Roohollah Talebi Arani
Abstract
Introduction
Introduction: International politics is a sphere shaped by the foreign policy of individual states. Meanwhile, the foreign policy of states proceeds according to the strategy or strategies prescribed to advance it. On the other hand, the mindset of the states' decision-makers, the historical ...
Read More
Introduction
Introduction: International politics is a sphere shaped by the foreign policy of individual states. Meanwhile, the foreign policy of states proceeds according to the strategy or strategies prescribed to advance it. On the other hand, the mindset of the states' decision-makers, the historical evolution of their international relations, the interactions they have had with each other, and the experiences they have accumulated through these interactions have played a significant role in the states' decision to choose and change different strategies. In this framework, states have usually used one of the strategies of "neutrality, isolationism, alliance, and non-alignment" to advance their foreign policy, strategies that are known as "traditional strategies" of states and have been formed in their historical and empirical context. Accordingly, the issue addressed in this article is to examine the differences and similarities between hedging as an emerging strategy in the foreign policy of states and other traditional strategies, such as alliances, neutrality, isolationism, and non-alignment, which have been pursued throughout the history of international relations.
Thus, many works have been written throughout the life of international relations as an academic discipline focusing on state strategies. These works have either considered strategies within the framework of foreign policy, which is examined in terms of the field of "Foreign Policy Analysis" and accordingly, strategy selection is placed under policymaking, or they have been viewed during the Cold War in the field of Strategic Studies and thereafter in the newly established field of "Security Studies", and from this perspective, they are discussed in relation to the phenomenon of war and its probability of occurrence, and are placed above military operations. In this article, state strategies are considered within the framework of their foreign policy.
Aim and Discussion: This article attempts to present a comparative analysis between containment on the one hand and other traditional state strategies, namely alliance, neutrality, isolationism, and non-alignment, on the other, in order to explain the position of hedging as a foreign policy strategy. Furthermore, given that hedging is very new, both as a concept in the academic world and as an explicit and prominent strategy in the foreign policymaking of states in the international system, it seems necessary to recognize its similarities and differences with other foreign policy strategies of states that, on the one hand, are prevalent in both the fields of International Relations and Foreign Policy Analysis, and on the other hand, have a long-standing history in the discourse of national and international politicians and diplomats.
Method: In doing so, the data collection method is through library and internet searches based on the use of secondary data, focusing on their theoretical and conceptual issues. We aim to show the similarities and differences between them by using a comparative method based on content analysis of qualitative data contained in texts on foreign policy analysis in order to arrive at a proper assessment on the place of hedging in Foreign Policy Analysis.
Findings: Hedging has significant differences from all traditional strategies; unlike all other strategies, it is not related to threats but to risks; it can incorporate all other strategies and cover their behavioral aspects; it is a strategy for managing one's own situation, not a strategy for controlling the actions of others or external events; it involves a kind of continuous and comprehensive cooperation in the international environment; it is not conflict-generating and does not have the prospect of conflict; it has a positive view of the international arena and requires that states be proactive rather than reactive; and finally, it is never based on a mental assumption about the intentions of others; in such a way that the hedger state always calculates its circumstantial contingencies.
International Relations
Sajjad Sadeghi
Abstract
Introduction
It is customary for heads of state or their delegates to deliver speeches at the opening of each regular annual session of the General Assembly, addressing the most pressing current international issues that affect their national interests. These speeches typically outline their government’s ...
Read More
Introduction
It is customary for heads of state or their delegates to deliver speeches at the opening of each regular annual session of the General Assembly, addressing the most pressing current international issues that affect their national interests. These speeches typically outline their government’s perspective on global developments and propose solutions aimed at resolving crises and promoting sustainable regional and global peace and security. Analyzing the speeches delivered by heads of state at the UNGA provides valuable insights: first, into the foundations of their view on the international order; second, into the key global issues as seen through their foreign policy lens; and finally, into their proposed actions for overcoming crises through global partnership, as articulated in official policy statements. Since 1980, when then-Prime Minister Mohammad Ali Rajaee attended the UNGA and presented the Islamic Republic of Iran’s positions on global affairs, Iranian presidents have participated in the General Assembly 24 times up to the 79th session in 2024. They have consistently used this platform to articulate the Foreign Policy Doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). This trend has been particularly notable since tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program escalated, with Iranian presidents leveraging the UNGA stage to convey the overarching principles of the IRI’s foreign policy to the international community. The relevant Persian-language studies generally examine the speeches from two main perspectives: 1) discourse analysis from a linguistic perspective, and 2) content analysis based on international relations concepts. It is worth noting that some research in the field of international relations addresses aspects of presidential speeches at the UN as part of broader studies on foreign policy. However, these works bear little relevance to the present research. When considering studies that focus specifically on individual presidents, Hassan Rouhani’s speeches have received the most attention from researchers. Overall, the existing literature shows that none of these studies is comparable to the current work in terms of scope or final approach, nor have they attempted to develop a comprehensive foreign policy model based on the policies declared by the presidents. In this respect, the present research aimed to examine the 45-year trajectory of the IRI’s foreign policy and develop a model for future research on Iran’s foreign policy behavior.
