|
Iran Analysis Quarterly Volume 2 No.2 – Fall (September-November) 2004 A Publication of
the Iranian Studies Group at MIT |
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Disclaimer: The
opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official opinion of the Iranian Studies Group.
|
Mojtaba Mahdavi is currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science
at University of Western Ontario-Canada where he also teaches. His BA and MA
are in political Science from Iran and India, respectively. He has also an MA
in Political Science from University of Western Ontario. He has published on
the nature and varieties of Islamic radicalism as well as on a critical
examination of liberalism, liberal democracy and democratization in the
context of the Muslim world. At present he is working on the problems and
prospects of democratization in post-revolutionary Iran. |
|
|
ISLAMIC FORCES OF THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION: A CRITIQUE OF CULTURAL ESSENTIALISM[1] Mojtaba
Mahdavi Ph.D. Candidate, University of Western
Ontario “The
very concept of history asserts that human development is not predetermined –
not by nature, nor by God, nor by the totality of history itself” (Susan
Buck-Morss 2003, 41). However, there is always a combination of “a willful
action of knowledgeable actors within constrains and possibilities supplied
by pre-existing structures”. This is to suggest that there is a web of
possibilities for agents to make choices within given limits. Agents are both
“active and structured” (Luke 1977, 29). In the
same token, a dialectical relation between structure and agency can better
explain the role of socio-political forces in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. To
clarify my argument, let me propose an operational definition of structure
and agency in the context of the Iranian Revolution. In such a context,
structure evolved in three major forms: first, ‘uneven development’, which
came as a result of the Shah’s authoritarian modernization (Abrahamian 1982);
this made a significant impact on structural relations between and within
classes and state. Second, the autocratic-rentier state or “petrolic
despotism” (Katouzian 1981); this created a context in which the more the
Shah relied upon the state’s dependent-coercive system the more he removed
himself from the society. And, third, the ‘transnational structure of power’
under the shadow of the Cold War; this favored the strength of the clerical
institutions and affected the revolutionary outcomes. The post-1953 Iranian
polity undermined the whole republican structure and democratic politics and
destroyed all secular and progressive Muslim – liberal or left-wing –
parties. The traditional clerical institutions, however, remained almost
untouched. Given the structural constraints, the extent to which Iranian
social and political forces could play a role was limited to three following
agencies: radical/populist discourses, traditional institutions, and the
clerical charismatic leadership. In the following part, I will briefly
discuss the nature and diversity of political forces, and in particular
Muslim’s forces of the revolution. The focus of my talk will not allow me to
discuss the role of gender, ethnicity and social forces in general. II. Pre-revolutionary Iran, unlike what cultural
essentialism suggests, never experienced a homogenous, unified
clerical Islamic culture. Rather, there were chunks of cultural and political
discourses, representing their own histories and social bases and, in fact,
reflecting multiple aspects of pre-revolutionary social cleavages. Leaving
aside a traditional clerical quietism, there was a diverse ideological
interpretation of Islam within the grand alliance that led to the 1979
revolution. The first three Islamic discourses were Khomeinism, Shariati’s
Islamic-left ideology, and Bazargan’s liberal-democratic Islam. The fourth
discourse was the socialist guerrilla groups of Islamic and secular variants,
and the fifth one was secular constitutionalism in socialist and nationalist
forms (Foran 1994). Ayatollah Rohollah Musavi Khomeini was a high
ranking Shiite clergy whose populist and radical-militant discourse became a
political ideology called Khomeinism Abrahamian, 1993). Khomeinism, like
other versions of Islamism, is not a traditional discourse; rather, it is a
modern phenomenon. It makes little sense to characterize as anti-modern or
even pre-modern, a phenomenon profoundly engaged with modernity. Yet, one has
to be cautious not to seen it as postmodern either; for in as much as the
clerical Islamism insists on absolute foundations, is opposing to the
anti-foundational feature of post-modernity (Euben 2000). Khomeinism is
simultaneously a reaction against modernity and an expression of it.
