Majlis means parliament, and with the monarch Shah in control, that makes it a constitutional monarchy. To place a putschist general on par with that is disingenuous; it is a democratic retreat.
To be fair Iran back then wasn't a system like the UK or Sweden where the king's power is limited to signing laws. It worked more like Gulf states today with a much more personal form of government, the Shah could freely appoint ministers and dissolve parliament when he wanted. And his secret police was trained by the CIA.
It wasn’t a constitutional monarchy at the time, there were reformers pushing in that direction but the constitution put very few limits on the Shah. The Majlis wasn’t popularly elected then either.
Comments
Majlis means parliament, and with the monarch Shah in control, that makes it a constitutional monarchy. To place a putschist general on par with that is disingenuous; it is a democratic retreat.
To be fair Iran back then wasn't a system like the UK or Sweden where the king's power is limited to signing laws. It worked more like Gulf states today with a much more personal form of government, the Shah could freely appoint ministers and dissolve parliament when he wanted. And his secret police was trained by the CIA.
The British monarch can do that too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Unite...
It wasn’t a constitutional monarchy at the time, there were reformers pushing in that direction but the constitution put very few limits on the Shah. The Majlis wasn’t popularly elected then either.