State Studies

The Relationship between Political Theology and the Political with the Government, as mentioned in Zoroastrian Discourse

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Bahram Akhavan kazemi 1
Javad Dadmehr 2

1 Professor, Department of Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

2 Ph.D. Student, Department of Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22054/tssq.2026.73842.1416
Abstract
Introduction
Political theology refers to the role of theological concepts in the production and organization of the political, and is grounded in the assumption that the fundamental concepts of politics and sovereignty are secularized forms of theological concepts—an argument articulated most explicitly in Carl Schmitt’s theory of political theology. From this perspective, the political is structured around the friend/enemy distinction and a fundamental antagonism that renders neutrality impossible and legitimizes the necessity of sovereign authority for the preservation of political order. In ancient Iran, Zoroastrian discourse embodies a form of political theology that structures the political based on the permanent opposition between good and evil—an opposition that functions not only at the cosmological level but also as the organizing principle of social and political order. This foundational antagonism is articulated through central signifiers such as Ahura Mazda, Asha, and the ideal king, and gives rise to a model of a maximal and authoritative state. With the official establishment of Zoroastrianism during the Sasanian period, the linkage between religion and state was consolidated through the formula of “one god–one king,” whereby the dominant discourse reproduced a specific form of sovereignty and political order as the normal condition of political life.
Materials and Methods
The present study aims to identify the elements of Zoroastrian discourse using the discourse analysis method proposed by Lacla and Moufe and to compare political theology, the Political and government in Zoroastrian discourse, with the theory of Carl Schmitt. The answer to this question requires a clear definition of political matters. Based on Schmidt's theory, political matter is the gear wheel of history, the assumption of the concept of the government and based on the principle of friend/enemy distinction. Based on the findings of political-theology research in ancient Iran, in addition to being the source of developing political concepts and elements of Zoroastrian discourse such as Ahuramazda, the cosmic order of Ashe, the doctrine of good and evil, the ideal king, function and the holy land, Zoroastrian discourse, similar to Schmitt's approach, has a certain orientation to political matter, which is based on the principle of the permanent antagonism of good and evi. The prescriptive model of government that emerges from the interaction of theology and the political in Zoroastrianism is a monarchical order centered on a widely recognized ruler endowed with extensive authority. This model closely parallels Carl Schmitt’s theory of government, particularly in its emphasis on sovereignty and decisive power. An orientation grounded in differentiation necessarily entails the rejection and marginalization of rival discursive elements, while simultaneously foregrounding its own symbols and signifiers, since political identity is constituted through processes of differentiation and otherness. Accordingly, drawing on Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis, it can be shown that Zoroastrian discourse gives meaning to both the political and the form of the state through the articulation of the good/evil antagonism and the stabilization of central signifiers. While this configuration bears a conceptual affinity with Carl Schmitt’s theory, the permanence of conflict leads to a distinct understanding of sovereignty and the state of exception
Results and Discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that political theology, the political, and the form of the state are structurally and meaningfully interconnected within Zoroastrian discourse. Zoroastrian theology primarily operates as a form of political theology that defines the contours of the political, upon which the ideal model of the state is constructed. In this sense, Zoroastrian political theology provides the overarching conceptual framework for understanding both the world and politics. The political in Zoroastrian discourse is grounded in the principle of the perpetual struggle between good and evil, closely resembling Carl Schmitt’s friend–enemy distinction. This enduring conflict functions as the driving force of history, rendering all neutrality impossible until the advent of the Saoshyant. Given that the political is constituted through organized enmity, the state assumes a maximal and comprehensive character, revealing a significant convergence between Zoroastrian political theology and Schmitt’s conception of a strong and inclusive state.
Conclusion
The concept of the Katechon in Carl Schmitt’s theory concerns the position of the ruler; it refers to a sovereign figure capable of establishing order, ensuring security, and suppressing opposition. In Zoroastrian discourse, the optimal form of government accords with the cosmic or divine order (Asha), and the paradigmatic realization of such a government is monarchy. Within this framework, monarchy possesses a sacred character, and the king is endowed with Farrah Yazidi (divine glory). Accordingly, the king bearing Farrah functions analogously to the Katechon in Schmitt’s theory.
In Schmitt’s political theology, the exception pertains to critical and extraordinary situations, and the agent who makes the final decision in such circumstances is the true sovereign. By contrast, in Zoroastrian political theology, decision making authority is not confined to moments of crisis but extends across both exceptional and ordinary conditions of rule. Although ministers, priests, and advisers participate in governance, the final authority ultimately rests with the king. The king endowed with Farrah Yazidi is charged with establishing social order and defending Iran against the threat of the non Iranian other.
Similar to Schmitt’s framework, the state that emerges from Zoroastrian discourse is a maximal and comprehensive state. However, an important divergence exists: the presence of fixed divine laws established by Ahura Mazda functions as a structural constraint on royal power. This limitation stands in contrast to Schmitt’s notion of the exception, wherein the sovereign possesses the authority to suspend or abolish the legal order. Thus, while Zoroastrian kingship embodies strong sovereignty, it remains normatively bound to a divine legal and moral framework.
The state produced by this discourse is rooted, on the one hand, in political theology and, on the other, in a specific conception of the political, insofar as the principle of enmity propels history forward and constitutes the foundation of the political realm. Endorsing such a form of government entails the legitimation of authoritarian features, including the demand for absolute obedience from subjects and the categorization of rebellion or revolution as an inherently evil act.
Although Manichaean and Mazdakite discourses also affirmed monarchy in principle, they were violently suppressed because they challenged the political and social configuration articulated by the dominant Zoroastrian discourse. The political condition sanctioned by Zoroastrianism persists until the advent of the Saoshyant and the final separation of the forces of good and evil. Consequently, history within this discourse is understood to possess a divinely ordained end, and until that eschatological moment is reached, a ruler endowed with the aforementioned characteristics occupies the apex of the political hierarchy.
The emphasis on the antagonistic dimension of politics, together with the divine orientation of the political, constitutes the most fundamental principle of Zoroastrian political theology—a principle that has been continuously reformulated and reproduced, in various forms, from antiquity to the present.