Ayatollah Khomeini’s emergence as the leader of the revolution had more to do
with his political critique of the regime. His critique of the Shah
was well-known than his theory of the velayate faqih, that is, rule by
an Islamist jurist. Khomeinism, in this sense, became an ideologized account
of tradition and therefore a modern political construction. Such political
phenomenon attracted Muslim and secular intellectuals while its primary
social base remained among cleric, their bazaari allies and marginal urban
poor. As Skocpol suggests, it will make a
difference which mixture of idioms is available to be drawn upon by given
groups. But the choices and uses of available idioms will also be influenced
by social and political situations of the acting groups (1985). Ali
Shariati’s radical-left Islamic discourse was very much affected by, and
responding to, the socio-political situations. The core of Shariati’s
discourse was best encapsulated in his trilogy of “Liberty, Equality, and
Spirituality”; a synthesis of Azadi,
Barabari, and Erfan in which liberty and democracy would be
without brutal capitalism, equality and social justice without materialism
and totalitarianism, and spirituality and religion without clerical
institution and the Shari’a itself (Shariati, Vol.1, 1979). One of the
continuing objectives of his writings was the critique of systems of power,
referred to in his text as Esetbdad political dictatorship, Estesmar
material injustice and Estehmar religious alienation – cultural
hegemony in the Gramchian sense. Shariati charged that the clergy were trying
to gain ‘monopolistic control’ over the interpretation of Islam in order to
set up a ‘clerical despotism’, Estebdade Ruhani; this would be, in his
words, ‘the worst and the most oppressive form of despotism possible in human
history’ (Shariati, Vol.20, 1981). Indeed, “it was precisely over this issue
of clerical authority that Shariati called for an Islamic Renaissance and
Reformation” (Abrahamian 1989, 119). This
was a revolutionary and difficult task because the precedent and centuries of
history were clearly on the side of the ulama and their conventional
interpretation of Islam. Furthermore, the question was who is better equipped
to judge what is true Islam? Is it the traditional ulama or the modern
Western-educated intellectuals? There was also a practical problem: Luther
and Calvin in the West had succeeded, both because they had been accomplished
Biblical scholars capable of challenging the church on its own ground, and
because they had enrolled the active support of monarchs and local states
against Rome. The equivalent would have been to ally with the Shah against Qom,
which Shariati would never do this. Also, Shariati’s project for an Islamic
Renaissance and Reformation had to deal with a few troublesome questions: If
Shiism was a revolutionary ideology, why was it surrounded to the iron law of
clerical or political establishments? If revolutionary ideologies were
capable of changing the infrastructure, why then had Shiism failed? And, if
it had failed in the past how could one be sure that it would not fail again
in the future? (Abrahamian 1989, 123-24) Despite all these practical and
historical problems, the prospects for Iran’s progress, Shariati thought, was
to raise public consciences through a radical transformation of social order:
not a political but a social revolution. To perform such a historical
revolutionary task the cardinal question was ‘where is Iran in the historical
process?’ and he answered that contemporary Iran was neither in the twentieth
century, nor in the age of the industrial revolution, but still in the age of
faith in the late feudal era just on the eve of the Renaissance. The rushanfekran,
that is the intelligentsia, Shariati argued, are the critical conscience of
the society. Their main task is therefore to initiate a ‘Renaissance’ and
‘Reformation’. All they have to do is to raise public conciseness; people
will do the rest (Shariati, Vol.4, 1980). Observers notice that Shariati’s
later writings, unlike the earlier ones such as Ummat va Emamat,
clearly take a turn on the question of people and democracy. In Bazgasht,
for instance, there are repeated references as to the fact that intellectuals
or any elite are not to command or provide revolutionary leadership; but only
to educate in a conscious raising form. He quotes Rousseau as having said
that intelligentsia is not to make plans for people. Political leadership is
not the task of the vanguard. It is not for us to create a plan for all
the future, what we have to do is the critical analysis of all that exists
(Shariati, Vol.4, 1980). Such radical critique of the statue quo
therefore made university students, intellectuals, urban classes of workers
and migrants as the main social base of Shariati’s discourse. A third variant was liberal Islam, whose
adherents sought political power through principles of constitutionalism and
democracy and favored an accommodation of Islam with liberal-democracy. The
modern bourgeoisie, some merchants, the modern middle class, small segment of
the clergy and some students and teachers embraced this liberal orientation,
which took its organizational form in Mehdi Bazargan’s Liberation Movement of
Iran (LMI). The fourth discourse was the left-wing ‘guerrilla’ organizations
with a revolutionary, socialist discourse, in forms of the Islamic Mojahedin
and the Marxist Fadaian, which appealed to some
students, intellectuals, and workers. And finally there existed secular
constitutionalists, both in forms of nationalist and republican-socialists.