Materials and Methods
This research adopted the method of modeling based on inductive content analysis. Content analysis aims to uncover underlying linguistic meanings within a text. When applied qualitatively, this method can develop conceptual models and frameworks by systematically combining themes, indicators, and specialized metaphorical concepts. From a broader perspective, it can also identify and categorize recurring elements within the text, thereby enabling the qualitative formulation of specialized metaphors.
Results and Discussion
The analysis helped identify several common features in the foreign policy doctrine of successive IRI’s administrations. These include a negative and pessimistic perception of the great powers and a prevailing view that international organizations—particularly the United Nations and its Security Council—are ineffective and in need of fundamental reform and transformation. The international system is perceived as characterized by a continuous confrontation between two primary forces: the protectors and supporters of the status quo and the agents of change. Over the past two decades, this dynamic has gradually evolved toward what can be described as a Neo-Cold War order. The IRI’s administrations also believe that a new international order is emerging, one that is in fundamental conflict with the existing system. Given their strong desire for systemic change, they seek to define themselves as agents of change within this emerging international order. Furthermore, they regard the current international system as an unjust system of domination. Taken together, these findings indicated that the core and enduring principle of the IRI’s foreign policy is the doctrine of change-seeking within the current international system.
Conclusion
According to the findings, the fundamental principle shaping the IRI’s foreign policy framework is the concept and trend of revolutionism or change-seeking in opposition to the status quo. In the context of foreign relations and the international system, this can be defined as an approach of revolutionism against the current international order. This principle explains the consistent alignment in the foreign policy of successive administrations over the past 45 years, despite differences in domestic political orientations. Therefore, change-seeking based on the negation of the system of domination—which has evolved into change-seeking against the current international system within the IRI’s foreign policy doctrine—can be considered the foundation for the IRI’s foreign policy behavior. In this regard, two propositions can be made from the futures studies perspective. First, the foreign policy of the IRI will support any international actor, coalition—whether bilateral or multilateral—or process that contributes to altering the existing international order. Second, and in contrast, the IRI’s foreign policy will resist and oppose any trend, process, actor, or coalition within the international system that seeks to reinforce or maintain the status quo.
The State
Razieh Mehrabi Koushki; Mohammadreza Hamidi
Abstract
Problem Statement & BackgroundWith the advent of the digital era and the rapid advancement of ICT technologies such as cloud computing, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and IoT, the foundational structures and governance mechanisms of governments are undergoing profound transformation. This change, ...
