Iranian of the Day

iranians of the day

mr. mahdi and ms. tohidi both gave detailed and enlightening presentation on the opposition movement in iran.  though they may have some differences, i'm grateful to have people like this to analyze the political and social events in iran and educate me in the process.

Drift in Intelligenstia: Constitutionalism Vs Republicanism

I see major differences between Ali Akbar Mahdi and Nayyereh Tohidi Assessments on the the Parrallels drawn between the Green Movement Protests today and the Revolution of 79 and the Nations 100th year struggle for Democracy since the 1906 Constitutional Revolution.

There are clearly two distinct historical interpretations of Iran's progressive movements since the begining of the 20th century:

A Constitutionalist Interpretation (which seems to be also shared by historian Abbas Milani) as developed by Nayyereh Tohidi which believes that Democracy could have been achieved in Iran through gradual change by refroming the existing Constitution rather than Radical change.

A Republican or Revolutionary Interpretation which seems to be the case for Ali Akbar Mahdi which considers that there is a lineare historical continuation in the pursuite of democratic goals and that the aims and priorities of social progressive forces in Iran was ultimately to establish a Democratic Republic ( Secular or Not).

Where I tend to disagree with Mr. Ali Akbar Mahdi is that "Republicanism" in Iran has never had a constructive approach towards nation building. It has always played a divisive role based on a stubborn conviction that to establish democracy we need to destroy the existing status quo ( The Monarchy) in order to re-construct an entirely new society while entirely overlooking the political and psychological realities of how an old nation like Iran has been run for centuries. Wiping an existing social status quo to replace it by a new order is easier said than done and the experience of 1979 proved that the confrontational approach of revolutionaries ( of all ideological influences) was counterproductive.

I tend to believe that what we observed in 1979 was not a Revolution that was highjacked by the Mullahs but merely a Change of Dynasty. It was not defined as such but in practice and in handsight it has all the elements that suggest that what was established was a new Royal dynasty but under a Religious Cloak with Khomeiny as New Shah. Very much like in Great Britain with Cromwell who established one of History's First Theocracies. It was actually dubbed as "Theocratic" Republic with Cromwell being self proclaimed Lord Protector and absolute Ruler of Great Britain and Ireland.

So far from being "highjacked", the Islamic Revolution, actually interrupted a process which had been undertaken a century earlier with the Constitutional Revolution: An attempt to Reform the Monarchy into a Parlimentary Democracy.

That the Shah did not follow the Constitution to the letter and can therefore legitimately be accused of behaving as a dictator ( however mild and certainly not as tyrannical as his predecessors or successors for that matter) is one thing but to claim that because of the shortcomings of his reign, his regime was not reformable and therefore justified a revolution is in my opinion far fetched an assessment.

The question is not whether the Shah was a dictator or not or whether he believed in Democracy or not. But whether or not his regime could have been reformed on the long term ( including after his death and succession by a young and inexperienced Crown Prince and therefore more flexible into accepting change from within and the opposition's demands for freedom without changing the regime or toppling it for that matter). Historian Abbas Milani suggests through his researches that the Shah actually was hoping to establish democracy but had asked the Americans ( particularly Kennedy who encouraged him to undertake the White Revolution) who supported him to be patient in their expectations and to give him 20 years to achieve his goals of modernization.

We know that the Shah's fatal mistake was to create the Rastakhiz and how that reinforced the suspicion towards his intentions and the concentration of Power that turned the intelligenstia at large against him and his regime.

Yet unlike many South American dictatorships of the 60's and 70's like lets say Pinochet's regime run Military Junta, the Shah's regime was essentially run by technocrats :

pictory: David Frost's documentary on Iran's Shah in Power (1974)

As a matter of fact even Mr. Ali Akbar Mahdi admits that the Shah's Army was not ideologically driven which explains how easily the Army joined the People. Apart from the Top Brass Officers the Army at large ( Particularly the Airforce) submitted it's alliegence to the New Shah aka Khomeiny. 