The former were followers of Mosaddeq’s National Front back in the 1950s and
were supported by a small segment of the bazaar, white-color workers, and
professionals. The latter, the Tudeh socialist party, was supported by
a small portion of the intelligentsia. Given the diversity of the political forces,
therefore, the essentialist, monolith, wholesale and unified concept of Islamic
discourse is simply misleading. Indeed, out of these complexities came a set
of ideas and ideologies that mobilized complex and various social
classes of intellectuals and students, young ulama, bazaari’s
merchants, urban poor and workers whom were influenced in one way or another
by nationalism and radicalism, post-colonialism and democracy, liberalism and
socialism, and finally Islamism and democratic Islam. III. The cardinal question, however, is why
Khomeinism and not other discourses dominated the filed? First of all,
Khomeinism was a radical, revolutionary discourse and radicalism was a
hegemonic political culture of the 1960s and 1970s. The formation of an
autocratic state in post-1953 Iran blocked peaceful and parliamentary
politics and successfully destroyed the already fragile democratic and
secular political institutions. In reaction to the Shah’s Sultanistic
modernization, Iranians experienced a social and cultural alienation. This
led to the formation of a new type of ideology which utilized Islamic symbols
and ideas to provide a new and yet familiar meaning to the subjectivity of
Iranians. The construction of a new Islamic ideology evolved as a radical and
viable political alternative. (Mirsepassi 2000, 59-60) In post-coup era,
Bazargan’s liberal democratic Islam, among other secular-nationalists and
constitutionalists had experienced a phase of discursive and institutional
decline and therefore could not respond to the popular radical and
revolutionary atmosphere. Second, Khomeinism was a populist and
also Islamic discourse, which could easily communicate with the people.
However, the secular opposition, both in nationalist and leftist forms,
remained largely restricted to secular intelligentsia and therefore could not
construct a popular ideology, nor institutionalize a mass revolutionary
political culture. In other words, the constitutionalists, both secular and
Muslims, and the secular opposition, both nationalists and leftists, were in
no position to form a revolutionary radical and popular ideology.
While the former was short of a radical character, the latter lacked a
popular links with the masses. The 1979 Revolution, as Bayat, an Iranian
historian, has observed: “‘has pointed out the most fundamental weakness of
Iranian political life in modern times – namely, the absence of a secular,
nationalist ideology strong enough to sustain a war on two fronts: both
against the absolutist regime of the Pahlavis, and against the predominant
clerical presence in politics’” (Bayat, 1982 quoted in Mirsepassi 2000, 60). The puzzling case was that of Shariati’s
radical Islamic discourse, which enjoyed both radical and popular Islamic
elements and yet could not compete with Khomeinism. Its failure in shaping
the revolutionary outcomes needs further explanations. First, Khomeinism was
a political construction; a mixture of ideas and a marriage of
opposite. It hired modern idioms and used both secular and progressive
Muslim’s concepts, and in particular those of Shariati’s, and incorporated
into a third worldist, populist, radical, and Islamic revolutionary
discourse. Shariati’s words and idioms were, in fact, utilized out of their
intellectual context and therefore created much confusion among many
intellectuals. Second, in the absence of Shariati, his followers, the rushanfekran, were left with no clear project
or any solid social theory to continue what Shariati had started. Shariati’s
discourse of radical ‘de-construction’ of Islamic thought was lost in the
midst of the revolutionary waves. His ideas lost their power not in the
‘battle of ideas’, but in battles that some actors failed to use his ideas
and some other actors succeeded to abuse them. Had Shariati himself thought
of how difficult and dangerous was to have revolution under the banner of
religion and yet keep the leadership of that revolution out of the hands of
the religious authorities? Had he considered an Islamic revolution had the
potential danger of becoming a clerical revolution? (Abrahamian 1989, 119)
There is a desperate need for an academic inquiry into such significant
questions. What is clear, however, is on the eve of the revolution,
Shariati’s discourse, like other secular and progressive Muslim groups, was
suffering from its institutional weakness and the absence of leadership. During
his life Shariati challenged the political (autocratic) and religious
(conservative) establishments and therefore was under attack from both sides.
