From theocracy to monarchy? Why Iranians reject both

Ivan Sascha Sheehan is the interim dean of the College of Public Affairs at the University of Baltimore where he is a professor of public and international affairs. The views expressed are the author’s own.

Last month, authorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran killed thousands, and by some estimates more than 30,000, peaceful protesters. The bloodshed followed nationwide outrage over economic collapse but quickly evolved into one of the fiercest and most expansive movements for regime change in Iran’s modern history. In the wake of these killings, the international community faces a solemn obligation: to confront this brutality honestly and to determine how best to support the Iranian people’s long-standing struggle for democratic governance.

The Munich Security Conference, which convenes this Friday, could have provided a fitting forum for such deliberations. Instead, its organizers have chosen a course that disregards the aspirations and sacrifices of those who rose up and paid with their lives. By offering a platform to a figure whose reputation has been carefully cultivated in Western policy circles yet lacks genuine legitimacy inside Iran, the conference risks obscuring the true nature of Iran’s democratic movement.

During the uprising, Reza Pahlavi moved swiftly to insert himself into international discussions. Much of the global media obliged, amplifying his claims before subjecting them to meaningful scrutiny. As a result, casual observers were left with the false impression that the protests sought a restoration of the monarchy overthrown in 1979, and that Pahlavi stood at the head of this movement.

Closer examination has since dismantled that narrative. Claims of popular enthusiasm for the exiled “crown prince” relied heavily on protest footage purporting to show crowds chanting his name. Subsequent examination revealed that many of these videos were digitally altered, with original audio replaced by separately recorded chants, audio that bore little resemblance to the slogans consistently heard in Iran’s repeated uprisings.

Those uprisings, four nationwide waves since late 2017, have shared a defining political clarity. Each has echoed with slogans rejecting both the ruling theocracy and the former monarchy in equal measure. Long before the most recent revolt, organized democratic forces had been working to articulate this alternative vision, building networks capable not only of expressing dissent but of sustaining it through coordinated action on the ground.

The prominence of chants such as “death to the dictator, whether Shah or Supreme Leader” reflects not a fringe position but a broad societal consensus: Iranians reject all forms of autocracy. This sentiment extends well beyond Iran’s borders. It was powerfully on display last Saturday in Berlin, where tens of thousands of Iranians gathered to affirm their support for a democratic republic – an event that underscored how far removed the monarchist narrative is from lived political reality.

That gathering could, and should, have informed discussions at the Munich Security Conference. It stands in stark contrast to the image of “resistance” promoted by a narrow monarchist current whose influence is vastly overstated abroad and virtually absent inside Iran. Even now, conference organizers could still correct course by withdrawing the invitation extended to Pahlavi and inviting the genuine representatives of Iran’s democratic movement.

The Iranian people have decisively rejected the false dilemma that has long framed Western thinking: the notion that Iran must choose between one dictatorship and another. The recent uprising was driven precisely by the recognition that a democratic alternative exists – and is attainable. That recognition has animated every major revolt since the clerical regime consolidated power and replicated the corruption and repression of the monarchy it replaced.

To confer legitimacy on the heir to that former system is therefore not merely a political misjudgment; it is a profound insult to the Iranian people. It also creates the unmistakable impression that the West is once again presuming to select Iran’s next leader – an approach that has carried disastrous consequences for Iranians since the turn of the 20th century. Elevating Pahlavi at the Munich Security Conference, or at any other international forum, would also inadvertently serve the interests of a regime that depends on obscuring the existence of a viable democratic alternative.

There is no credible pathway by which Pahlavi could claim popular leadership. But even if there were, Western governments and pro-democracy advocates would still bear a responsibility to exclude him from shaping Iran policy. The purpose of such discussions must be to move beyond Iran’s authoritarian past and prevent its authoritarian future – toward a republic in which neither mullahs nor monarchs have a place.