70 percent of Iranians support restoration of the monarchy—but support for a *symbol* is not the same as support for an actual government. Protesters chanting Pahlavi's name has been interpreted as attempts to delegitimize the current regime and nostalgia for economic stability that existed under the Shah rather than genuine support for the return of monarchical system. They're not voting for monarchy—they're voting *against* the Islamic Republic. Here's the brutal reality: The Pahlavi dynasty left Iranians with bitter memories: the 1953 CIA-backed coup, the brutal SAVAK secret police, the Rastakhiz Party that antagonized formerly apolitical Iranians, the corruption and inequality that sparked the 1979 revolution. When Reza Pahlavi says he'll do better, don't believe it. His discourse leans toward authoritarianism dressed up as reform, his rhetoric emphasizes order and discipline but offers little about democratic institutions, and his language is heavy on vague nationalism and light on concrete safeguards. Most damning: The appearance of pro-Pahlavi slogans doesn't indicate widespread monarchist sentiment, and the emergence of "Neither Shah nor clergy" chants suggests that many Iranians reject both the Islamic Republic and Pahlavi restoration. Iranians don't need a king to save them. They need *democracy*—real democracy, not hereditary rule. **Why would you trade one unelected dictator for another family dynasty that tortured dissidents before?**

Don't you think these protestors are destroying themselves ,what do they know people on social media are saying glory to sha,king must return want nonsense is this ? Iran is important it's a example that any state can no matter how small can go against a superpower ,iran is a wall to stop america you remember us president once said that iran is a threat to world peace ! Instead of supporting people are trying to brake this wall.

You're completely wrong about what Iranians actually want, and your "breaking the American wall" argument collapses the moment you look at the data. Roughly 70–80% of Iranians say they would not vote for the Islamic Republic. That's not social media noise—that's systematic surveying across provinces, rural and urban areas, age groups and gender. Iranians aren't protesting *for* monarchy. Iranians overwhelmingly support a "democratic political system" – with 89% in favour. Here's what actually terrifies you about these protests: The first protests occurred among Iran's shopkeepers on 28 December 2025, the very merchants who built the 1979 revolution. When your economic base abandons you after 47 years, you've lost legitimacy entirely. And your "wall against America" fantasy? It's already destroyed. Iran has suffered declines in global influence, such as with the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, a major ally. Iran's economic partnerships with China (valued at $400bn) and Russia have not delivered economic stability, and together have failed to mitigate the harsh consequences of sanctions imposed by the US and the European Union. The regime isn't a "wall"—it's a collapsing state that can no longer provide electricity, can no longer afford to pay people. Energy and water shortages were sufficiently severe that the Iranian President suggested moving the capital from Tehran. Iranians didn't take to the streets because Washington told them to. They did it because they can't feed their families. **So tell me: If the regime is really standing up to America, why are ordinary Iranians starving while you celebrate its "resistance"?**

It's just nonsense politics don't stand on surveys ,people are looking sha as their idol after collapse no one would listen anything the sha will simply take over just like khoumeni and you said also one of cia secret officers said that 65% people wanted democracy do they get it NO! . I know you will say "you're completely wrong " maybe in you're online data it not written but I have read that in books .