Political Thought
Sajjad Chitfroush
Abstract
The modern state is among the major political institutions that encompass all dimensions of human life. Despite its useful aspects, this institution, drawing from foundations that may diminish human freedom in its interaction with individuals, ultimately hinders the growth of human thought and the revelation ...
Read More
The modern state is among the major political institutions that encompass all dimensions of human life. Despite its useful aspects, this institution, drawing from foundations that may diminish human freedom in its interaction with individuals, ultimately hinders the growth of human thought and the revelation of the true essence of humanity. The historical experience of Western countries and the subsequent spread of this thinking to other nations have led many thinkers to critically examine various aspects of the Modern State, aiming to reform and evolve it into a theoretical framework. One of the most important critics and theorists of the Modern State, adopting a humanistic approach, is Hannah Arendt.
Some of the most important research on the critique of the Modern state includes:
Steven E. Aschheim, in the book "Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem," examines Arendt's controversial views on the Eichmann trial and also discusses the nature of justice and the Modern State. The focus is primarily on the case study of Eichmann, without providing a comprehensive framework for Arendt's critical thinking on the existence of the Modern state.
Richard King, in the book "Arendt and America," analyzes Arendt's interaction with American political thought and critiques of the Modern State. The emphasis is on the political and societal features of America, with limited philosophical discussions.
Dana Villa, in "The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt" gathers articles from researchers addressing various aspects of Arendt's political philosophy, including her critique of the Modern state. However, direct critiques of Arendt on the Modern state are the focus of only one article, and the overall article leans more towards a review of Arendt's critiques without presenting a philosophical argument.
While foreign research on Arendt's critique of the Modern state differs from the present study in several aspects, the most notable differences lie in the lack of explicit attention to existential aspects of criticism and the relatively limited exploration of the pragmatic aspect and establishing a conceptual relationship between these two aspects in the research. Additionally, the presuppositions of researchers in geography-based or ideologically-specific research have not been explicitly stated, and interested readers can refer to the following sources for examples of such research.
Examining books and articles written about Arendt within the country also indicates limited research on government in her thought. One of these articles, titled "Politics and Existentialism" by Dr. Mostafa Younesi and Ali Tadayyon Rad, explores the connection between politics and existentialism through the discussion of "action" and considers the role of politics and government institutions in creating a space for human growth.
Another article, titled "Political Order in the Thought of Aristotle and Hannah Arendt and Critique of Its Place in the Present Era" by Seyed Javad Emam Jom'ehzadeh and Ali Tadayyon Rad, argues that political order in the modern era has found a different definition and, contrary to the past, where political order aimed at the excellence and happiness of society, current affairs are mundane and lack a metaphysical position in modern thought. The author aims to challenge modern political order through a reevaluation of Arendt's ideas.
Although foreign articles have extensively addressed Arendt's critiques of the Modern State, this study innovatively focuses on differentiating existential aspects from non-existential ones. The innovation lies in initially critiquing the political philosophy of the new West from Arendt's perspective and suggesting her alternative. This study, using a descriptive-analytical method, first refers to Arendt's most important texts and books to describe her intellectual method (with an emphasis on epistemological discussions). Subsequently, it highlights the main indicators of the Modern state and, as a research framework, compares them with Arendt's theoretical-political views. One of the most important indicators of the Modern state is the existence of a unified authority and power within a specific geographic area. Another important indicator is the control of violent instruments by the Modern State. This political structure implies that superior power is not in the hands of individuals but is entrusted to governance through the use of legal structures and norms. One of the significant indicators of the Modern state discussed in this research is the bureaucratic and administrative structure where individuals are placed at various administrative levels based on their interests and competence. Nevertheless, critics argue that in this space of Modern state and bureaucracy, the freedom of individuals is compromised.
This article attempts to present Hannah Arendt's criticism of the Modern state based on her impartial perspective on government. Typically, the prevailing view of government tends to be biased. Using Arendt's impartial perspective, Pierre Bourdieu argues that the characteristic of this institution is the struggle for power among groups and different interests, often hidden behind a façade of impartiality and objectivity. The article aims to emphasize the importance of political action and the public sphere for human freedom from Arendt's perspective, demonstrating how the Modern state has weakened these values. Additionally, the article explores the conceptual frameworks of civic virtue and individuals' need for participation in public life based on Arendt's views.
