Great Post.
Indeed this is wonderful news. When I compare it with last year and all the terrible days when he was nearing his death I can't help but feel hopeful and grateful.
He definitely deserves all this and much more than this. (unlike some Nobel laureates who git it for mere political reason and have proven time after time that they didn't deserve a thousandth of it...)

Following his own demand to be criticized I think it is indeed important to balance our praises with reasonable criticism so that we could show that we are indeed different from the Khatami-type pro reformist idiots.
I personally find some of his new positions problematic. He says war can't bring democratic culture. That is true but trivial. that was never the issue. The point was that the Islamic republic is such a fascistic system, it is so out of time even with the standards of the ME is restricting freedoms, political, social or even private freedoms, that might be necessary to use force to get this main "unnatural" obstacle out of the way, so that the real reform long time procedure of shaping a Democratic and liberal culture and society can just begin in earnest. Kind of like being trapped in a local minimum. Getting out of it does not mean having reached the real maximum of the function, just that now the gradual ascent can seriously be undertaken. He is not addressing that, instead attacking and defeating a straw man .
Indeed recent historical evidence disprove this naive approach. Germany, Japan, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq are all clear proofs why sometimes force is indeed necessary for the eventual establishment of liberal democracy.
If he disagree with the special case of Iran, he has to give real rational arguments and evidence for it, not such worn cliches.

The other thing that I find a bit odd is his insistence on republic as the only acceptable form the world over. Indeed many great democracies are constitutional monarchies, like Britain, Sweden, Japan or even Canada! What is the point of this meaningless insistence. It is counterproductive because the shape of future government whether a republic or a constitutional monarchy is not the real issue, but the way its constitution is written, that it be a liberal democratic constitution, that is essential, so by insisting this he is alienating unnecessarily a part of opposition who are actually more prone to liberalism than say our fossilized left.
The other issue is this insistence on "forgive but not forget". It is a correct direction to go, but IMHO it must be balanced by a demand for trial and justice to the top criminals in charge. It is not a matter of not forgiving,but that the crime has been so deep and the wound so deep that our society can't be back to normal functioning unless this matter is dealt with with enough clarity. How else can we demand from individuals to put their lives in work to institute and push our society forward, once we get read of this system, when in our recent history those who did this were executed after a stupid fundamentalist revolution and the executioners were forgiven and given free hand in the free Iran. Trial and possible execution of major criminal, the top guys, is not a revenge or a continuation of bloodshed. It is a necessary justice to give the psychological insurance to all of our society that it is NOT the case that good people who fight will be victimized and those who murder and destroy will go free and rewarded. It is like the logic in Nuremberg trials. Crimes against humanity must be be brought o justice for civilization to be able to function at all.

One more small objection. I agree with him when he says that Iran and the US should talk openly. But we all know that with the present system this can't possibly happen. So Ganji is stating a point of principle and is smartly protesting with the only version that can happen in reality as far as IRI exists. I think he should have been more clear in this so that VOA for example wouldn't title it as "Iranian Dissident Supports Direct Talks Between U.S. and Iran". These subtleties are important for a leading figure to take note of.

I hope we keep up the true liberal tradition of criticism of our leaders from the onset, to prevent the tragedies of our past.

I am amazed, grateful and extremely happy for Ganji. I would even call on him to take the lead in this struggle. For this reason I will also continue to criticize him from the beginning.

Babak,

I'm sorry to say that all your comment is nothing but an attempt to "justify" and "white wash" ganji's position and this is by itself the wrong approach.

I answer your points from the last:
By delineating non-ideological democrats I am also making a distinction between an "us" and a "them".
You could put it that way, but mine is the maximal such set, precisely because it has the criteria of "non-ideology" and "liberal democracy" both of which are maximal inclusive sets in their respective contexts.
The point is that Ganji's is deliberately avoiding the maximal set, and thsi makes it an ideological distinction that goes against the foundation of liberalism and what he claims he is representing (and is NOT). Sorry but there are no two ways about this.

As for majority of monarchists being hot headed and all that, this is essentially true abouot all Iranian political fractions, republicans, communists, socialists, mossadeghists(like this idiot for instance: 1 & 2 Mossadeghist nationalists are actually some of the worst fanatics we have nowadays) and of course islamist-reformists (just listen to Behzad nabavi or Hajjarian ... about Khomeini and his path). I mentioned Monarchist idiots just becuase that was what the talk was about otherwise there much worse amoing other groups.
In any case, monarchists whether we like it or not constitute a noticable portion of our people and they won't just go away.
As I said there is actually a very well organized and active minority among them that are excpetionally reasnoable and democratic minded. The right thing is to engage them and help them take over the bulk of pro-monarchy spectrum and mraginalize the hardliners.
What Ganji is doing now, specially in light of the fanaticism of the anti-monarchists, is to exclude them from their right to struggle for their form of government in liberal and democratic means from the onset and this is not OK. Defending their right of speech is not good enough.
Futhermore it is simply not true that Ganji is against cooperation with them because of how hardline they are. He opposes constitutional monrachy for ideological reasons and thsi should ring alamr bells for anyone who is willing to trust him as a liberal activist or even leader.

True, he had gone along way from his origins, that's why i support those stances he has made, but evidently he has not gone far enough. It is quite clear that there is a direct link between his constant mentioning of Khoemini and his recent stances. This doe snot look good. He is willing to turn about the politicakl structure of the present regime , but he is still clinging to the worn out myth that this would still be in line with the real objectives of 1979 revolution (that he agrees paradoxically most people who had engaged in it did not have!) and the real manifestation of its ideals. This is a lie and nothing but truth is going to help us get of this mess and he is not willing to open his eyes to the whole truth contrary to his nice words. (partly because he was an accomplice in the revolution and its defence t hat has brought us to this catastrophic situation). It is not good that as a result of clinging to lies already a group of our people with liberal democratic inspirations are barred according to him for ideological reasons, so early on.
He has come a long way but NOT LONG ENOUGH. There are people liek Sazegara who seem to be further than him and doin much more meaningful (but less pop star like) efforts. They of course aren't known for theur "heroic" actions, but i for one have not much appreciation for such heroics per se. In that field fanatics of say the MKO are way ahead of your hero in self sacrifice and resistance in face of pressure and yet this gives them NO worth whatsoever.
He has come a long way. because were he used to eb was so down beneath. That's probably why he needed so much intellectual endeavour and reading, so many philosophies, Popper, Kant , habermas, Arendth etc etc to say stuff that for people from more reasonable background and less early religous indoctrination was more or less obvious in manu cases- and still be missing such an importnat and fundamental basis of real liberal free thought. Compare it with our real heroes of the constitutional revolution who understood all of this in their guts much much better and acted upon them and stood true to them with out all these sophisticated studies. Ironic yet again.

It is also becoming more apparent why he was lallowed to exit the country. It seems our ruling friends are quite desperate now in face of a real showdown that would topple them to take such risks of even letting outspoken peopel like Ganji out in their dire times.

Anyway, unless he packs himslef back to reason and stops utter such rubbish, IMO, it would be better to wait in confusion and go ahead individually than to be mislead again for some year by another - better and more accurate- immitation instead of the real thing.
I know I will.

AIS,

You are mistaken in thinking I am trying to "justify" Ganji's position. But that is the least of your mistakes.

First, I have already conceded, in theory, that considering the Republic to be the only form of democracy is a mistake. So, in that I agree that Ganji is indeed mistaken. But you are going much further than that: you are using a pseudo-psychological approach to claim things about Ganji, the person (his link to Khomeini, The Revolutionary Gaurds Corps, etc.) which I don't actually find important practically or valuable intellectually. What is important is that he has expressedly accepted the principles of liberalism. He is mistaken? Yes, but so could be anyone. The way to go at it is to tell him so, and engage him in a debate. Is it possible? Maybe or maybe not; but that is only a problem of communication.

Secondly, you claim he is still clinging to the worn out myth that this would still be in line with the real objectives of 1979 revolution (that he agrees paradoxically most people who had engaged in it did not have!) and the real manifestation of its ideals. Where is the reference for this claim? I have a different reference, where he says, The 1979 revolution [of Iran] was the result of a 1970's discourse that was anti-West (anti-imperialist), anti-liberal, anti-democratic, based on a return to our selves ([alternatively] our Islamic, Asian, or communist class-free proletariat self), ideologic, utopian, and revolutionary. We should not think of that revolution as a detour. [...] Therefore, the 1979 revolution was not betrayed. It was the objective realization of the 1970's discourse. The experience of the 1979 revolution guided us all to the fact that without reason and thinking we cannot go past our childhood and become democrat adults.