Keywords

Carl Schmitt
Government
Lacla and Mouffe
Political theology
The Political
Zoroastrian Discourse
Subjects
Ahmadvand, S., & Bakhshi, H. (2022). Investigating the Linguistic Paradigm in Zoroaster’s Political Thought. Journal of Theoretical Politics Research, No. 31: 139-163. [In Persian]
Ahmadvand, S., & Bardbar, A. (2019). Religious Foundations of the State in Ancient Iran: From Mythological Period to the Achaemenid State. Journal of State Studies, Vol. 5, No. 19: 81-106. [In Persian]
Ahmadvand, S., & Hamidi, S. (2010). Meaningful Narratives Supporting Ideal Kingship in Iranian Thought. Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 29: 25-52. [In Persian]
Ahmadvand, Shoja, & Eslami, Rouhollah. (2018). Political Thought in Ancient Iran.Tehran: SAMT Publications.[In Persian]
Akhavan Kazemi, B. (2004). Mazdak’s Social Rebellion and the Political Thought of Kingship. Journal of Politics, No. 65: 1-20. [In Persian]
Akhavan Kazemi, B. (2006). Factors of Emergence and Persistence of Secularism in Christian World. Biannual Journal of Political Knowledge, No. 4: 37-68. [In Persian]
Akhavan Kazemi, B. (2008). Justice and Tyranny in Ancient Iranian Political Thought. Political and Economic Information, Nos. 143 & 144: 6-13. [In Persian]
Akhavan Kazemi, B. (2012). Discourse Analysis of Laclau and Its Application in Politics. Journal of Politics, Vol. 42, No. 4: 1-29. [In Persian]
Akhavan Kazemi, Bahram. (2010). Critique and Evaluation of Socio-Political Discourses in the Islamic Republic. Tehran: Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought Publications. [In Persian]
Schmitt, Carl. (2011). Political Theology: Four Chapters on Sovereignty. Translated by Leila Chaman Khah. Tehran: Negah-e Moaser. [In Persian]
Akvani, Hamdollah (2018). Two Narratives of the Political in the Thought of Medieval Islamic Thinkers. Dowlat-Pazhouhi Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 16, pp. 1–38. [In Persian]
Bahār, Mehrdād. (1996). A Research in Iranian Mythology. Tehran: Āgah. [In Persian]
Boyce, Mary. (2002). Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Tehran: Qoqnoos. [In Persian]
Pourdavoud, Ebrahim. (2008). Yasna. Tehran: Asatir Publications. [In Persian]
Bundahishn. (2005). Transcribed Text. By Fazlollah Pakzad. Tehran: The Great Islamic Encyclopedia Center. [In Persian]
Christensen, Arthur. (1988). Iran During the Sasanian Empire. Translated by Rashid Yasami. Tehran: Amirkabir Publications. [In Persian].
Daryaee, Touraj. (2007). Sasanian Empire. Translated by Morteza Sagheb Far. Tehran: Qoqnoos. [In Persian]
Dinkard III. (2002). Part One, Chapters (1-112). Transcribed, Notes, and Translation by Fereydoon Fazlit. Tehran: Dehkhoda Institute. [In Persian]
Dushmen Gimmen, Arthur. (2006). Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Translated by Abbas Bagheri. Tehran: Farzan Publications. [In Persian]
Dustkhah, Jalil. (1987). Avesta: The Divine Letter of Zoroastrianism. Report by Ebrahim Pourdavoud, 6th Edition. Tehran: Morvarid Publications. [In Persian]
Eliade, Mircea. (1995). Mythic Dimensions. Translated by jalal Sattari.Tehran: Toos. [In Persian]
