Mosaddegh and the Shah


homo sacer
by homo sacer

The anniversary of the watershed event of August 19th,1953 reinvigorated the debate between monarchists and supporters of Dr. Mosaddegh, once again. Among all accusations and counter-accusations exchanged between the parties on this site, one attracted my attention the most, for its continued significance even today: one side claimed that, “Mosaddegh was an obstacle to modernization and progress”, which was countered with, “just compare the amount of bills passed during his reign as Iran's prime minister, and it wasn't just the quantity of the legislation he was able to get through, but the quality of each law and the social-historical significance they had for that under-developed society we had back then.” (Both here)

I wondered if both claims could be true. Here are some thoughts: With the exception of a few steps taken by progressive reformists such as Amir Kabir and Ghaem Magham, the Qajar Dynasty’s contribution to the creation of the contemporary Iran is limited to a grudging acquiescence to the Constitutional Reform of 1906, which it reneged on, afterward. The Iranian educated and cosmopolitan middle class is a creation of the Pahlavis. We must give credit where credit’s due. However, as many members of that class knew then, and even more know now, Iran’s middle class was – and still is, as of 2010 – a caricature of what is both the engine and engineer of democratic societies. What Pahlavis created – intentionally or not – was a collection of bureaucrats and technocrats who were not empowered to legislate, but to rubberstamp and implement the HM’s wish list. Whether that is what our monarchs chose to do or not is not the point. The point is that their brand of “modernization” repudiated modernity. Similarly, their concept of “progress” (a.k.a. ‘Great Civilization’) did not envision any role for a civil society. 

If one is looking for the reason behind the middle class’s apparent ‘disloyalty’ toward the last monarch, it is the absence of a deliberated pact between the two sides – contrary to the Shah’s claim. The middle class was never convinced of being a recognized partner, which it was not anyway. This disconnect between the Shah and his subjects was his undoing. And, it was his middle class’s undoing as well, who reflexively joined the opposition. However, as we all witnessed, it was easily disowned by the revolutionaries and pushed to the margins of the society, and to voluntary exile. But, I am digressing.

My point is, it is wrong to solely blame our leaders, or for that matter our rulers– past and present – for our own shortcomings. When it comes to active participation in the making of decisions that impact our daily life, we have more often than not, in words and in practice, been wiling to delegate our affairs to the supernatural deity, or to those claiming ‘divine grace’ (“far’r-e ee’zadi”, in Ferdowsi’s magnificent discourse). Rather than earning its right to actively participate in the decision-making process, this “under-developed” nation of ours, has willingly consented to follow blindly one presumed savior after another. Mosaddegh’s extraordinary stature among the Iranian intelligentsia is a testimony to this same shortcoming. Both his ascent to power, and his descent were products of our insatiable appetite for miracles. Let’s face it; Mosaddegh failed because he could not free us from our own impotence. He could not win our support - when needed – because he could not convince the rest of us that his cause was ours.

Despite their colossal differences, in this regard at least, he and the Shah were similar. We were not ready for Mosaddegh’s vision. We couldn’t legitimize the Shah’s. Have we changed?


Recently by homo sacerCommentsDate
Jul 31, 2012
Jul 23, 2012
On Homo Sacer
Sep 17, 2010
more from homo sacer
Darius Kadivar

Excellent Insight homo sacer in Line with Mashadollah Ajoudani's

by Darius Kadivar on

MUST WATCH: Very Interesting assessment by Historian Mashadollah Adjoudani on the Iranian Intelligenstia's enduring blindness and incapacity to realistically evaluate the facts surrounding the Coup of 1953:


Recommended Blog:

HISTORY FORUM: Mashallah Ajoudani on Intellectuals and the Revolution

homo sacer

Thank you, Bavafa.

by homo sacer on

I appreciate your feedback.


Great blog

by Bavafa on

"it is wrong to solely blame our leaders, or for that matter our rulers– past and present – for our own shortcomings."

I believe this statement sums up exactly what has been happening in Iran and unfortunately still is as valid as ever.

"We were not ready for Mosaddegh’s vision"

and 60 years on, I am in great doubt if we are still ready for such vision


homo sacer

برو این دام بر مرغ دگر نهٔ

homo sacer


Kidding a kidder?

homo sacer

آب در خوابگه مورچهگان ریختن

homo sacer

Jenaab Sargord & P_J

Wow! I am surprised and impressed. Thank you for gracing my blog. I never expected such a privilege. This coup-anniversary brawl is one of the very rare – but predictable – occasions that you lady and gentleman can schedule your vacation on; While monarchists and mosaddeghists fight each other off – as opposed to ganging up against you – you can lean against your personal cushion, with a gigantic smirk on your face, enjoy your brief recess by sipping your favorite concoction.

I wonder what in this blog did tick you off?


You failed to recognize

by benross on

You failed to recognize Khomeini popularity and support...the difference was that his support came from inside and not the CIA or the MI6, as was the GREAT TRAITOR’S.  


FEEBLE attempt to REWRITE history...homo sacer!

by P_J on

You failed to recognize Mossadegh’s popularity and support...the difference was that his support came from inside and not the CIA or the MI6, as was the GREAT TRAITOR’S.   You also ignored to mention the bloody Coup of 53 that caused the murder of thousands of patriotic Iranians all staunch supporters of Dr. Mossadegh. 

History is what it is; neither shahollah nor Hezbollah can change, REWRITE or MODIFY it, although these failed groups would love nothing better!!!   


Sargord Pirouz

You know, it's okay to mark

by Sargord Pirouz on

You know, it's okay to mark historical anniversaries and to offer analyses of history.

But this constant review by the exile community put forward in a "what went wrong" narrative is really tiresome.

It is much more realistic and productive to accept Iran for what it is, politically and socially, since 1979, then it is to rehash over and over again that which is no longer relevant.