Table Of ContentDemocracy in Iran
TThhiiss ppaaggee iinntteennttiioonnaallllyy lleefftt bbllaannkk
Democracy in Iran
History and the Quest for Liberty
ali gheissari
vali nasr
1
2006
1
OxfordUniversityPress,Inc.,publishesworksthatfurther
OxfordUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellence
inresearch,scholarship,andeducation.
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
Withofficesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright(cid:1)2006byOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.
PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NewYork10016
www.oup.com
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise,
withoutthepriorpermissionofOxfordUniversityPress.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Gheissari,Ali,1954–
DemocracyinIran:historyandthequestforliberty/AliGheissari,ValiNasr.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN-13978-0-19-518967-4
ISBN0-19-518967-1
1. Iran—Politicsandgovernment—20thcentury. 2. Democracy—Iran.
I. Nasr,SeyyedValiReza,1960– II. Title.
DS316.6.G472006
955.05—dc22 2005031799
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
onacid-freepaper
Preface
InJune2005,Iranianswenttothepollstoelectanewpresident.This
wastheninthpresidentialelectionandthirty-seventhnationalelec-
tionsinceIran’s1979revolution.Theintenselycontestedracealso
markedthethirdtransitionofthepresidencyinthepost-Khomeini
periodandtheelectionofthefirstnonclericalpresidentsince1981.
Overthecourseofthepasttwenty-fiveyearselectionshavebecome
increasinglyimportanttodistributionofpowerinIranianpolitics.Al-
thoughthemostimportantleaderofthecountry,theSupreme
Leader,isunelectedandisnotsubjecttochecksandbalancesofa
democraticorder,votingstilldecidesthedirectionofpopularpolitical
debatesandinfluencespolicymaking.Italsoaffectsdistributionof
powerandpoliticalofficesatthenationallevelandincreasinglysoat
thelocallevelaswell.Electionsnowinfluencedistributionofre-
sourcesamongvariousprovincesontheonehand,andurbanand
ruralareasontheother.Theydecidetherelativepowerofvariousso-
cialgroupsandpoliticalforces;bothreflectanddeterminethescope
ofpolitical,cultural,andeconomicdebatesinthecountry.
Iranhasbeenanimprobablecandidateforthefloweringofde-
mocracy.The1979revolutioncreatedtheonlyIslamicstatetoresult
fromasuccessfulIslamicfundamentalistdriveforpower.Revolution-
aryzealandIslamicideologywerehostiletodemocracyandlooked
toanall-powerfulstatethatwouldreflectrevolutionaryvaluesasthe
embodimentandguarantorofanidealizedIslamicorder.Still,in
manyregardsthereismoreprogresstowarddemocracyinIranthan
vi preface
in any other country in the Middle East, perhaps with the exception of Turkey.
Over the course of the past two and a half decades Iranians have embraced
democratic practices, participatedin electionsatlocalandnationallevels,and
believedthattheirvoteaffectspoliticaloutcomes.Iraniansbegintovoteatthe
ageoffifteen,andanentiregenerationhasnowbeenschooledintherudiments
ofvotingandelectioneering,inthegive-and-takeofpromisesbypoliticiansand
votes by their constituents, andabove allin boththe loftyidealsofdemocracy
and the more mundane mechanics of democratic practice.TheIranianconsti-
tution vests sovereignty in God, but Iranian politicians look to the people for
theirmandate.Allthishasproducednotademocraticstatebutacitizenrythat
understands the fundamental logic of democracy and the laws that govern its
practice. Iranians do not live in a democracy, buttheir politicsareincreasingly
informedandinfluencedbyitsfoundationallogic.
DemocracyinIranwasnotthedeclaredgoaloftheIslamicRevolutionbut
was an unintended consequence of its unfolding. As the new president, Mah-
moud Ahmadinejad,saidon his campaign trail, “Wedidnothavea revolution
in order to have democracy.”1 However, to be president, he had to win the
election. Democracy in Iran was neither a project of the state nor importedas
an ideal form of politics from the West and implemented from above,buthas
ratheremergedasagrassrootsphenomenon,sothatdemocraticthinkingand
politicalexpectationsareprevalentinsocietyandnowserveasthemainimpetus
forcontinuedstruggletowarddemocraticchange.Thechallengefacingdemoc-
ratizationindevelopingcountriesisthatpoliticalreformsfromaboveoftendo
not grow roots because the society has not embraced democratic values and
practice.
Democratic politics cannot take hold where the political culture has not
internalized both the values and the practical components of democracy, and
where the attitude of the people toward authority does not reflect such values
and commitments. In Iran, conversely, it is the democraticattitudesinsociety
rather than reforms from above that account for progress toward democracy.
This is an important development that setsIran apartfrom itsMiddleEastern
neighbors. Although state behavior in Iran does not normatively reflectdemo-
cratic values, in many regards Iranian society has already turned the corner,
passingthroughamorechallengingthresholdofdemocratization,byadopting
thedemocraticethosatthegrassrootslevelandlookingtocivilsocietyactivism
and elections to voice social and political demands. It is this fact that makes
IranthemorelikelycandidateforveritabledemocracyintheMiddleEast,despite
the country’s theocratic edifice and authoritarian power structure. How an Is-
lamic state in Iran has moved farther along the path of democracy than many
secularstatesintheMiddleEastraisesimportantquestions.
preface vii
The seeming paradox of the Iranian case has to do with the complexityof
Iran’sstrugglewithdemocracy,onethatspansacenturyandthatinvolvesbroad
questionsofstate-building,socialdevelopment,culturalchange,andindividual
freedoms. Although the struggle for democracy has gained momentum in the
pastdecade,itsrootsrundeepincontemporaryIranianhistory.The2005pres-
idential election elucidates this point as it encompasses not only the current
struggleforpoliticalandculturalfreedomsbutalsohistoricaldebatesoverstate-
society relations and the desired path to development. Two issuesdominated
theelection.First,thedemandforpoliticalreformandculturalopening,which
meansempoweringthesocietyandreducingstatepower.Second,thedemand
forthestatetosolvesocioeconomicproblems,whichmeansstrengtheningstate
institutionsandextendingthepurviewoftheirdecisionmaking.Theelectionin
awayhighlightedthefundamentalproblemofdemocratization,howtomaintain
balanceinstate-societyrelationstobothfosterdemocracyandenablethestate
toaddresssocialdemands.Thisproblemhasbeenattheheartofstate-building
andthequestfordemocracyoverthecourseofthepastcentury.HowIranhas
responded to this challenge, and how it will continue to do so from this point
forwardisinstructiveforthestudyofdemocratization.ThechallengefacingIran
today, as it was a century ago when the country promulgateditsfirstconstitu-
tion, is how to bring together the quest for democracy and the imperatives of
state-building to create a democratic state. This book chronicles how Iran has
contendedwiththischallenge,andwhatthelegacyofthateffortmeansforour
understandingofdemocracyanditsmanifestationintheMuslimworld.
ThisbookisnotacomprehensivepoliticalhistoryofmodernIran,although
it does rely on historical facts and analysis. It is conceived in considerationof
Iran’s struggle to become a democratic state, and therefore focuses on those
themesthathighlightthatstruggleanditsoutcome.Themainthreadthatruns
through the analytical narrative is how Iran has responded to the challengeof
balancing state-building with democracy-building. This approach allows us to
look at Iran’s historical experience over the course of the past century from a
very different angle, bringing new perspective to analyzing and understanding
thevicissitudesofcontinuityandchange,successandfailures,andtheunique
path to both state-building and democracy-building that has emerged in Iran.
The result is a new approach for understanding state-society relations in Iran
over the expanse of the country’s modern history, one that seeks to highlight
overarching themes and long-term trends that will allow us to organize facts
around a framework of analysis that goes beyond mere chronology of events.
Theideaofthisbookgrewoutofcontinueddiscussionsthatwehavehadover
the nature of state and society in Iran, the role of religion in politics, and the
contestbetweenideologyanddemocracyinmodernIranianhistory.
viii preface
Manyoftheissuesraisedinthisbookwerepresentedatacademicseminars
at Tehran University, Harvard University, UCLA, Georgetown University, MIT,
and Oxford University. We are grateful for comments by colleagues on those
occasions. We are further grateful to Ervand Abrahamian, Kaveh Ehsani, Ali
Moazzami, and Ali Rahnema for their comments. We would also like to thank
Cynthia Read and Theo Calderara, our editors at Oxford University Press, for
their interest in this book, Christine Dahlin, Karla Pace, and Julia TerMaat for
assistance with the book’s production, and Norma McLemore for copyediting
thetext.
We have avoided most diacritical marks and have used a more phonetic
pattern closer to the current Persian pronunciation. Established words and
namesinEnglishareAnglicized.Alltranslationsarebytheauthorsunlessoth-
erwisestated.Thereferencesinthisbookprovidesourcesforobservationsand
factsbutalsodirectthereadertootherrelevantworksonthetopic.Inaddition,
in this book we use terms such as fundamentalism, theocracy, or cleric in the
manner in which they are used commonly in both academia and the media.
Although there has been extensive debate over the use of the term fundamen-
talism, it has now gained sufficient currency—especially sincetheliteraltrans-
lation of the word as Osoulgarai (and Bonyadgarai) is widely used in Persian,
especiallybythosetowhomthetermactuallyrefers.Similarly,weusetheterms
clericandtheocracyinthemannerinwhichtheyarewidelyusedtodescribethe
roleoftheulamainIranianpolitics.
Contents
Chronology,xi
Introduction,3
PART I: RISE OF THE STATE
1 Democracy or State-Building? 1906–1941, 23
2 TheTriumphoftheState,1941–1979,45
PART II: THE CRUCIBLE OF THE REVOLUTION
3 Revolution and War Fundamentalism, 1979–1989, 77
4 AnIslamicDevelopmentalState?1989–1997,105
5 StateandLimitstoDemocracy,1997–2005,127
6 Epilogue
ProspectsforaDemocraticState,147
Notes,159
Bibliography,185
Index,207