What's more is that you go on to say ... partly because he was an accomplice in the revolution and its defence t hat has brought us to this catastrophic situation ... which is an instance of the pseudo-psychology that I mentioned above, in direct contradiction with this part of your own comment: It is very ill-advised to try to use mind reading and the sort to figure out what was the real "pragmatic and ingenious" objective of Ganji (or anybody else) in what he says and does [...]

Third, in the rest of the above quote, you say[...] in order ro "defend" him or "justify" his actions. Do you think the same is well-advised if it was for "attacking" or "unjustifying" his (or anyone's) actions?

Fourth, you write What Ganji is doing now, [...] is to exclude them from their right to struggle for their form of government in liberal and democratic means from the onset and this is not OK. Defending their right of speech is not good enough. A few lines below, you have written He is lonely? needs supporters? Needs defneding? Well, he should DESERVE it first. I am speechless by these illuminations. Should a person first "deserve" it for his human rights to be defended? How is it, that a simple expression of opinion by Ganji based on an application of liberal principles (even if faulty, the fact remains that is the basis) is deemed "excluding them from their right..." but suddenly a group who has not even clearly stated their position with respect to an illiberal form of "constitutional monarchy" in which they were the rulers, is "a group of our people with liberal democratic inspirations"? Where is your proof of that? So in your logic, shouldn't they earn it, or deserve it?

For sure, you are not suggesting it is not only Ganji who has to come clean of the past. Moreover, in my opinion, he has done that already, by his clear rejection of both the objectives and the methods of the 1979 revolution, if not his great courage and extreme hardship in prison.

Fifth, your quotes from Hajjarian has no value for discussing Ganji's positions. If you do not remember, or have not read it yet, the first book of Ganji's Republican Manifesto is mostly a refutation of Mr. Hajjarian's Constitutionlism (with Vali-e Faghih this time). Also, your objection to Ganji for his using Khomeini's words and so his connections with his ideology, etc. is intellectually baseless, and can only be supported by yet another pseudo-psychological argument. Ganji also quotes Marx here (to show that even Marx thought highly of the role of Capitalist Bourgeoisie in the progress of the world). He quotes Khomeini in the same way. He might have believed in Khomeini's theories 27 years ago, but he has so clearly rejected Khomeini's main theory, that of the Velayat-e Faghih, that I cannot accept that he still does believe in him. Do you see any objective (according to principles of liberalism) in the Khomeini quotes in Ganji's writings? As you know, Khomeini was a far more contradictory source of ideas. He did for instance claim he was after a republic like that of France, something that turned out to be a lie. Now, even if Ganji thinks highly or less badly of Khomeini than you do, what does it matter when for all its worth he has rejected him clearly and expressedly?

Lastly, you have gone awefully wrong in your analysis, by suggesting that allowing Ganji out of Iran was a conspiracy by the regime. Are yousuggesting Ganji is implicitly supporting them?

"He is mistaken? Yes, but so could be anyone. The way to go at it is to tell him so, and engage him in a debate. Is it possible? Maybe or maybe not; but that is only a problem of communication."

Indeed. Did I say anything different? He is mistaken and I am telling him so (figuratevily speaking). What is your point?
It is you who are answering on his behalf, trying to figure out why possibly he might have excluded the monarchists. This is an attempt to justify him that I personally find quite meaningless.

Yes, indeed he- or anyone else- has to deserve being supported. Even more so of being followed. Over and over again in anything they say and any position they take.
There is no contradiction in hwat i say. there is a section among monarchists that advocate liberal democracy under the form of constitutional monrachy and their stances, speeches and actions do indeed make their stances deserving of support. see here for instance. But my point originally was not even about supporting their actions, but the fact that they do deserve to be included in any liberal coalition, including all the occasions that would arise for debate among the groups whithin such coalition. Ganji is outright denying them this for no good reason and that is unaccpetable. Simple. Specificallyh they agree and aknowledge republic groups and are in favour of forming a coalition with them and they also are willing to leave the decision of the form of government to a referendum for people to decide. Your Ganji is not willing to do this and has already decided what from of government SHOULD be strived for, who SHOULD be excluded because of the already decided form of Givernment by Mr. Ganji personally.... It is simple. Those monrachists, for the time being and based on their stances, do deserve to be included in a liberal democratic coalition. Ganji does NOT desereve, for the moment, to be supported for his dogmatic and ideological anti-liberal stances.
You find a contradiction there?!
(And I don't see why you try so hard to ignore and white wash this serious deliberate limiting of other people's rights?)