For this reason he neither succeeded in making a modern political party nor
achieved a full cooperation with traditional institutions. The institutional
weakness made Shariati’s discourse extremely dependent on his personality and
therefore led to a discontinuity, confusion and misrepresentation of his
ideology. This was, in fact, the third factor, which excluded his discourse
from the revolutionary outcomes. While, this institutional flaw and failure
left modern Muslim intelligentsia alone, the traditional groups were
benefited from the nationwide network of mosques, theological seminars,
religious shrines, charitable endowments, and religious lecture halls. The
organized modern opposition in general was closely monitored; the clergy,
however, emerged from “the relative shelter of the mosque.” On the eve of the
revolution no secular or progressive Muslim – liberal or left-wing parties
operated legally. Khomeinism filled this institutional gap. In addition to all of this, Ayatollah
Khomeini was a masterful charismatic leader and able to rally a wide spectrum
of social forces. Also, in the absence of other charismatic revolutionary and
national leaders, like Mosaddeq, Ayatollah Khomeini was seen as the
incarnation of Iranian nationalism, anti absolutism and anti-imperialism in
the form of Iran’s dominant mass culture. IV. To sum up, we can only
appreciate the puzzling meaning of the Iranian Revolution by de-familiarizing
some concepts and going beyond the prevailing essentialist interpretations of
the Iranian revolution. The rise of Islamic politics was a new effort to come
to terms with the challenge of modernity in Iran. The Revolution was a
historical turning point in the crisis of the Western-centric project of
modernization. “The most striking factor behind the rise and popularity of
Islamic alternative in Iran was that it articulated an alternative discourse
to that project, enabling Iran to try and accommodate modernity within the
context of her own historical and cultural experiences.” It presented itself
as the only desirable answer to the country’s dilemmas. This was an ideal,
real or imagined, that no other modern movements were able to achieve or even
to offer. The hegemony of Islamic alternative in the course of the Iranian
revolution was not a historically pre-determined phenomenon, nor an accident.
The crisis and decline of democratic institutions resulted in a political
vacuum in the country. Ayatollah Khomeini took advantage of the existing
traditional institutions to fill the gap. The anti-Shah movement was actually
delivered to him (Mirsepassi 2000, 94).