Another overlooked point in most domestic research is the examination of Arendt's critique of the Modern state at a macro level, i.e., the critique of the Modern state itself. Arendt's criticisms are often focused on a limited scale, examining actors within political systems such as totalitarianism. However, it is essential to recognize that these criticisms, even when specifically addressing certain types of political systems, are presented under a political system that exists in the modern context. Therefore, the present article innovatively addresses this aspect as well.
This research aims to critique this extensive and significant institution using Arendt's perspective. Findings based on Arendt's principles indicate that modern philosophy has led to the separation of theology from nature, the expansion of positivism, and the excessive growth of a form of individualism. This has resulted in the Modern state becoming an extensive and harsh authoritarian regime, dominating economic aspects over political and cultural facets of human life. Arendt suggests that the only way to reform this extensive, inefficient, and dehumanizing institution is through gradual reform of people's interactions in the public sphere and the utilization of theories such as councils in political structures.
The State
Mostafa Kavakebyan; Azim Matin
Abstract
In explicating the essence of a modern state, one must navigate a theoretical landscape defined by a set of characteristics, criteria, and requisites that differentiate the theory of the modern state from alternative paradigms, notably the absolute state. This theoretical realm, characterized by a prescriptive ...
Read More
In explicating the essence of a modern state, one must navigate a theoretical landscape defined by a set of characteristics, criteria, and requisites that differentiate the theory of the modern state from alternative paradigms, notably the absolute state. This theoretical realm, characterized by a prescriptive understanding of modern governance, serves as a guiding force, prompting governments worldwide to emulate its structural blueprint. This form of governance, intricately woven into the fabric of contemporary political landscapes, commands loyalty from its constituents. It wields influence both directly and indirectly, orchestrating societal affairs through a bureaucratic apparatus that intricately affects diverse aspects of citizens' lives.
In stark contrast to premodern governance reliant on tribute and force, the modern government garners economic sustenance directly from its citizenry, levying taxes to fulfill its distinct responsibilities. At the core of the modern state lies the imperative of nation-building, an endeavor necessitating the homogenization of social identity. However, the crux of our inquiry lies in the intricate relationship between us Iranians and the modern state. Delving into the historical narrative of the modern state as an experiential journey and scrutinizing it as a malleable theoretical model emerge as imperative undertakings.
The overarching purpose of this research is to meticulously examine the historical trajectory underpinning the formation and stabilization of the modern state in Iran. Anchored in the intellectual currents of Western thought, this scholarly pursuit aspires to enhance our understanding of the state's essence and its nuanced position within the Iranian milieu. A discerning analysis of the country's policies and orientations naturally unfolds as a byproduct of this historical exploration.
Guiding our intellectual journey is a theoretical framework rooted in historical institutionalism. This approach, a beacon in the study of state building in Iran, focuses on unraveling the intricate tapestry of social, political, and economic behaviors, tracing their evolution over time. Institutions, elevated to the status of independent variables, emerge as architects shaping individual and collective actions alongside the broader panorama of social and political phenomena. Recognizing that institutions not only mold actors' strategies but also sculpt their objectives, historical institutionalism, with its attention to structural variables such as class position and mediating entities like political parties and unions, provides a nuanced lens through which to study the formation and construction of the government in Iran.
The research methodology, a dual-pronged approach, employs the content analysis method to scrutinize definitions of the modern state put forth by Western thinkers. This analytical approach, eschewing the exploration of attitudes and beliefs in favor of dissecting produced messages, is complemented by the historical research method. This method involves a meticulous examination of specific past events within a defined temporal scope, integrating historical facts through a rigorous regimen of data collection, evaluation, and verification.
Tracing the historical trajectory of government formation in the West, political scientists posit that the foundations of the modern state or nation-state were laid in the late Middle Ages, influenced by the Catholic cultural context. The formation of modern national states was shaped by factors such as religious reform movements and conflicts among European countries. The Treaty of Westphalia in the 16th to 18th centuries is considered a pivotal event in the emergence of the modern state. From the 19th century onward, the modern government model gradually supplanted other political systems globally.