I know about what Ganji says whenever the subject of talks goes to this topic. But what he does, his stances and what he says elswhere is contradiction this nice words. You don't see this?
He says here that the revolution was not for freedom. Then he says elswhere (in his TV interview with VOA for instance) that the previous regime had to go and the revolution was inevitable. So which way is it now?! Are revolutions by their "essence" anti-liberal and unable to yield democracy (as he has said elsewhere) or are they sometimes inevitable and OK to have been a part of?
You seem to be his spokeperson here. Please enlighten us so we wouldn't have to go to pseudo-analysis.
He says in one place that what is needed is coming together of opposition groupd who are advocating democracy and then in another place makes a statement that acts as nothing but an impediment to any coming together of groups ( especially since the issue of constitutional monarchy and republic has been a major cause in the lack of unity for 27 years no, any real action would have been to fill the gap not to widen it).
You can quote all the nice words all you like and it wouldn't answer my points because they are contradictory to his other statements and more importantly his stances.
Khatami and Khomeini all said very nice words as well. Together with other words that contradicted them which people deliberately chose to ignore as you seem to be doing here now.
You yourself say you do not try to justify what he is saying but that is exactly what you are doing.
It might come as a surprise to you but people's actions and what they say are not always the same thing.
The same goes for mentioning Hajjarian. Ganji still calls him a republican, a close and good friend. Someone they disagree with on the some of the abstract models of hwo to make the ultimate republic. he is of course very welcome in Ganjis' coalition, although he still want to make sure poople are allowed to do certian things he find ok or not (here is the link again). While the monarchists who are willing to concede to teh choices of people are excluded.
This makes the ideological roots of Ganji an important issue.

Again the same goes for his Khomeini quotes. Contrary to what you claim it is not the same thing as quoting Marx. Marx stance was consistent within his own theory and his stance was indeed different in many cases from what Marxists and Communists, especially Leninists adopted alter on. In any case Ganjis' quotation was to show that even Marx agreed with the benefits of free market capitalism though he wanted to go further than that while his (especailly Iranian) followers later on have a religous hatred of anything capitalistic. These are all correct and even important to mention.
Nothing of this is true of Khomeini. Yes Khomeini said a lot of nice words just before the revolution, but they were in no ways an integral part of his ideology or view point what so ever. He said it himself very clearly afterward that he was using trick techniques agains the infidels (inline with teh accpeted practice of taghiyya in Shia Islam). His books about the rule of the clergy was altready published and there was nothing even remotely reminiscent of French republic in his ideas. Ganji certainly knows all of this and yet he still quotes his "trick" statements. For what purpose?
Again you seem to be anxious to act as Ganji's sopekperson here. His links to khoemeini are worrisome.
His quotes about teh real ideals of revolution according to khomeini are again in contradiction to his other claim about the uselessness of revolutiosn an dtheir anti democratic "essence". So why is he quoting Khomeini?
That is also the case with his record in guardian corps. He is not telling the truth there. Why not? He can ask for forgiveness for not being democratci minded (as he somewhere else says about an unknown generic third person who was involved in the 1979 revolution. Instead he says some nonsense about the war.
The conjecture that there is a link between all of these deliberate contardictions is not pesudo-psychological analysis. Is legitimate sources of concern about a leading figure in very dire times. His background is important. His previous brainwashed hardline mind set is important today in worrying about how far from that he has come, not just in words but also in deeds.

You tell us Babak. You seem to know the non pseudo-psychological reason for all his talks and stances.

Finally I talked of no conspiracy. It is not a question of what Ganji intends to do, but of how the consequences of what he does are viewed by the regime that is important. His theory is if he wass not granted a visa that would have set all the wordl media against the regime. This is laughably naive. This is no good reason. At the same time they beat women, arrest students and canadian citizens etc. all in these dire times. Not granting our friend here a visa wouldn't add much.
I think that what he is doing for his own independent view points of course , i never said the opposite, is deemd beneficial enough for the regime. he advicates direct talks, he advocates world disarmament and peace (!), he causes disunity among the opposition deliberately... All I said was I can see why the regime would allow him out at this point of time. Afterall there must have been a reason he was allowed to travel, no?
I don't where you find a conspiracy here?!

