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.
Ariabarzan Mohammadighalehtaki
Abstract
Kuwait is a rentier state which obtains most of its income from oil revenues. However, and despite the arguments that suggest rentier states hinder democracy, the Kuwaiti system almost exclusively among the GCC states, could maintain a relatively good reputation concerning the development of its democracy. ...
Read More
Kuwait is a rentier state which obtains most of its income from oil revenues. However, and despite the arguments that suggest rentier states hinder democracy, the Kuwaiti system almost exclusively among the GCC states, could maintain a relatively good reputation concerning the development of its democracy. What helped Kuwait overcome its rentier state tendency for authoritarian rule, is the focus of this paper. While many scholars have emphasized the role of citizens' taxation as the most important driver of political participation and, at the same time, promoter the legitimacy of government, my paper focuses on the historical process from the perspective of historical institutionalism and emphasizes that the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the Kuwaiti public, based on a parliamentary model, and the organization of the Kuwaiti parliament itself, have been institutionalized in a historical process, and what we see from the progress of democracy and the outcomes of these two institutions in the political sphere of Kuwait today, is the result of this historical institutionalization. Now the fundamental question is how to evaluate the rentier state dynamics in relation to the historical institutionalization of parliament in Kuwait, and what is the role of a variable called a consolidated institution in this regard?
saeed mirtorabi
Abstract
Iran’s revolution as a profound social change in which most part of population took part heavily changed the fundamental aspects of political order in the country and helped to set new institutions in power and state structures after revolution. These institutions were helpful in harnessing extreme ...
Read More
Iran’s revolution as a profound social change in which most part of population took part heavily changed the fundamental aspects of political order in the country and helped to set new institutions in power and state structures after revolution. These institutions were helpful in harnessing extreme domestic and foreign crisis that emerged soon after the revolution. Revolutionary elite in Iran in a rather short term between January 1979 and May 1981, succeeded in establishing new political order after revolution. The main claim of the article as its hypothesis is that “Iran revolutionary elite in three years after revolution (as critical juncture) in response to huge crises and necessities of building new order inclined to institution building from the bottom and as a result effective institutions for supporting new political regime and new political order were formed.The article studies making of some new governmental institutions and revolutionary organs and emergence of new political behavior in the first years after revolution and searches the causes of their successful functions in managing crisis and sustaining new emerged political order. The article uses historical institutionalism as its approach and historical-causal analysis as its methodology. The article shows that high capabilities of revolutionary system in managing crises originated from this mode of institution building.