Read More
Problem Statement & BackgroundWith the advent of the digital era and the rapid advancement of ICT technologies such as cloud computing, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and IoT, the foundational structures and governance mechanisms of governments are undergoing profound transformation. This change, often encapsulated under the term "digital transformation of government," encompasses shifts not just in technology but also in institutional behavior, public service delivery, legal frameworks, and citizen expectations. The global move from e-government to more integrated models like agile government, transformational government, and open governance illustrates the growing complexity of digital-era governance.Iran, like many other developing countries, faces multifaceted challenges in adapting to these paradigms. Issues such as political resistance, fragmented data governance, outdated legal frameworks, insufficient financial and technical resources, and a lack of coordinated planning hinder effective transformation. The central question this research addresses is: What are the systemic issues hindering digital government transformation in Iran, and how can these challenges be identified and addressed through structured methodologies?Research ObjectiveThe primary aim of the study is to investigate and articulate the system of problems ("Nizam-e-Masael") surrounding the digital transformation of government in Iran. Using a structured interpretive methodology—Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)—the research seeks to:Identify key conceptual and operational barriers to digital transformation.Capture perspectives of key stakeholders and experts within Iran’s digital ecosystem.Develop conceptual models that reflect stakeholder understandings and identify actionable changes.Suggest institutional, legal, managerial, and technological reforms necessary to achieve transformative digital governance. MethodologyThis study employs Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), a qualitative, interpretive method developed by Peter Checkland, suitable for analyzing complex, ill-structured, human-centered problems where multiple stakeholders and perspectives exist.Key steps included:- Unstructured Problem Exploration – through semi-structured interviews with 11 national experts from government, academia, private sector, and civil society.- Stakeholder Identification – mapping all key actors, including executive bodies (ministries, councils), judiciary, parliament, private tech sector, and citizens.- Root Definitions using CATWOE – structured definitions of the situation from multiple perspectives using the CATWOE tool (Customers, Actors, Transformation process, Worldview, Owners, Environmental constraints).- Conceptual Model Building – building models to represent ideal systems based on each major stakeholder’s worldview.- Real-World Comparison – comparing models with current practices to identify gaps.- Feasible and Desirable Changes – suggesting policy and structural changes.FindingsThe study identifies that Iran’s digital transformation is constrained by challenges across four domains:Political Challenges:Resistance to structural change due to fear of transparency and loss of control.Political factionalism causing instrumental use or obstruction of large-scale digital projects.Data silos and institutional security-centric data ownership models obstructing integration.Economic Challenges:Severe underfunding and lack of financial prioritization due to broader fiscal crises.Lack of digital infrastructure, such as cloud platforms and broadband access.No coherent roadmap or leadership for multi-sectoral funding and execution.Social Challenges:Concerns about the societal effects of digital technologies (e.g., on family, youth).Mixed perceptions of ICT’s impact, with some blaming digitalization for rising divorce or unemployment, while others cite benefits like transparency and remote work.Legal and Regulatory Challenges:Outdated laws incompatible with emerging technologies (e.g., AI, Metaverse).Lack of enabling legislation for cross-agency digital integration.No prioritization of digital transformation in high-level legislative or strategic documents.SSM-Based Stakeholder Findings:Executive Branch: Lacks coherent leadership and budget alignment. Coordination across ministries is absent or fragmented.Judiciary: Digitization efforts are sporadic and lack systemic support or coordination.Parliament: Limited awareness of digital transformation imperatives. Legislative inertia blocks innovation.Supreme Cyberspace Council: Weak coordination authority; recommendations often lack enforcement power.Conceptual Models: Each of these stakeholder groups had tailored conceptual models reflecting:Key activities (e.g., legislation drafting, budget allocation, program implementation).Ideal vs. actual performance assessments.Interdependencies and feedback loops.Identified Gaps:Lack of central vision: No unified national transformation roadmap exists.Ineffective coordination mechanisms: Overlapping mandates and institutional silos dominate.No performance tracking: There are no KPIs, monitoring tools, or learning systems.________________________________________Conclusion and RecommendationsDigital transformation of government is not a choice but a necessity for countries facing socio-economic, demographic, and political pressures. Iran’s journey from basic e-government toward full digital governance is impeded by structural, political, economic, and cultural barriers. While technologies are available, their adoption is hindered by outdated processes, limited awareness, and fragmented leadership.The study recommends:National Strategy Formulation: Develop and ratify a high-level digital transformation policy endorsed by all three branches of power.Legal Overhaul: Revisit all major legal codes (data privacy, cybersecurity, digital services) with digital transformation in mind.Institutional Reform: Designate a lead digital transformation agency with executive authority.Capacity Building: Train government staff and lawmakers in digital governance principles.Public Participation and Transparency: Establish feedback mechanisms to involve citizens and civil society in shaping digital policies.Performance Measurement: Develop a national digital governance index and integrate it into annual government performance reports.
Political Sociology
Mohammad Bagher Khorramshad; Tahereh Karamzadeh
Abstract
Introduction
A main requirement for the advancement of a society is the existence of dynamic and high-quality institutions and organizations. Such institutions can promote a sociopolitical system through their performance and minimize damages and shocks during any probable developments, challenges, ...
Read More
Introduction
A main requirement for the advancement of a society is the existence of dynamic and high-quality institutions and organizations. Such institutions can promote a sociopolitical system through their performance and minimize damages and shocks during any probable developments, challenges, or crises based on their strengths and consistency. On the other hand, societies removed from the indicators of political development struggle with challenges like institutional inefficiency. A major sector of each society that acts as a criterion for the assessment of political development indicators is its bureaucracy. Bureaucracy, through its efficient performance, can contribute to the improvement of political development indicators, while its inefficiency can pose challenges to political development.
