Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Professor, Department of Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.
2 Ph.D. Student, Department of Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.
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
Main Subjects
)