AIS,

This chain is getting nowhere. Your responses are not easy for me to digest, partly because they are mostly rantings. My questions have gone unanswered. It seems to me we have a subtle difference of opinion, but somehow you seem to be suddenly far away on a remote distance on your conclusions and theories, and especially emotional. In an attempt of undersatding your points (and mine) I am writing down a few questions, which I think sums up all our discussion so far. I ask you to answer them clearly, and I will do the same. This is inevitably repititious, but I don't see another way.

Also, you are repeating some of your claims for which I asked you to provide a reference, especially because I have references to the contrary. You have not done that.

Am I justifying Ganji's position? Why?
Is Ganji's opinion that Republic is the only form of democratic government correct?
Are Iranian monarchists liberals?
Is Ganji's cooperation with monarchists, monarchists' right?
Is Ganji's links to the revolution vital?

My answers:

1. No. I have already expressed my agreement, in theory, that Ganji's opinion in the second question is a mistake, and I have no justification for it in the sense you are using. Also, I disclaim any role for myself as a spokesperson for, follower of, Ganji, or such. Every single time you direct such nonsense at me, I feel I must overcome a greater psychological barrier to continue this debate.

2. No. Ganji is wrong. There exist democratic forms of monarchy (and undemocratic forms of republic), in which the onarch has no special entitlement to the exercise of public power. My claim, though, is that he is applying a liberal principle (that no one is entitled to a special share of the public power) mistakenly. He must be responsible for it. However, I disagree with you that this could be as a basis for the rest of your theory as to what Ganji is.

3. Some are, and some not. My point is that, which I think is an important one, in light of the recent history of Iran, the Iranian monarchists, especially the democrats among them , must clearly say what their intended shape of "democratic monarchy of Iran" is, so that a person like me, for instance, be sure that it cannot be abused once the new monarch has secured his position. Does this mean that I think Ganji is then right to exclude them uncricially, and with no possibility of a dialogue for instance? No, and that is where I think Ganji is mistaken, if he is doing this. But I do not feel I can agree to their inclusion, before they clearly state their relationship to the previous monarchy of Iran, which was not liberal.

4. No. Cooperation is not a right. It is a diplomatic decision, that can be correct or incorrect, but is not against someone's rights. On this, I do not even understand what you are saying, or what your point is.

5. Not at this time. Ganji has, in my opinion, shown his rejection both of the objectives and methods of the Islamic revolution. He cannot be clearer than what he is on that. And in my knowledge there is no reference for what you are claiming he feels or says about the revolution. Quotes from his friends does not count. (By the way, I have never read Ganji call Hajjarian a republican. A friend yes, but not a republican.) In the theory I am using, Ganji's links to the revolution belong to the past that he has disconnected from. I may be wrong, but I need to see an alternative theory that stands this test: Why has Ganji rejected the central doctrin of the Islamic revolution and its founder, Khomeini?

* * * *

All this said, I have come to see one point in your strong objection, and that is the following: having rejected other forms of democratic government based on a faulty logic, and given that we will have succeded in holding a referendum for the content and structure of the future democratic government of Iran, some people, i.e. the democrats among the monarchists will be exculded of their right to put their proposal to the public vote, if Ganji, mistakenly, considers it to be undemocratic because of the terminology (this is by the way, an essentilaist trap) and is in a position to decide on the content of the referendum. Is this what you are saying?

Babak,

I'm sorry you didn't notice my answers to your points.
I'll try again once more by answering your questions if you like.

1- Yes. You are trying very hard to justify Ganji. This is very evident and if causes barriers for you to continue a debate or not is not in my hands. (BTW, When I call you his spokesperson I think it is evident that I do not mean it literaly or seriously. What is this, a joke?! It is the attitude you are taking, trying hard to find arguments to justify Ganji when he is clearly contradicting himself. This is NOT the critical approach, I'm sorry.) That you disgree with some of his claims yourself is a different matter, you were still trying very hard to justify him all along and I find that ill-advised.

2-Of course Ganji is wrong. It is very obvious.