Previous studies on bureaucracy in Iran have been heavily influenced by managerial and economic perspectives, and have rarely addressed the issue from the standpoint of social sciences and political development. therefore, approaches to the study of bureaucracy in Iran, from the perspective of political science, have been overlooked, or more precisely, have not received adequate attention. Therefore, given the existing literature, this study seeks to analyze the bureaucratic environment in Iran from the perspective of political development using the meta-synthesis method.
In this regard, the present study aimed to determine the issues facing Iran’s bureaucratic environment from a political development perspective according to the views offered by a group of experts. After the initial coding and the synthesis of the concepts were carried out, the findings indicated that the issues of the bureaucratic system could be categorized into the concepts of historical authoritarianism, inefficient bureaucracy, the weak rule of law, rentier state, the over-politicization of the administrative system, defective institutionalization, and anti-development state.
Methodology
The present study utilized the seven-stage method of Sandelowski and Barroso to synthesize the data. The seven-stage method includes the following stages:
Formulate the research questions, 2. Conduct a systematic review of the related literature, 3. Search and select suitable texts, 4. Extract information from the texts, 5. Analyze and synthesize the findings of the texts, 6. Conduct a quality control procedure, and 7. Report the findings (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003, p. 121).
Based on the research question mentioned in the introduction section, a set of keywords, including political development, bureaucratic environment, administrative system, and the relationship between bureaucracy and development, was implemented to detect the relevant studies in the Ensani portal, the Scientific Information Database (SID), and Noor Specialized Magazines (Noormags). This process led to the identification of 658 articles, out of which 129 articles matched the topic of the study in terms of their titles, abstracts, and methodologies. However, 59studies were eliminated as they did not match the investigated period. Then, the abstracts were screened according to environmental pathology and the relationship between bureaucracy and political development, and, ultimately, 37 relevant articles were evaluated as suitable based on the relevance of their topics, the number of downloads, and their citations.
Results and Discussion
The themes and concepts resulting from the existing analyses on the pathology of the environmental status of Iran’s bureaucracy were extracted and specified as the main codes after reviewing the selected articles in a meticulous manner. Altogether, 206 codes were extracted using the open coding technique by analyzing the concepts within the selected 37 articles. Generally speaking, codes like the authoritarian historical and political structure, the transformation of a state into a rentier one, the over-politicization of the administrative system, and the inefficiency of the bureaucratic system were more prevalent than others in the investigated articles. Thus, the concepts deduced from the selected 37 articles were considered the codes of the study. The findings of the study obtained through the process of the conceptual classification of the codes showed seven general codes that could all be analyzed in relation to the central concept of political development. In other words, it was shown that the immaturity of Iran’s political development and the existence of a mixture of underdevelopment elements in the country influenced the bureaucratic structure and received mostly negative reviews from researchers in the field. To increase the reliability of the study, first, the researchers reviewed the process of the study based on the selected articles, and the performed coding was investigated once more. Then, two external reviewers were recruited to administer a secondary control over the stages of meta-synthesis, including access to accurate and expressive samples, coding, and the synthesis of the codes. Finally, a third expert was asked to control the extracted concepts so that the quality of the stages and data extraction could be confirmed.
Conclusion
At the political level, extensive political interventions in the administrative sphere and the imposition of extra-legal demands have prevented the administrative system from following its natural course and, as a result, it has become entangled in daily discussions and is no longer able to perform its regular and assigned tasks. On the other hand, the weakness of the rule of law, which has both historical reasons and is rooted in the wide-ranging political interventions in the bureaucracy, has led to the lack of a proper perspective on the state of the administrative system. In addition, inappropriate merit-based selection processes and ambiguity in promotion processes and weak training have created a form of inefficient bureaucracy that has been mentioned in all articles related to the phenomenon of bureaucracy in Iran without exception. The above factors all point to the need to redesign the bureaucracy based on the independence of the administrative system from political groups and to pay attention to educational and motivational mechanisms to attract and promote the most qualified individuals.
