Advertise here

The Iranian revolution continues; its terminus remains undetermined

 

The Iranian Revolution should be seen as a process. While (as with many revolutions) it is easy to date the end of the Pahlavi regime in 1979, it is harder to determine the terminus of the Iranian revolution, if one exists. This problem is not specific to Iran. For instance, there is a range of competing opinions about how to determine the terminus of the 1789 French revolution. Francois Furet analyses this ongoing disagreement by trying to identify the different endpoints of the French Revolution as posited by different historians. He sees these opinions as spread between two poles dividing past and future, from those who see the end of the French revolution as being synonymous with the termination of the old regime, since "the essential features of the Revolution's final outcome was fixed, when the final page of the ancien regime was turned" to the present time, when "the discourse of both Right and Left celebrates liberty and equality". For Furet, if there is a consensus among contemporary scholars, it is only because "the political debate has simply been transferred from one Revolution to the other, from the revolution of the past to the one that is to come". There are also other dates which are reasonable candidates for the revolution's end, the most of which range from 1794, when Robespierre was executed, to 16 May 1877, when republicans defeated the monarchists. Even between in between these, there are other possible "stopping points" at 1799, 1815, 1830, 1848, 1851, and 1870.[i]

The Iranian revolution is much too young to provoke such a wide range of disagreement about its terminus. However, we can recruit insight from the widespread disagreement about the French revolution by recognising that the "touchstone, in identifying the terminus of the French revolution is the realization of the guiding principles of the revolution". That is why today such disagreements have subsided since, as pointed out earlier on, "the discourse of both Right and Left celebrates liberty and equality". A similar line of argument can be used as a methodological device for defining the time period under inquiry, and judges the outcomes of the revolution according to its initially stated guiding principles of "freedom" , "democracy" "independence", "development" and "social justice". 

So far, we can argue that  the revolution actually evolved in three stages, each representing a different outcome: the short-term outcome ending in June 1981 when the first president was overthrown in a coup, which was characterised by its relatively democratic character; the medium-term outcome, ending with the election of Mohammad Khatami in 1998 and defined by its totalitarian character; and the long-term outcome, characterised by the ongoing struggle between dictatorial political forces and growing demands for the democratisation of the state and society through a strengthening civil society.  In other words and from this perspective, we can see why Michelet, the nineteenth-century French historian, described the moment of revolution in France in 1789 in the following way: "on that day everything was possible...the future was present...that is to say time was no more, all a lighting flash of eternity".
[ii]The refusal of Iranian society to take part in the struggle between ruling mafia families, the cracking and breaking down of the regime, and the presence of a democratic and independent alternative all provide us with both hope and opportunities to mobilize our resources to dismantle the regime and establish a dynamic democracy. This was the initial goal of the revolution; and until it is realised, the revolution continues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auL9PwjpLN8


[i] Francois Furet, Interpreting the French Revolution, transl. by Elborg Forster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 3.

[ii] Kimmel, Revolution, p. 185.

Balatarin

Comments 16 Pending 0

Sort comments:
Shirzadegan

Siavash

The process of deception still continues. The writer of the blog put a populate building on 22 Bahman without explaining the reason why these people were gathered in that building.
Many of these people in the picture were not against shah deep in their hearts. They were curious about the event that was in progress. Many of them were silent crowd. We saw silent crowd in Kaj square, Tehran. It was not that long ago. In Kaj square, one guy killed another guy by stabbing the knife and silent crowd were standing around, just watching. The crowd were approving of murder in progress. They were just watching. The guy who stabbed the other guy was hanged some days later on the spot in Kaj square. The same principles applies here in the above picture.
Many of these people in the picture didn't care who will be in charge.
Many of them didn't have anything to do, they just came to watch what was going on. The picture,without explanation, doesn't give the real of idea behind the scene. THAT IS DECEPTION which is still continue after 34 years. But I think Iranians are getting smarter. They realize they were decieved.

DoostIran

DoostIran

Your reasoning is cogent and your research immaculate. However your scenario is, by defintion, based on the premise that the events of 1979 were organic and internally blossomed as was the French revolution. If that is the true historical case that no crticism can be levied against your reasoning. So, the argument will be between those who adhere to the organic nature of the 1979 uprising and those who don't. But who knows the truth? Do I? Do you? Do we?

Shirzadegan

Siavash

The revolution was a process of trick such as setting fire in Cinema Rex in Abadan and blamed it on S.A.V.A.K and shah.
The revolution was a process of deception and distortion of reality such as shah is giving free oil to America or shah is against Islam and koran. Drinking alcohol with Jimmy Carter.
Poor guilable Iranins who were betrayed by stinky "mullahs", and "lefts". They couldn't even realize the mullahs, who can't control his body odor and smell like a dirt, can NOT make any change for better.
UNholy allies of "RED" and "Black" created such an illusion as if shah is the only obstecle on the way of progress. They propagated if shah leaves, Iran will be like a paradise. They repeated the garbages of Arab made idea from 1400 years ago or they repeated the garbages of Mao and Marx without even knowing the dynamic of our society. Their lack of knowledge about Iran's history.A history which is comingled with Padeshahi.
Our poor naive people believed these idiots and followed them., Many of them even lost their lives for these idiots. That is very sad.

MRX2412

MRX2412

Wake me your cock o many revolution is over!

This comment was removed by the Iranian.com Staff for violating our Commenting Standards

This comment was removed by the Iranian.com Staff for violating our Commenting Standards

SamSamVI

SamSam VI Path of Kiaan Ressurection of true Iran Hoisting Drafsheh Kaviaan

چرت و پرت نگو ...بازم رگ چاخان اخوندیت کرد..من کی به اسلام ناسزا(توهین) کردم ... به تخم تاز اره به امتی جهان وطنی اره به تخم عمر اره . از دید کیانی من پیامبر اسلام تا زنده بود گزندی به ایران نرساند و ایرادی برو نیست ولی عمر حروم زاده کرد و تا ابد عمر عمرو سگپدرو. خوش باشی و از چاخان فری

This comment was removed by the Iranian.com Staff for violating our Commenting Standards

SamSamVI

SamSam VI Path of Kiaan Ressurection of true Iran Hoisting Drafsheh Kaviaan

‍جناب محمود شکستخورده ...عمو توبه کن و برو سراغ کارت و یه نمیدونم پنچر گیری و یا کله پزی باز کن و بزار این نسل نو ایرانه ویران دستپوخت خودت و دووکتر سید بنی صدر الوقاص رو از نو درمون کنن.

farhad8

farhad baz neshasteh hastam va ba zan neshasteh be omort dakheli koeh mirasam

من این تصویر را که نه صحنه ای که بتصویر کشیده شده را در سال 57 شخصا دیدم در خیابان شاهرضا حد واشط میدان فردوسی به سمت 24 اسفند .

This comment was removed by the Iranian.com Staff for violating our Commenting Standards