Abolfazl Delavari
Abstract
Problem: The continuation and increasing intensification of the Contentious politics in contemporary Iran, which is an endless revolutions chain, coups, movements, uprisings, and political rebellions, have shown questions about the grounds and roots of this type of politics. In existing studies, the ...
Read More
Problem: The continuation and increasing intensification of the Contentious politics in contemporary Iran, which is an endless revolutions chain, coups, movements, uprisings, and political rebellions, have shown questions about the grounds and roots of this type of politics. In existing studies, the roots of political conflicts in Iran have been attributed either to the state or social cleavages. As far as the role of the state is concerned, it is usually focused on its structural aspects. This article omits the discussion about the structure of the state and focuses only on the functioning of the stateQuestion: The question of the article is: What is the relationship between the continuation and intensification of Contentious politics in contemporary Iran with the practical priorities and orientations of the state in different periods of the contemporary Iranian history?Hypothesis: The hypothesis of the article is that the continuation and intensification of the Contentious politics has been caused by the imbalances and crises caused by the practical priorities and orientations of the state in different periods of contemporary Iranian history. Method: In this article, the method of secondary analysis of historical data is used. Based on the data available in the historical sources, first, the process of the state's performance and priorities in different periods of contemporary history have been identified. Second, the process of accumulation of conflicts and conflicts arising from these performance and priorities has been shown. Third, the relationship between the two mentioned trends is shown. Finally, by using the "ideal type" method, an attempt has been made to design and present a model of the state, which seems to be able to reverse the process of conflict politics in Iran and lead to reconciliation politics.Findings: The findings of the research indicate that over the last two centuries, five different models of state (in terms of orientation and performance) have been effective, which are: self-rebuilding state, nation-building state, developmental state, redistributor state and expansionist state. Of course, this does not mean that the ruling states have only one of these functions at any time; Rather, there has often been some kind of overlap in two or three functions, but at each point, one orientation and function has been the priority and focus of the state's attention. "Self-rebuilding state" appeared in a defective and discrete form during the Qajar era, but in a serious and effective way in the first decade of Reza shah’s rule (1921-40). The "nation-building state" also emerged weakly in the years after the constitutional movement, but seriously and effectively in the last decade of the Reza shah’s rule (1931-41). "Developmental state" emerged faintly in the second decade of Reza shah’s rule (1931-41), and seriously and effectively in the last fifteen years of Mohammad Reza shah’s rule (1962-78), and in the years after The Islamic revolution also took place in some periods such as the presidency of Rafsanjani (1989-96). The "redistributive state" appeared faintly in the last fifteen years of Mohammad Reza shah’s rule (1962-78) and more seriously and effectively in the first decade after the Islamic revolution (1979-88). Finally, the "expansionist state" appeared first in the last years of Mohammad Reza King’s rule (1973-78) and then more seriously and widely in the years after the revolution, especially in the last two decades (2001-2022).Analysis and Discussion: The analysis of the findings of the article showed that: in each of these five models of state, although they had some progress in realizing their main goals and priorities, but in addition to the historical delay in the desired orientation, there were failures in the same orientation. Selecting of the orientations have resulted of disproportionate strategies and policies by each of these states has also created new problems, conflicts and criticisms. In other words, the five patterns of the state have created a vicious cycle of crises, conflicts, instabilities and political violence and a chain of interruptions and breaks in the process of political, social and economic developments and It has resulted in the accumulation of crises in today’s Iran.Conclusion: The results of the article showed that the way out of the current state of Iran is the establishment of a state Patterns that can be called a "conciliatory state". Such a state must first of all emerge from within a comprehensive social contract. Then, based on democratic and efficient institutional arrangements and a coherent legal system, the main priority and goal should be to solve the conflicts affecting the country. This state should accept pluralism and competitive mechanisms in different political, economic, social and cultural fields. This state instead of authoritarian interventions in different fields, should be the guardian of territorial integrity and people's security, and only where the competitive mechanisms face problems with inadequacies and conflict of interest, it should intervene in the framework of democratic laws and mechanisms to compensate for, settle differences and conflicts Resolution, and establish and reproduce social balance and political stability.
Jalil Dara; Mozhgan Rezaeyan Esfehani
Abstract
The experiences of the new industrialized countries such as south Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia in the process of industrialization , have highlighted the role of government in industrialization. But something that has been remained as a question and would be the subject for many researches is how ...
Read More
The experiences of the new industrialized countries such as south Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia in the process of industrialization , have highlighted the role of government in industrialization. But something that has been remained as a question and would be the subject for many researches is how to play that role for government.Confirming that there are many confusions about the role of government in development and industrialization in Iran ; the aim of this article is to compare the role of government in Auto-industry in Iran and South Korea base on institutionalism approach and Evans’ pattern of developmental state (autonomy embedded in society) , and it uses the comparative method in order to find an answer for this core question : despite this fact that Iran and South Korea has established their Auto-industry almost in the same time , but why Korea has been much more succeeded than Iran in the world stand. Findings in the article has supported this hypothesis that the main reason for inefficient and backwardness of Auto-industry in Iran is unbalanced and heterogeneous roles of the government in Iran which are played in this sector of industry , in comparison to well-played developmental roles by south Korea’s government.