The indicators and criteria of modern governments encompass a legitimate monopoly on controlling the means of violence, a specific territorial territory, sovereignty, centralized power, a codified constitution, the use of impersonal power, nationalism, a public bureaucracy, authority/legitimacy, citizenship, and provincial tax.
The historical exploration of government formation in Iran reveals nuanced epochs, beginning with the Safavid era's establishment of a robust central government to counter threats from the Sunni Ottoman Empire. Shah Abbas I marked a zenith, unifying the country politically, relocating the capital to Isfahan, fostering a unified religious identity based on Shiite Islam, and expanding diplomatic relations. Subsequent governments, such as the Afshariya and Zand, did not significantly alter national and state organizations. The Qajar dynasty witnessed an expansion of central government power, albeit rooted in the Illyrian system. The constitutional revolution of 1285 emerged as a historical turning point, ushering in constitutionalism and paving the way for a more structured political system in Iran. The subsequent Pahlavi absolute government, while characterized by economic nationalism and centralization of power, laid the foundations for absolute rule.
In conclusion, this historical exploration, spanning from the Safavid era to the Pahlavi period, unveils Iran's trajectory of independent political thought and the evolution of a nation transitioning to citizenship. Constitutionalism emerges as the cornerstone of modern governance, establishing a balanced relationship between the government and the nation. The era of Reza Shah, marked by economic nationalism and the consolidation of government power, signifies a fundamental shift, laying the groundwork for absolute rule. This scholarly endeavor sheds light on the nuanced tapestry of Iran's political evolution.
The State
Ahmad Zarean
Abstract
After the massive and sudden attack of ISIS on Iraq, the existence of the Iraqi state and nation and the sanctities of Muslims were under serious threat. While ISIS was approaching gates of Baghdad and the Iraqi army and security forces were not able to deal with it, with Ayatollah Sistani's fatwa regarding ...
Read More
After the massive and sudden attack of ISIS on Iraq, the existence of the Iraqi state and nation and the sanctities of Muslims were under serious threat. While ISIS was approaching gates of Baghdad and the Iraqi army and security forces were not able to deal with it, with Ayatollah Sistani's fatwa regarding jihad to confront ISIS and ward off this real danger, a defense-security organization called Hashd al-Shaabi, consisting of volunteers People and militia groups, which are considered the military arm of Iraqi political parties and currents, were formed. The Iraqi state, which was in a state of emergency, supported the formation of this new defense-security organization and provided it with financial, logistical and weapons support. With the threat of ISISremoval and the end of state of emergency, the existence of such an organization, which is mainly controlled by militia groups, has become a significant challenge for Iraqi state, which seeks to obtain a monopoly on the use of legitimate force. Therefore, after 2014, all heads of the Iraqi government have tried to prevent the formation of a parallel defense-security institution outside the government's control by adopting different strategies. This article, in which the data has been collected by referring to library and online sources and explained and analyzed with a descriptive-analytical method, seeks to find an authentic answer to this question: "The relationship between the Iraqi government and Hashd al-Shaabi and its constituent militia groups. How has it been?" The findings of the article show that the relationship between the Iraqi government and the militia groups was subject to the requirements of the time in such a way that in emergency and threatening situations, the government used the capacity of these groups and in the absence of these conditions, these groups were considered by the government as a disturbing, undesirable and threatening element, a range of control policies and strategies have been applied to them by the Iraqi government. In the post-crisis era, the Iraqi government, as a system actor that considers itself committed and accountable to the existing rules, norms and order, cannot support the anti-systemic actions of the militia groups that it cooperated with and supported during the ISIS crisis in the form of Hashd al-Shaabi. to bear Therefore, since 2014, the governments of Haider al-Abadi, Adel Abdul Mahdi and Mostafa Al-Kazemi have tried to control these groups as much as possible through adopting a series of strategies and measures. Among the four strategies of repression, containment, collusion and integration, these governments have put two strategies of collusion and integration on their agenda. The reason for choosing these two strategies is that, firstly, Hashd al-Shaabi and its constituent groups are still considered strategic allies of the government, and the political currents of which these groups are considered as their military arm participate in the political process and in the formation of the government. Secondly, even if these groups strongly deviate from the government's criteria and the relationship between the militia groups turns from reconciliation to conflict, the Iraqi government does not have the ability to restrain or suppress these groups. In the collusion strategy, the Iraqi government tries to relatively control the actions of Hashd al-Shaabi groups by granting some concessions and through financial and logistical support tools. As well, in the integration strategy, the Iraqi government has put the recruitment of the Hashd al-Shaabi and its integration in the official Iraqi defense-security structures on its agenda, and the heads of the Iraqi government have issued orders and adopted measures in this regard. Collusion and integration strategies have not been able to be fully and effectively implemented due to the resistance and opposition of the commanders of the militia groups and their insistence on their organizational independence and ideological and identity foundations, and these two strategies have only been implemented superficially and formally.
