عنوان مقاله [English]
Purpose: The key problematic of this paper is to reach a solution to link three sources of reproduction of legitimacy in Iran: ancient Iranian tradition (Pre-Islamic), Islamic tradition and modern pattern which is based on people. It’s necessary to propose two presupposition: 1) Dictatorship or democracy are contradictory terms to describe surrounding countries. Such dualism of political systems prevents deep understanding of complexities of third world countries (developing countries). In order to better comprehend the circumstances which are neither fully democratic nor dictatorship, western theorists articulate terms such as transient regimes or semi-democratic or quasi-democratic regimes. Such naming again prompts a dualist mentality and centers understanding around the notion that if a country is not totally dictator, it is moving toward a democratic model and will soon be a democratic country. Such dual pattern has led to epistemological problems regarding understanding complicated situation of Islamic countries and therefore it has been difficult to face their problems practically. In fact, in Islamic countries complicated systems of traditional heritage are active and current changes do not mean that these systems are declining or weakening. Nevertheless, democratic and modern institutions exist too.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The approach to this paper is that we need to follow names that are situated outside such dualisms and hence we have chosen the term “Hybrid Regimes”. In hybrid order we are faced with institutions and arrangements that are conformed to democratic patterns and are legitimized through peoples’ votes. At the same time, there are institutions that are legitimized through tradition, culture and history. 2) Often this question is raised that what are hybrid regimes’ legitimization patterns. We argue that legitimization pattern as a theoretical action contains logical cohesion and follows a theoretical foundation, but in practice politically based systems draw legitimation from different sources and therefore practical patterns of reproduction of legitimacy has always been hybrid. But unfortunately in the context of political conflicts, to vilify and ostracize the rival, actors have followed the logic of theory rather than committing to practical necessitates.
Regarding the above prerequisites we will tend to the current problem of legitimization in Iran which relates to people as fundamental foundation of modern legitimization and to Islamic-Iranian heritage. In intellectual and political struggles of last one hundred years, we have faced many narratives of legitimacy which have prioritized one of three resources of legitimacy and through rejection of others have created gaps in political arena. Is it possible to embrace all various legitimization foundations in politics of Iran in an organizing pattern without marginalizing any of these resources?
Finding: In this paper we show that both Iranian and Islamic heritage of political theory are apt for believe in people as legitimization force, but based on Iranian narrative, role of the people is defined as a particularistic system and cannot occur in a national arena. In Islamic tradition, peoples’ role is seen as universal. But in contrast to Iranian tradition, Islamic tradition accepts a conservative non-idealistic role of people.
Originality/Value: The result of this paper is new. This paper studies the possibility of mixing these two traditions, assuming that the mixture of these two traditions can reach to a modern legitimization pattern that draws from both Iranian and Islamic traditions.