International Relations
Amirroham Shojaie; Reza Simbar
Abstract
IntroductionThe Gaza crisis, which turned into a full-scale war after the events of October 7, 2023, became the center of international attention. Different countries of the world, according to their internal and external requirements, adopted different approaches to this crisis and played a role according ...
Read More
IntroductionThe Gaza crisis, which turned into a full-scale war after the events of October 7, 2023, became the center of international attention. Different countries of the world, according to their internal and external requirements, adopted different approaches to this crisis and played a role according to these approaches. Meanwhile, the countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and Kuwait, each of them, according to their own interests and their attitude towards this crisis, has followed certain policies, the variety of which has sometimes been very different among these six countries. Among these diverse orientations, support for Hamas and other Palestinian groups, neutrality, support for Israel, etc., can be seen. Considering the diversity of foreign policies of this country in response to the extraordinary crisis, it seems that a single-level analysis is not suitable for explanation. Therefore, in this article, using the theory of neoclassical realism, which brings the tool of multilevel analysis and explains the differences. The central research question of this study is: What factors have influenced the foreign policy of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries toward the Gaza crisis (October 7, 2023), how have these factors manifested, and how can they be explained?The findings underscore the significant role of domestic variables, particularly the perceptions and interpretations of political leaders and elites. This study adopts an analytical-explanatory methodology, drawing upon the most recent academic and media sources. Given the complexity of the current conflict in Gaza, the study argues that a multi-causal analytical framework is more effective in explaining the foreign policy behavior of GCC countries. Such a framework simultaneously considers structural pressures at the systemic level and internal dynamics at the unit level—including leadership perceptions and state-society relations.One of the core contributions of neoclassical realism lies in its capacity to explain variations in the foreign policies of different states by incorporating both systemic-level factors and domestic-level dynamics. This theoretical framework is therefore particularly well-suited for analyzing complex cases. The Middle East, as a region characterized by deep-seated geopolitical, ideological, religious, and ethnic cleavages—alongside the involvement of extra-regional powers—presents a uniquely intricate environment for political analysis. The interplay of these multi-layered and often conflicting elements makes it especially challenging to interpret and predict foreign policy behavior in this context.In the meantime, the relations between the Zionist regime and the Persian Gulf countries have had many ups and downs and are always influenced by various factors such as the Palestinian issue, their relations with America, the economic and political interests of these countries, the internal ideology and perceptions of the elites, and ... have been. Among these factors, the issue of Palestine is an important issue that the countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council are forced to take a stand against. In this regard, the relations of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries with Israel have historically been affected by the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, and the lack of an agreement between Palestine and Israel has played an important role in the non-normalization of the relations between these actors (Niakoui and Haji, 2019: 231).The Al-Aqsa Storm operation came as a shock to the international community. Arguably, its most defining feature was the element of surprise. The Gaza war erupted at a time when significant shifts were anticipated in Arab-Israeli relations. Before the conflict, indicators suggested that the regional balance of power was tilting, particularly with the anticipated normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel—a development perceived as unfavorable to Iran. However, the outbreak of the war at least temporarily halted this trajectory. From a broader perspective, the crisis has exposed the diverse and divergent responses of the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. These responses range from support for Hamas and other Palestinian factions to neutrality, and in some cases, overt or tacit support for Israel. This variation underscores a critical point: understanding the foreign policy behavior of GCC states amid the ongoing Gaza conflict necessitates a multifaceted analytical approach—one that accounts for both unit-level (domestic) and system-level (international) factors.Materials and MethodsThe research method is analytical-explanatory and relies on up-to-date library and media sources. The theory of neoclassical realism has also been used to analyze the foreign policy of the actors.Results and DiscussionIn a general division, it can be said that the general and common approach of each of these six countries was based on opposing the killing of civilians, opposing human rights violations by Israel, and opposing the spread of conflicts to other parts of the region. Meanwhile, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait have openly opposed Israel and its inhumane actions, and Qatar, as the main mediator between the warring parties, has sought to elevate its regional and international role. The attitude of each of these six countries towards Hamas has also been one of the factors affecting their approach in this war.Saudi Arabia's policy regarding this war has also been affected by several factors, including: the special prestige that Saudi Arabia has for itself among Arab countries (the need to take a stand in favor of the people of Gaza), opposition to Hamas on the one hand, and establishing a relationship with Israel on the other. general agreement with the destruction of Hamas, a growing economy, and de-traditionalization (to achieve which the spread of war in the region must be stopped). The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, however, have shown different positions compared to other countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council, the reason for which can be found in the normalization of relations between these two actors with Israel under the name of the Ibrahim Accords.ConclusionIn a general summary, it should be said that the approach of the six Arab countries mentioned to the ongoing war in Gaza has been affected by both systemic and internal factors. In relation to this issue, neoclassical realism can well explain the politics of these countries. Meanwhile, it seems that domestic and state-level factors (Unit-Level Government Variables) have played a significant role in shaping the foreign policy of these countries regarding the Gaza crisis.