Ensafi, M., & Ahmadvand, S. (2019). Religion and State in the Sasanian Era: An Introduction to Zoroastrian Political Theology. Journal of Political and International Approaches, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Issue 59): 34-57. [In Persian]
Fasihi, A. (2018). Political Theology: Re-reading the Ratio of Theology and the Political with Emphasis on Schmitt’s Narrative. Scientific-Research Journal of Katib, Vol.5, No. 11: 123-146. [In Persian]
Gathas; The Divine Hymns of Zoroaster. (1987). Reported by Hossein Vahidi. Tehran: Aftab Publications. [In Persian]
Ghahreman, M. (2014). Zoroaster, the Political, and the Thought of Sasanian Empire Formation. Journal of Political and International Approaches, Vol. 5, No. 4: 141-161. [In Persian]
Ghirshman, Roman. (2007). Iran from the Beginning to Islam. Translated by Mohammad Moin. Tehran: Negah Publications. [In Persian]
Haghighat, Sadegh, & Hosseinizadeh, Mohammad Ali. (2008). “Discourse Analysis.” In: Approach and Method in Political Science, edited by Abbas Manouchehri. Tehran: SAMT Publications. [In Persian]
Haghighat, Seyyed Sadegh. (2006). Methodology of Political Science. Qom: Mofid University Press. [In Persian]
Hamidi, S. (2015). The Theological Narrative of the Political in Carl Schmitt’s Thought. Biannual Scientific-Research Journal of Theoretical Politics, No. 18: 25-47. [In Persian]
Hassani Far, A. (2017). Dissecting Political Power through Examining the Meaning of “The Political”: Presenting a New Framework for Understanding the Political. Contemporary Political Inquiries, Vol. 8, No. 3: 29-52. [In Persian]
Hintz, John. (1995). Understanding Iranian Myths. Translated by Jaleh Amouzgar & Ahmad Tafazzoli. Tehran: Cheshmeh. [In Persian]
Howarth, D. (1998). Discourse Theory. Translated by Seyyed Ali Asghar Soltani. Political Science, No.2:156-183. [In Persian]
Jazaei, Mohaddeseh. (2014). A Critical Re-reading of the Possibility or Impossibility of Political Theology in Islam. M.A. Thesis, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad. [In Persian]
Jorgensen, Marianne & Phillips, Louis. (2010). Theory and Method in Discourse Analysis. Translated by Hadi Jalili. Tehran: Ney. [In Persian]
Laclau, Ernesto & Mouffe, Chantal. (2013). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Translated by Mohammad Rezaei. Tehran: Sales. [In Persian]
MacDonald, Diane. (2001). An Introduction to Discourse Theories. Translated by Hossein Ali Nouzari. Tehran: Farhang-e Gofteman. [In Persian]
Majidi, H., & Rahimi Nia, M. (2018). Discourse Analysis of Moderation in the 11th Presidential Election. Journal of Strategic Political Research, Vol. 7, No.25:12-99. [In Persian]
Mēnōg ī Khrad. (1985). The Book of Wisdom of the Magians. Translated by Ahmad Tafazzoli. Tehran: Toos. [In Persian]
Moghaddami, M. T. (2011). The Theory of Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Analysis and Its Critique. Cultural and Social Knowledge, Vol. 2, No. 2: 91-124. [In Persian]
Mojtaba’i, Fathollah. (1973). Plato’s Ideal City and the Utopian Kingship in Ancient Iran. Tehran: Iranian Ancient Culture Publications. [In Persian]