Mohammad Salar Kasraie
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to review and criticize the theories of government in Iran (first Pahlavi period). There have been extensive researches about the government in the first Pahlavi period. In these researches, traits such as; Modern state, modern absolutist, pseudo-patrimonialism, autocracy, ...
Read More
The purpose of this article is to review and criticize the theories of government in Iran (first Pahlavi period). There have been extensive researches about the government in the first Pahlavi period. In these researches, traits such as; Modern state, modern absolutist, pseudo-patrimonialism, autocracy, dictatorship, pseudo-modernism, oriental tyranny, Iranian tyranny, dependent, neo-authoritarian, etc. have been used. The multiplicity and diversity of these concepts indicate the multiplicity and significant conceptual differences, which are debatable. The main question is, how can these views be proposed and criticized, and what is the alternative for the title of government in this period? The purpose of this article is to present and criticize these conceptual differences and contradictions, as well as to review the presented views that can strengthen the theoretical and experimental literature of this historical period. In this article, I have used the meta-study method to achieve this goal. The obtained results show a diversity of views and based on the criteria used in this article, few of the reviewed writings have a clear understanding of the concept of the state, its functions and special tasks in the new era, and the authors in many cases Due to the confusion of concepts, there is little difference between the words; Government, governance, and regime are not considered to be three different but related institutions. Based on the theoretical foundations of the government as well as the historical documents of the examined period, the government in Reza Shah's period from different aspects; including: historical background; economic, social, cultural fields; And the special tasks and actions have a significant affinity with the absolute government.
Mehdi Zibaei
Abstract
In the plethora of countries of the Middle East, the entity that nowadays is known as the modern state seriously is different from the primary pattern that has been shaped within more than three centuries in West Europe. One of the signs of the modern state is the exclusive use of physical force by the ...
Read More
In the plethora of countries of the Middle East, the entity that nowadays is known as the modern state seriously is different from the primary pattern that has been shaped within more than three centuries in West Europe. One of the signs of the modern state is the exclusive use of physical force by the political authority; this point in the European pattern was formed by the process of bargaining between social forces and statesmen. While the active social forces in the modern Middle East had so little role in institutionalizing physical forces in the state’s hands. Now, the matter is that why the state-making process and consolidating procedure of state exclusive on the physical forces in the mentioned regions (West Europe and the Middle East) had a different history. It seems the role of international actors in shaping the Middle East modern state has caused that most part of the regional states is relied on despotic power rather than infrastructure power. The first is focused on social trends and the latter is based on coercion. This work intends alongside pointing to the rival perspectives on the emerging modern state within Historical Sociology as an analytical framework, to study the roots of the emerging modern state in the current Middle East behind the Historical Sociology of International Relations (HSIR) lenses.
Yaser Ghahremaniafshar; Kheirollah Parvin
Abstract
Modernization of governance and the attainment of collective enthusiasm and participation in political decision-making began since the fundamental shift of sovereignty from the Sultan to people. The modern state, as a descendant of ancient forms of governance, defines its sovereignty based on human wisdom ...
Read More
Modernization of governance and the attainment of collective enthusiasm and participation in political decision-making began since the fundamental shift of sovereignty from the Sultan to people. The modern state, as a descendant of ancient forms of governance, defines its sovereignty based on human wisdom rather than spiritual sources. As a claimant to the divine and popular sovereignty, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)—within the Constitutional Law—has recognized its own political–legal framework based on revelation and jurisprudence. Yet as a political entity in international politics and relations, the IRI cannot remain indifferent to the necessities of the modern world, especially when it comes to political and legal systematization. As a result, the IRI has also used modern methods of governance to organize the country legally and politically as well as to manage public affairs. Since state and modernity are pluralistic phenomena in intellectual and political systems, there are differences in the way the components of the Modern are recognized. Taking this as its central topic, the present study used a descriptive–explanatory and prescriptive approach as well as the library data to analyze the constituting components of state. The main finding is the fact that the difference lies in the normative basis and genesis of the two legal systems.