3-Some are liberal and consistent. Some aren't. Like all the other Iranian political groups.

4- Cooperation itself is not a right. The problem is the ideological reason behind this rejection. I also think the demands to exclude one party from a grand coalition, not just the cooperation of group with another, when that party is very much deserving, is an instant of discrimination and a forerunner of a definitive future struggle to trample their rights to be voted for by the people of they choose to by non-democratic means.

5- He says new stuff, but he also saysthings that show he is not yet disconnected the umbilical cord that connects him to this system. He contradicts his general words by saying the opposite in the special case of Iran all the time. THe contradictiosn are all similar in nature and point very naturaly to one conclusion: He is not willing to cut ranks with the system completely.
He says Iran is different from arab countries and has a strong and active opposition, a lively and exuberant culture seeking democracy,.. that need support.
Then he says war can't bering democracy to a society that does not have the capacity for democracy.
Well which one is it now? Iran has a capacity for democracy already or not?

He says all liberal opposition forces must come together. That this is vital today. Then he deliberately excludes one such liberal force from the opposition, creates even more disunity and weakens the entire opposition for no good reason what so ever.
Again, which one is it? Unity or not?!

He says that it is only now that the ideal of democracy is prevailing among all forces. That in 1979 documents show that that was not the common goal.
Then he quotes Khomeini's words that ask for the right of each generation to choose its own government and destiny by elections and that the goal was to creat a republic like that of France in 1979. Well again, which one is it now? Was it for democracy or not?
(Or maybe everyone else was anti-democratic except for Ganji who had joined the revolutionary gurads for defending the country against a war that was still two years ahead, Khomeini who was in it for making another France in the Middle East and Hajjarian (since he is a good friend and we should includ him in everything anyway)-talk of the three musketeers!)
(BTW Here is one instance for example when he calls Hajjarian a republican. Last paragraph )
.
.
.

The most optimistic conclusion we can take here is that he is not willing to cut off from his reformist base - in practice- since it is advantages for him. It is through them that he grew to fame. It is through such connections that he was saved from various tortures that others have gone through. It is partly due to these connections that his named kept being mentioend in the public. It was definitely through such connections that he was released. It is also through these connections that he was allowed to get out of the country. (to answer your meaningless insistance on conspiracies. The link between his positions and his ties are clear. His positions regarding international affairs, direct talks and disramament is not different from Ebadis and many others in the reform movement. They all know each other, they all talk to each other, I think it is very reasonable to assume that the ones in charge knew about his positions on these matters before he was allowed to get out.

All is fine. but for someone who is telling everyone about costs and prison etc. it is at the very least extremely hypocritical to try like this to keep the connections intact.

I personally see more to this. He can't make the last step. These are all signs of that. He is not capable to cut the last threads of the cords that connect him to refomers and through them to the system. Untill and unless he cuts it all, he is still one of them and not of us. It is like a game of pool. It is nothing to support when someone sends most of the balls to the holes and then turns around and hands in the stick to his opponent afterwards by his own free will.
He says many stuff in contrast to this. But they are all in general theory. Things actually that others have written and he has read and thought about. It is exactly these new contradictory statements that show his original contributions to all of that and they way they are adopted to our case, to this land, at this time.
And he has failed miserably there.
Sorry it hurts your feelings or erects barriers for your psyche but that is the way it is.

It is simple Babak.
Why don't you answer the real simple question that is at the core of this discussion:
You say you disagree with his statement about barring a group of liberal democratic people from the unified front.
Why should someone who has read all about Popper, Habermas, .... and has expressed such sophisticated ideas in his writings in prison make such obvious "mistakes"? make such statements that are contradictory to the fundamental basis of all he allegedly believed in.
Why should he be making all these "mistakes"? why is he deliberately doing something to destroy the unity and weaken the opposition?
What should we think of someone like this?
Why don't you answer the question?

Okay! It is good to be clear on things. Some reamrks on the more important points:

1. Repeating the same baseless claim does not create the needed support. I challenge you to put together some of my sentences that would suggest I am "justifying" or "white washing" Ganji's positions, which I won't be able to counter with my own written words in the same context. (Also, you seem to have a limited view of the "critical approach." Moreover, a purely critical approach, I believe, is inadequate for making good theories.) In any case, your accusations are hardly helpful, considering the structural problems of a limited written dialogue with an anonymous commenter, and in your words very "ill-advised."

