4 ms·

The Shah was the monarch and wasn't ousted until 79. The 1953 coup replaced the system where a democratically elected head of government, Mosaddegh, ruled unde

The Shah was the monarch and wasn't ousted until 79. The 1953 coup replaced the system where a democratically elected head of government, Mosaddegh, ruled under the head of state, Shah Pahlavi, with a system where the Shah appoints the head of government.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
How can a monarch and a separate head of government exist at the same time? Sounds like the Shah called the shots.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  Roughly the same way King Charles III is the head of state for the United Kingdom while Rishi Sunak is the head of government.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    As far as I understand, King Charles exists for the purposes of being a tourist attraction, and has no power. Was it the same with the Shah? If a monarch can overrule the “head of government”, then the head of government is not really the head, right?
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      The Shah needed the military to help him remove the head of government in 1953. He was technically at the top, but really the prime minister held more power until the coup King Charles has little actual power, but a ton of theoretical power. If he somehow convinced the military to back him (and he would probably need all of NATO's support) he could do whatever he wanted in the UK too.
    - monocasa 4y ago
      > As far as I understand, King Charles exists for the purposes of being a tourist attraction, and has no power. No, the monarchy has veto power over parliament, and has secretly used the threat of it to shape British law. Apparently most new legislation is run by the ruling monarch's office to make any changes they'd like before it hits the parliament floor for debate. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
    - foverzar 4y ago
      No, that's not correct. The king of England has the right of Consent (as far as I understand, King's consent to bills is required), along with the veto right. That's the idea of a functional constitutional monarchy: the long-reigning monarch counterweights the short-governing government.
varjag 4y ago
The Shah was ousted by Mosaddegh supporters in 1953 and fled all the way to Baghdad before he gained the upper hand.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  Gotcha. You're right, but that requires even more knowledge of the event to understand, and I read "oust the Shah" as "dissolve the monarchy," which didn't happen until 79.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

How can a monarch and a separate head of government exist at the same time? Sounds like the Shah called the shots.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
Roughly the same way King Charles III is the head of state for the United Kingdom while Rishi Sunak is the head of government.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  As far as I understand, King Charles exists for the purposes of being a tourist attraction, and has no power. Was it the same with the Shah? If a monarch can overrule the “head of government”, then the head of government is not really the head, right?
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    The Shah needed the military to help him remove the head of government in 1953. He was technically at the top, but really the prime minister held more power until the coup King Charles has little actual power, but a ton of theoretical power. If he somehow convinced the military to back him (and he would probably need all of NATO's support) he could do whatever he wanted in the UK too.
  - monocasa 4y ago
    > As far as I understand, King Charles exists for the purposes of being a tourist attraction, and has no power. No, the monarchy has veto power over parliament, and has secretly used the threat of it to shape British law. Apparently most new legislation is run by the ruling monarch's office to make any changes they'd like before it hits the parliament floor for debate. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
  - foverzar 4y ago
    No, that's not correct. The king of England has the right of Consent (as far as I understand, King's consent to bills is required), along with the veto right. That's the idea of a functional constitutional monarchy: the long-reigning monarch counterweights the short-governing government.

varjag 4y ago

The Shah was ousted by Mosaddegh supporters in 1953 and fled all the way to Baghdad before he gained the upper hand.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
Gotcha. You're right, but that requires even more knowledge of the event to understand, and I read "oust the Shah" as "dissolve the monarchy," which didn't happen until 79.