This is why I tend to believe that the intelligenstia prior to 1979 composed essentially of the western educated class had a very week understanding of their own country's historical transformations and particularly of the aspirations of the Constitutional Revolution at the turn of the 19th century. There references and political convictions were shaped by entirely new ideas that aimed at merely copying revolutionary struggles ( particularly Leftist in their aspirations) as experienced in such countries as China, or Cuba because it seemed "trendy" rather than reflecting on the pros and cons of the political and social progress achieved since the 1906 Revolution.

Iran needed Reform as promoted by the Constitutionalists as Shapour Bakhtiar and not Revolution.

That historical accidents such as the unfortunate appearance of Khomeiny on the Iranian Political Arena cut short this genuine attempt to Refom the Monarchy into a Truly Constitutional one is a fact but one cannot dismiss it's possibility had the intelligenstia been less "idealistic" and more "Practical" in it's opposition to the Shah and had managed to formulate it's legitimate demands for democracy and Human Rights more coherently than by calling for the Shah's death or cheering all calls for regime change. Ironically this is again happening with the Turbaned Dynasty of the Mullahs and it's Second "Turbaned" Shah: Khamenei .

Nayyereh Tohidi on the otherhand clearly underlines a very important issue and that is Iran's cultural and ethnical diversity. The Monarchy was a cement that kept Iran united despite this diversity for historical reasons.

The Fall of the Monarchy and the establishment of a Theocracy that promoted one Religion ( Shia ) over all others fragilized this equilibrium over the past 30 years.

This explains why as the IRI is now being challenged in it's authority, we see associated to the Green Movement's demands groups that normally have nothing to do with the ideas reflected by Moussavi or Karroubi of reforming the Islamic Republic such as Kurdish or Azeri groups which while demonstrating along with the Greens have entirely different aspirations notably independance or autonomy in the shape of a Federal State.

This is why the transition towards a democratic state is faced with the challenge of maintaining a balance between a Status quo aimed at preserving our National Unity while responding to the demands of Freedom and at times Independance for certain minorities.

It is from this point of view that I think that the Constitutionalist Mindset can benefit Iranians in achieving the Transition towards democracy rather than the Republican Mindset which consists of creating a new Order in our ancient land. 

In my humble Opinion This democratic transition can truly be effective if the Monarchy is restored in Iran in a sighn of national reconciliation and commitment to a democratic constitution ( most probably an updated version of the 1906 Constitution).

As such Restoration as Opposed to Revolution is not unique in World History. It is unique in Iran but the political dynamics that suggest the eventual short or long term fall or at least illegitimacy of the Islamic Republic can favor such an option rather than a leaderless Republican movement with no historical backbone in a country that has always had monarchs which shaped it's destiny and identity.

The major difference with the Past is that the King or Queen will not Rule anymore but will simply be a symbolic reminder of the nation's unity. He or She will reign but not rule.

In addition unlike Great Britain where the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church ( like some kind of British Pope ) is actually a VELAYATEH FAGIH except that she cannot intefere in the Affairs of the State and the British Constitution establishes a clear separation between State and Church.

In the Case of Iran, if let's say Reza Pahlavi was to become that Constitutional Role as King, he cannot even be a VELAYETEH FAGIH because of the Secularist demand of the people. This secularist demand will have to be addressed in the future Constitution. As such the Iranian Restored Monarchy would be Far More Secular than the British Constitution today.

Interesting debate Anyways. Thanks for Sharing it with us. 

My Humble Opinion.

DK

Recommended Blogs:

HISTORY FORUM: How Truly Democratic is The British Monarchy ? 

HISTORY FORUM:The Monarchy with David Starkey (Cambridge University)

I tend to agree more with Nayyereh Tohidi Analysis

Very insightful.

Can someone answer my question ?

   What is the reaon for the green movement's insistence on keeping the constitution of the Islamic republic?

Nayyereh Tohidi has a different take on the subject

Very cogent analysis

Best analysis on Green Movement that I heard so far!

Here's the last part: