Mehdi Nasr
Abstract
Nowadays, 'justice' has almost become a forgotten concept. Global inequalities as a received contemporary neoliberal order is taken for granted. As a political concept, 'State', however, has a better situation. Using genealogy as a method, this article tries to show the concomitance of these two concepts ...
Read More
Nowadays, 'justice' has almost become a forgotten concept. Global inequalities as a received contemporary neoliberal order is taken for granted. As a political concept, 'State', however, has a better situation. Using genealogy as a method, this article tries to show the concomitance of these two concepts in their origin. The classical principles of justice, namely political freedom and the principles of distributive justice as well as respect for equality of the nature are the existing principles in thinking of state, both the ancient and the modern ones. In its origin, state presupposes the principles of justice to engender political identity of human being. This is beyond a moral preaching. Relativism, however, is going to be criticized. Instead, it emphasizes on the common origin and source of these two political concepts. Of course our narration of political situations is different from the modern subjectivist ones. So we try to separate and distinguish justice and state from subjectivist concepts, the very concepts which have been criticized very much. Instead, we try to prove that even with the presuppositions of those philosophies critical of modernity also the principles of justice and state remain in their place and we should vindicate them in the contemporary political spheres.
Shoja Ahmadvand; Mojtaba Yavar
Abstract
Abstract The progressive changes in nineteenth century led Iranian governance to the distribution of absolute political power. It meaningfully was a minimal cession of the traditional authority of the king institution and its power that could be accomplished either conscientiously and non- conscientiously. ...
Read More
Abstract The progressive changes in nineteenth century led Iranian governance to the distribution of absolute political power. It meaningfully was a minimal cession of the traditional authority of the king institution and its power that could be accomplished either conscientiously and non- conscientiously. This article has been based on this assumption: seeking for and pursuing improvement of the undesirable conditions, and generally, looking for "progression", need to accompaniment of two agent, both the political system (government) and scientific (intellectual) efforts. Basing on that assumption, in this article, we are going to show and demonstrate the government's roles and practices, to achieve the "progression". Undoubtedly, we can’t pursuit our goal with a mere glance on, and a superficial research about the nineteenth century evolutions. In another hand, no government likes to divide its unification and has no tendency to reduce its traditional capacities. Any changing, and any movement to modern "progressing", especially at the first stages, can’t be a continuous and permanent process without the government's supports and interferences. But, whereas in the primitive stage to modernization, the old administrative system (bureaucracy) is one of the original and elementary obstacles, every prosecution to modernization of the society and state is depended on the proportional changes in the government by itself. Problematically, in traditional Iranian state, the King was the "Zhellollah" (the God's shadow); it means that, the King had the topmost place in the hierarchical pyramid of power; in fact, the Kingdom as a traditional, legal and accepted institution in Iran was the comprehensive and fully qualified status of power. Thus, wherever this powerful institution is the most important bearer for modern "progress", its unified, centered and integrated authority has been effected by the uncharitable and serious element of modernity. We are looking to confirm and verify this claim in this article. To access such goal, we need an approach which can be explanatory; so, we need the Genealogy method of Michel Foucault. Genealogy approach can nicely and deliberately explain the coalition of the government's unconscious operation and conscious function in studious unit. We will show that such combination has been done within a complete coalition of awareness and non- awareness. It was full of awareness, because the general will of the government was going to accept emblems of western-modern changing, to adapt and perform it in the traditional society of Iran. So the government attempts to do it by itself. But it was higher than traditional King’s efforts and capacities. The government made decision to distribute and cession parts of its power just for ongoing social changing. The non-conscientious or undesired conclusion of power dispersion in the politics area was the genesis of a will to establish a constitutional government. In fact, the extensive portion of this matter was not only the consequence of intellectual or thinking pioneers efforts but also was a production of the government progressive actions.