Mohammad Reza Vizheh; Ali Estiri
Abstract
Introduction and Statement of the Problem:
Historical disputes over political authority after the Prophet and the emergence of sharp divisions among Muslims, along with the Shiite position that a political ruler must be appointed by God and the minority status of this view, gave rise to an approach ...
Read More
Introduction and Statement of the Problem:
Historical disputes over political authority after the Prophet and the emergence of sharp divisions among Muslims, along with the Shiite position that a political ruler must be appointed by God and the minority status of this view, gave rise to an approach among Shiite jurists that was generally delegitimizing toward worldly political authority. In the presence of the Imam, Shiites considered the present Imam the only person qualified to assume political power. Given new circumstances, such an approach required reexamination during the occultation. The first changes began with modifications in juristic rulings, and with the formation of the theory of general deputization (niyābat ‘āmma), efforts were made to ease the life of Shiites; this continued until Shiite rulers came to power. With the formation of the first Shiite centers of power, the role of jurists became more pronounced. This development marks a turning point in the evolution of jurists’ political and theological theories and created a space for putting theological and juristic ideas into practice. The theory of political power in Shiism is the result of centuries of juristic intellectual struggle. The jurists’ thought can be divided into two stages:
Delegitimizing customary political power and legitimizing it. By scrutinizing the changes that have occurred in Shiite juristic rulings, its developmental trajectory is examined, and the process of transition from delegitimization to legitimization is formulated based on primary sources. The passage from a theoretical orientation centered on disinterest in customary political power and lack of a coherent theory about it toward a situation in which that power becomes a theoretical concern and object of jurists’ attention is examined under two main concepts: delegitimizing and legitimizing.
Research Background:
In previous studies, the prevailing intellectual tradition in Shiism and Shiite political jurisprudence has generally been described as the development and formation of the theory of general deputization. It has been regarded as the authentic and sole theory put forward by jurists in Shiite jurisprudence without attention to how it formed and was established or the historical context in which it emerged and spread. However, referring to jurisprudential texts compiled in early periods shows that the widespread and initially accepted historical theory was delegitimization of power; from the Middle Ages and with the rise to power of Shiite rulers, the dominant discourse shifted toward legitimizing customary political power. Understanding the theory of general deputization in its current articulation is not possible without a careful consideration of the earlier theory.
Research Objective:
This study discusses the theory of general deputization and the currently prevalent theory in Shiite political jurisprudence as the intellectual development connected to its antithetical theory—namely, the delegitimization of customary political power—as a historically prior political theory, relying on texts composed by jurists and on how it was completed and developed.
Research Method:
The present research uses a library-based method and examines books authored by Shiite jurists in historical continuity.
Conclusion:
By closely examining jurists’ theories, which were historically analyzed from the earliest authoritative jurists in Shiism to the present, it can be argued that their primary intellectual concern was preserving the identity of the Shiite sect in accordance with the governing principles of their theological and juristic beliefs. At one period, given the social circumstances and the need to preserve the communal life of Shiites, their view of political power was negative, permitting interaction between adherents of the sect and political authority only out of necessity At another period, owing to changed social conditions, jurists’ theories moved toward defining a specific political position for the jurist as an active political and legitimizing agent in social and political dimensions and as one who carries out religious duties.
Although these ideas have not always been expressed uniformly, we currently face two differing approaches: a minority and a majority approach. The minority approach believes in delegitimizing political power and limits the legitimization of it to restricted matters, viewing the jurist solely as an overseer. The majority approach, also referred to as general deputization, especially with the development and formulation of the theory of the jurist’s absolute guardianship (wilāyat-i mutlaqah al-faqīh), regards the jurist as the legitimate ruler and executor of the sect in all affairs. An idea that formed in the early period of jurisprudence, through the development of theological and juristic concepts, gradually became one of the most important political theories in Shiite political theology, managing to formulate a theory in accordance with the necessities of the lives of adherents that, for the first time, defined and preserved Shiite political and religious identity together in its present form.