Mouffe, Chantal. (2012). On the Political. Translated by Mansour Ansari. Tehran: Rokh-e-No. [In Persian]
Najaf Zadeh, R. (2011). Messianism in the Political Theology of Iranians. Contemporary Political Inquiries, Vol. 2, No. 1: 137-163. [In Persian]
Nazari, A. A. (2015). A Critical Re-reading of the Concept of the Political in Carl Schmitt’s Theory. Journal of Politics, Vol. 25, No. 4: 991-1014. [In Persian]
Nazari, A. A. (2016). Schmitt and the Political: Re-reading a Controversial Portrait. Critical Text Research Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4: 177-199. [In Persian]
Nazari, Ali Ashraf. (2021). Analysis of the Political. Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [In Persian]
Norris,Andrew.(2006).Ernesto laclau the logic of the political, philosophy social criticism.
Nyberg, Henrik Samuel. (1980). Religions of Ancient Iran. Translated by Seifoddin Najmabadi. Tehran: Iranian Center for Cultural Studies. [In Persian]
Nyberg, Henrik Samuel. (2011). From Zarathustra to Mani. Translated by Arezoo Rasouli. Tehran: Mahi. [In Persian]
Parham, B. (1991). Foundations and Functions of Kingship in Shahnameh and Their Importance in Assessing Political Wisdom in Iran. Iranian Studies Journal, Vol. 10, No. 37: 1-46. [In Persian]
Raja’i, Farhang. (1993). The Evolution of Thought in the Ancient East. Tehran: Qomes. [In Persian]
Rezaee Rad, Mohammad. (2010). Foundations of Political Thought in Mazdayasnan Wisdom. Tehran: Tarh-e No. [In Persian]
Sadegh Pour, Hafez. (2019). Critical Discourse Analysis of New Narrative Poetry. Ph.D. Dissertation, Kharazmi University, Tehran. [In Persian]
Salgi, M., & Ahmadvand, S. (2018). The Ratio of Idealism and Reality in Zoroaster’s Political Thought. Political Science Research Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 2: 7-32. [In Persian]
Sayamian Gorji, et al. (2017). Cosmological Foundations of Iranian Political Thought with Emphasis on Zoroastrian Sources. Iranian History Association Research Quarterly, Vol. 8, No.31:107-128. [In Persian]
Schmitt, Carl. (2012). Political Theology (2). Translated by Leila Chaman Khah. Tehran: Negah-e Moaser. [In Persian]
Schmitt, Carl. (2014). The Concept of the Political. Translated by Rasoul Namazi & Yashar Jirani. Tehran: Qoqnoos. [In Persian]
Soltani, Seyyed Ali Asghar. (2005). Power, Discourse, and Language: Mechanism of Power Flow in the Islamic Republic. Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. [In Persian]
Tabatabai, Seyyed Javad. (2008). The Old and New Conflict. Tehran: Sales. [In Persian]
Wilhelm, Wolfgang. (2007). Cyrus, the Just King. Translated by Bahram Shalguni. Tehran: Jami. [In Persian]
Yousefi, M. (2008). Representation of the Discourse of Zoroastrian Theological Order in the Requirements of Ideal Kingship in Ancient Iran. Journal of Politics, Vol. 38, No. 2: 299-321. [In Persian]
Zaehner, R.C. (1996). The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. Translated by Teymour Ghaderi. Tehran: Amirkabir. [In Persian]
State Studies
Volume 11, Issue 44
Autumn 2025
Pages 345-396

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us