2. Dealt with.

3. This is an important part of our discussion. We both seem to agree that the monarchists, as a group, cannot be considered a liberal force. Some among them are, and they even have (mostly one-man) parties, but as a group, as a label, they are not associated with a liberal political force in Iran. Once we accept this, I argue that it is not a matter of simple logic that Ganji's comment in regards to them is so obviously against liberalism as you claim. However, his comment in regards to monarchy in general is wrong. Interestingly, it is his general theory here that is wrong, not his statement specifically about Iranian monarchists as a group.

4. I don't see an ideological reason behind Ganji's comment, but a faulty application of a liberal principle. The ideological nature you are referring to only comes about as a result of your psychological theory of the inner workings of his mindset. However, I agree as I said above, that if Ganji takes a position of such power to decide who is to put what to vote, and he still believes in his faulty theory, he would be likely to strip a group of people (perhaps a minority) of their right. But the solution to this is simple, there should simply be no such position. And I feel this is what you are trying to warn against too. No follower-followed relationship; no special position to decide on others' rights.

5. Again, as far as I have read Ganji he quotes Khomeini in the same way as Marx. It is important to bring out such quotes as "every generation is free to choose their destiny" especially if it is by Khomeini. The ones like "we want a republic like France" are quoted as an instant of undelivered and empty promises. This is what I read again in Ganji's recent radio intereview with DW. (See here.) So, these two statements are not in contradiction, that "the 1979 revolution was not for democracy," but "it had nice slogans." It is always like that. It is well known that some of the major slogans of the 1979 revolution were based around "independence" and "freedom". All movements and ideologies, even the deadly ones, have some nice slogans. That is how they recruit supporters. But they won't and they can't, as a matter of fact, deliver on those nice slogans if they are not based on freedom and its central role in society.

About your final questions, I have some misgivings. For instance, you wrote: You say you disagree with his statement about barring a group of liberal democratic people from the unified front. I never said this. I said, it is a mistake to "exclude them uncricially, and with no possibility of a dialogue". I said, it was "not clear to me what's the balance of advantage vs. disadvantage of trying to use their resources at the tangible risk of dealing with their illiberal fanatics who have the upper hand...". And I said, "neither of these 4 categories stand for liberal ideals." In short, I do not consider the monarchists, as you say, a "group of liberal democratic people." I disagree with this statement.

On the other hand, I agree that there is some room for concern as Ganji makes theoretical mistakes. There is also some dark spots, about which he is unwilling to speak. And he evades some reasonable questions regarding the past. In the above radio interview, he evades the first question (seems to be surprised by it actually) about the state of freedoms during the government of the last pre-revolution prime minister, Shapour Bakhtiar. But I am more optimistic than you seem to be. I am still counting on the fact that Ganji has written so strongly about the principles of liberalism, and has asked for criticism (merciless ones for that matter), and think that there is a better chance with him, as an important figure, in debating and correcting the mistakes than many others. That is my current dogma, which I am willing to discard if it is shown to be useless. I am giving that some more time.

