Your take here just makes sense. It’s also perceptive, able to resonate far beyond the scene of American politics. I will preemptively note, however, the context can be incredibly different. As someone active in Iranian political and historical spaces, I believe there is a comparable dynamic surrounding Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah and heir apparent of the defunct Persian monarchy.
Let me be clear: I have no issue whatsoever with Mr. Pahlavi himself. To the contrary, he’s a very reasonable person. He has repeatedly stated he does not seek the throne, emphasizing democratic principles and the self-determination of a cohesive Iranian national identity. These principles, which he’s prioritized over any personal ambition, are things I agree with wholeheartedly. I respect him for this.
But what concerns me is how some parts of the Iranian opposition, even well-meaning ones, tend to frame him as the indispensable figure. That is, the supposed only one to lead a transition away from the hated, incumbent Islamist regime. It goes beyond the fact that he is the rightful heir to the legacy of Niavaran Palace (the iconic residence of the last Shah), to even relative trivialities for a world leader: “he speaks several languages” or “he’s a pilot and patriot”. These are admirable qualities but it just does not make sense to me to base the leadership of the country on them.
In my opinion, the only truly unique asset he brings to the table is name recognition. I am not afraid of being frank about this anymore and can’t be intimidated or bothered into saying otherwise. Even the fact that I would have had hesitations to talk about this is evidence enough that there’s a problem here. It’s not all of the monarchists (and the overwhelming most are constitutionalist anyway), but it is a sizable amount to be rightly concerned over.
The aforementioned ordeal can effectively shape into a kind of personality-driven politics that, as far as I’m concerned, is not healthy for any opposition movement seeking real legitimacy or pluralism. It can feel as if questioning the wisdom of this “savior” approach is enough to draw hostility. Objecting to objections, especially those alleging a personality cult, is not a democratic principle, it is against democratic standards; this is not how we do things in the West.
Please don’t get me wrong. I understand the reasons behind the loyalty. It’s decades of crisis in our homeland, trauma, and a longing for a known yet unifying figure. And I wholeheartedly respect those who admire the Pahlavi legacy, in part because I do too. I adamantly believe the last Shah and his father did good for the country. But there isn’t space for open discussion about Iran’s future if we fail to recognize that no individual should be beyond scrutiny or debate.
At the end of the day, I think the lesson is universal. Movements based on principles, on institutions, are always stronger and more enduring than those which are based on even the most decent of personalities.