Ali-Akbar Gorji; mohammadshahab jalilvand
Abstract
Islamic Republic of Iran is a state with unique features in the present time that the matching characteristics with the characteristics of the modern state, there are many opinions dispersed. The modern state, which has its roots in the history of the West, has 10 features that distinguish it from pre-modern ...
Read More
Islamic Republic of Iran is a state with unique features in the present time that the matching characteristics with the characteristics of the modern state, there are many opinions dispersed. The modern state, which has its roots in the history of the West, has 10 features that distinguish it from pre-modern states. Meanwhile, the Constitution is an essential characteristic of the modern state That means adherence to the constitution. Therefore, the theory of constitutional government emphasizes that the the government is basically guardian of order based on the constitution 's power structure and the structure of power in all its aspects should be based on the constitution. This article tries to comment on the constitutional criteria, in the characteristics of the modern state, and the state's political power structure in the Islamic Republic of Iran in this respect will be reviewed and concludes that although in cases such as: the structure of representation, separation of powers, rule of law and the judicial process of securing the Islamic Republic of Iran, there are roots of the development of a governance structure based on the constitution, but with a little reflection on some of the principles of the constitution and also delving into some practice, it is observed that in the context of community governance, constitutional ambiguities of criteria has occurred.
Hamidreza Rahmanizadeh Dehkordi; Mohamad Medi Zanjani
Abstract
Purpose: There are various approaches to study the modern state in Iran including the Marxist approach, Patrimonial approach and the Oriental despotism approach. These approaches, however, often consider the modern state as a full-blown despotism and Reza Shah as an "oriental despot" or an autocrat who ...
Read More
Purpose: There are various approaches to study the modern state in Iran including the Marxist approach, Patrimonial approach and the Oriental despotism approach. These approaches, however, often consider the modern state as a full-blown despotism and Reza Shah as an "oriental despot" or an autocrat who imposed his will upon the society. The critics of Reza Shah claim that he was a dictator: He secularized laws, forced women to do away with the veil, and introduced Western-style dress for men. They state that during his time, there was hardly any political life in the form of opposition. The press was muzzled; the parliament rubber-stamped the king’s decisions, and some of his political rivals and confidantes were imprisoned, some eliminated. Religious protests were put down robustly, and Reza Shah was ruthless with tribal rebellions. Indeed, his style was very brusque. This study aims to show how a seemingly absolute and autocrat modern state, Reza Shah’s State, could be limited by a number of factors including the existence of strong social forces such as tribes, the state’s incapability to exert absolute force, and the intervention of foreign powers. In other words, there have been some social and economic contexts influencing the modern state. In this situation, the Shah could be forced to make a decision and take an action different from his own will. To prove this claim, this study gives some evidence from various sources, including foreign state documents, books, memories, diaries of foreign financial advisers such as Dr. Millspaugh, eyewitnesses who registered their observations etc. Design/Methodology/Approach: The structural approach is adapted to justify the modern state. In other words, it is shown that to understand the concrete reality of The Modern State, one should refer to the context (social forces, geographic situation, and intervention of foreign forces) and, moreover, one should refer to the state and its ability/inability to exerting absolute force in its territory. Findings: Our thesis can be summed up by one typical statement: Social, economic, and demographic situations (including social forces and geographically large countries with dispersed population), that is what is called as a context and some characteristics of the Modern State (including state inability to exert absolute force on the country), prevent the state from falling into full-blown despotism. The study has summarized the other approaches and compared them to the approach of the present paper for highlighting the different dimensions of this approach. Originality/Value: It is the researcher’s belief that this study throws a new light to the debates on Reza Shah’s state as the first modern state in Iran. The critics of this state assert that it was a full blown despotic state, and the defenders consider it as a reformer-dictator state that laid the foundation of modern Iran and transformed the chaotic and desperate conditions of the time. This study shows that, in spite of the fact that there were some suppressions, some structural impediments prevented the Shah to act on his own absolute will.