Ok. You want to know why I think you were/are trying to find reasons to justify Ganji's statement. This is how it goes: Ganji makes a statement in general about all forms of monarchy, including constitutional monarchy and why it is not acceptable. His argument is childish and obviously unacceptable for anyone who agrees with the basics of liberal thought. He mixes up equality of opportunity with equality of results.
You say you agree that this is wrong. Fine. That should have been the end of discussion. But then you constantly try new ways to make sense why Ganji is saying this, why it is not the nonsense that it is, how to twist it to make sense. You drag the discussion to the condition of (the vast and diverse field of Iranian) monarchists- that you reduced to a caricature- to see why this case this is perhaps a good idea, where as the problem with Ganji was his general approach to all this and I'm sure you could see this. You try to find an instance of demractaion in my arguments, again irrelevant, and do so on. You are still continuing this here.
You can regard the consitutionalist monrachies as whatever you want. The point is, for the umptinth time, that this is not for you or any other individual to decide.
Both constitutional monarchy and republic can be turned into visicous tyrannies, especially in fertile cultural grounds such as that in Iran, and both can be real liberal democracies. The debate between liberalproponants of either form is which one of the two is more suitable given iran's culture and background to amke the transition to the real democracy (ie. the content) easier and more natural. A republic is all elective (at least in theory, so it could be better in that respect. On teh other hand in a constitutional monarchy the king would be just a title, a nominal head of state and representative of Iranian historical background and a unifying symbol for all ethninc and religious and ideological sections of Iranian community, because he or she is not bound to any ideology and has no actual power (something a president as head of state can't be because of his powers and so could be come as many countries in the thirld world himself another tyrant).
The obvious solution is to let ultimately for the entire Iranian population to decide after all the debates are openly made in favor of one over the other, so that the voice of this very same cultural and historical context can be democratcialy heard. Afterwards all those who are struggling for a liberal democracy must join forces, accept teh decision and work hard, struggle actually, a long long time together to make sure the content of the ensuing regime will become the liberal demoicracy , which is the main issue.
You also keep mentioning that Reza Pahlavi seems to be ademocratic fellow. So what? that is how their logic goes, and I may add it has worthwhile to contemplate on that, so the guys' character
The other example is this comparison with Marx quotation. I definitely disagree, because I see no common ground. What Marx was saying was comnsistant with his ideology. it was not capitalism that was praised in that quote but this mystic historical trend that manifested itself in the form of capitalism and that now has supposedly moved on to its final(?) form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, He could and did at the same time be a against all capitalists who were degenracies in this view point clinging to an outdated era (there is a lot of resembelance to how christians view the "old" Testament, and those who still practice it!). Khomeini was simply lying. Nothing more to fool others and win support.
Anyway what is the point of mentioning it? It is so silly. The Islamist hardliners knolw the reason for such claims already and they have much better and more direct quotes from teh same Khomeini in their favour. For normal nojn islamists Khoemini is a mass murdere criminal and quoting him adds no merit to anything.

No. Ganji has a trend of mentioning Khomeini favourably. Even back last year he attributed crimes such as mass executiosn just after the war to the current leader while it was on the direct order of Khoemeini. He still has close ties to Montazeri who was Khoemini's main desciple. I just quuoted what his close "republican" friend thinks of this imam.., there is another (not so hidden) reason.

Anyway. I think the issue is really settled. I was angryat first with him. yet another phoney immitation. I thought the very absurdity of his faulty logics is enough to make it clear that he is an ideological agenda. He has one, but the absurdity and elemntary logical and factual fallacies and mistake son his part need no elaborate explanatiosn like that . He is yet another confused idiot.
So the anger soon faded. I actually feel only pity for him and his like. It is truly pathetic, and not surprising in hindsight. For someone who have started the journey towards rationality by the influence of the likes of Soroush and Montazeri. I mean what is there to expect than a completely confused and inconsistent erratic mind.
Th eproblem as I said of course him becoming yet another hopelss icon or leader.
Otherwise he is, as I mentioned before, a brainwahsed islamist thug who has been struggling ever since to coem to reason , and this is worthy of admiring, The fact that after all these struggles, after 27 years he is still such confused and perplexed ranting fool is evidence of only who low he started out. It is mind boggling actually. What kind of bestial animals they must have been in 1979! It makes the hair on my back rise. And so maney still in that level among his crowd. It's like looking down an endless pit. Makes one dizzy.
THe situation is simple. He and his like could be useful. That should be the paradigme of how we should treat them. Useful. They can be used in ripe circumstances. like the boycott of elections or the chain murders case.
But that's it. I take back what I said about him being a leading figure and warn against any such possibilty. He and his like should also be lead to understand their real position. They were with criminals. They have to finally make the difficult break with their past, make their record public with honesty (which is very hard I can imagine) and join in as foot soldiers, yet another contributor and understand that they are in no position anylonger to decide what is or is not allowed, what rute should or should not be taken, whom should or should not be cooperated with ... that they are the least people to ever have that role ever again. they can only serve humbly the right cause, partly also as a retribution for what they have done in their past. To serve and to shut up when it comes to such issues. They should understand where they stand.

I also here by raise my hat to whoever it was inside the regime who realized he would be exposed as an unoriginal memorizer that he is once he is in the free world. Sir, you have done us all a great service.
It is yet another exmaple of how cold calculating minds and logics, even from tyrants and criminals, will always serve the general good, unlike lofty dream ideologies that spread like plagues in populatiosn and make humans into lunatics. Thank you whoever you are! :)