One key reason for the change in juristic thought and the examination of the capacities present in hadith texts for forming elements that legitimize power is their increasing engagement with political institutions. After several centuries, the growth of the Shiite population and the establishment of political powers by them made outright denial impossible; continuing the previous approach of absolute rejection would have been self-defeating and would have created difficulties for Shiite life.
Therefore, jurists—especially after the Safavid shahs came to power—sought, by rethinking hadith texts and discovering new capacities, to provide some form of legitimation for customary power, to preserve the newly established and widespread Shiite power, and to consolidate the existence of Shiites, who until then had been struggling to assert themselves within the political community.
Political Sociology
Mohsen Dianat; Mohammad Laelalizadeh
Abstract
The government, as a special political institution that plays a role in political and social developments and the development of societies, its interaction with society is always emphasized. Meanwhile, the interaction between the government and the society, the distribution of power and the influence ...
Read More
The government, as a special political institution that plays a role in political and social developments and the development of societies, its interaction with society is always emphasized. Meanwhile, the interaction between the government and the society, the distribution of power and the influence of different groups and institutions is one of the issues that have been defined in different ways among thinkersIn this research, with a sociological approach and in the framework of Joel Migdal's theoretical model of the government in society and the network society and in the form of a descriptive-analytical method by collecting documents and library information related to the relationship between society and the government during the Islamic Revolution., it was determined that in the form of a qualitative method and understanding of the interaction between the government and society in Iran after the Islamic revolution and the collection of documentary and library information; It was found that in the interaction between the government and the society after the Islamic revolution, the government in the components of the ability to influence the society; And the distribution/allocation of resources has not performed successfully, however, it has been successful in the component of resource extraction and has also performed relatively successfully in social control. Despite the formation of a networked society, its hard and impenetrable shell has caused the government to resort to tough institutions such as the military and security agencies, and a strong and developmental government is not being formed towards change and transformation. Therefore, the relationship between the state and society and the link between society and power in the policy-making process is determined. By analyzing the Migdal network society, a model of policy making in the period after the Islamic Revolution is proposed.
There are various theories about the relationship between the state and society, which can be considered in the form of theories of rentier government, absolute patrimonial government, authoritarian bureaucratic government, theory of oriental tyranny, theory of Sultanate systems, theories of development and modernization. Many existing approaches to understanding social and political transformations in the third world have underestimated the conflict between the state and society (especially in modernization theories), or ignored certain types of conflict that only occasionally have a class basis (such as Marxist content) or Those who are blind to the most important dynamics within the society (such as the theories of dependence and the world system). The current research may suggest a new model to help overcome the traditional (modernist) understanding of the hegemonic role of the state to control society. Such a paradigm can show the vital role of religious networks and other civil society organizations in development. This study proposes Joel Migdal's (1994) government-in-society approach, which conceptualizes the government (a political organization) and other agents of community development as competing social forces in different arenas of society. According to Migdal, the state is neither an organic entity nor an ontological status, because it does not exist outside or beyond society, but it is a part of society, like other factors affecting development.
The current research, considering the theoretical framework of Joel Migdal's network society, intends to deal with the type of interaction between the Iranian government and society after the Islamic Revolution. Knowing this relationship and how the government interacts with society is an important factor in understanding the country's position in the path of development. With the formation of these power networks and groups, the gap between the government and society has deepened so much that the society has been able to confront the government; But this capability of the society does not mean its strengthening, but rather the weakening of the government, which could not have the ability to influence the society and respond to the demands of the society according to the resources at its disposal and within the framework of the regulation of desirable social relations. The society has become extremely hard and impenetrable, and the government has resorted to hard and efficient institutions such as parties, the military, and security agencies to implement its decisions, as a result of which the distance between the government and society has increased. In fact, the existence of a powerful and stable government is indeed necessary for political development, but the existence of an active civil society, which consists of political, social, and trade union institutions and organizations independent of the government, is also one of the most essential elements of political development.
Conclusion: The findings and data analysis of the Islamic Republic period based on Migdal's point of view, indicate that the focus has changed from the government as a structural approach based on an independent and centralized organization to a process-oriented and network view of the government and society. Therefore, according to this perspective, the policy model regarding the government and society can also be reviewed with a new perspective.