In addition to that,
however, drawing on Richard Rorty’s thought, one could argue that Islam was a
thinnest phrase in the Iranian Muslims’ final vocabulary and the Shah’s
Sultanistic modernization challenged this thinness. Under this autocratic
modernization, Islamic belief, while remaining the matrix of meaning in
everyday life, became, to put Jacque Derrida’s words, the “constitutive
outside” of Iranian identity and thereby its extent. Paradoxically or
dialectically, as a counter-hegemonic discursive field, Islamic alternative
became not simply a medium through which secular demands of dissatisfied
classes were expressed but a means by which interests and identities formed
(Sayyid 1997). The discourse of Gharbzadegi (Westoxication) was a
response to such crisis of identity and a reaction against the
Western-centered project of modernization. It was a complex and contradictory
concept, which cannot simply be reduced to an anti-Western polemic. For in an
age of republicanism, radicalism and nationalism, the Pahlavi’s discourse
appeared to favor monarchism, conservatism, and Western imperialism
(Mirsepassi 2000, 76-7). The Gharbzadegi was an expression of dignity
and in a post-colonial context dignity is freedom in a different sense. V. And my final words are on
the prospects of Islamic politics in Iran. In re-visiting the Islamic
alternative today, one can argue that despite a quarter-century intensive
project of clerical Islamization from above, the age of clerical Islamism or
any version of political Islam in Iran is over. This is largely due to the
social, cultural and political changes, which have taken place in the
post-revolutionary Iran. Iran, as a nation and as a political culture, wishes
to enter the age of modern democracy. Islam, however, will certainly play a
significant role in years to come. This is not to say that Islam will play a
role only in the people’s private life. Rather, it implies the relocation of
religious institutions from the state and from political society to civil
society. This relocation does not necessarily mean the privatization of
Islam. Privatization of religion is neither possible nor desirable. Unlike
what classic liberalism suggests calls for the privatization of Islam as a
condition for modern democracy in the Muslim world will only produce
antidemocratic Islamist responses. “By contrast, the public reflexive
elaboration of Islam’s normative traditions in response to modern challenges,
political learning experiences, and global discourses has a chance to
generate various forms of public civil Islam which may be conducive to
democratization” (Casanova 2001). A ‘public civil religion’, as it discussed
by a group of Western philosophers or to some extent exists in a number of
democracies, does not harm democracy; it, rather, could support it in a
number of ways. As Jurgen Habermas suggests democracies are threatened by the
power of states and markets. To question and contest the claims of these two
major powers a strong civil society and public sphere is warranted (Habermas,
1996). A public civil religion, in this sense, can play a role on the part of
public sphere by counter-balancing the power of state and market. By
questioning the undemocratic claims of states, inhuman demands of capitalist
markets, and individualist rational choice theories it can serve democracy, social
justice and social ethics. In the challenges that lay ahead for today’s Iran,
such as transition to democracy and encounter with modernity, globalization
and politics of identity, various forms of public civil religion may play a
positive part. This could happen only, and if only, there is no
state-sponsored Islamism. The problem in the Muslim world, unlike what
cultural essentialism suggests, is not that an ‘essentially’ fanatic
religious tradition prohibits democracy, but rather that modern authoritarian
states, secular or Islamist, do not allow the open public sphere where
democratic debates could take place. In an interview shortly before his death
in 1993, Mehdi Bazargan remarked: the greatest threat to Islam in Iran since
the revolution has been the experience of living under the Islamic Republic! Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in
the articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official
opinion of the Iranian Studies Group. |
|
|
References Abrahamian, Ervand. Iran between Two Revolutions
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982) ______. Khomeinism:
Essays on the Islamic Republic (California: University of California Press, 1993) _______. Radical Islam (London:
I.B. Tauris, 1989) PP. 123-124. Bayat, Mongol. Mysticism and Dissent: Socioreligions
Thought in Qajar Iran (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1982) Buck-Morss,
Susan. Thinking Past Terror: Islamism and Critical Theory on the Left (Verso
Books, 2003) Casanova, Jose. “Civil Society and Religion;
Retrospective Reflections on Catholicism and Prospective Reflections on Islam,” Social
Research, Vol.68, No.4 (winter
2001) Euben, Roxanne L. Enemy in the
mirror: Islamic Fundamentalism and the limits of modern rationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000) Katouzian,
Homa. The Political Economy of Modern Iran: Despotism and Pseudo- Modernism,
1929 1979 (New York: New York University Press, 1981) ______. “The Iranian Revolution of 1977-1979: A
Challenge of Social Theory," in Century of Revolution: Social Movements in Iran (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1994) Habermas,
Jurgen. “Three Normative Models of Democracy,” in Democracy and Difference,
Seyla Benhabib, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp21-30 Lukes, Steven. “Power and Structure” in Essays in
Social Theory (London: 1977) Mirsepassi, Ali. Intellectual Discourse and the Politics
of Moderations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) Sayyid, Bobby S.
Fundamentalism fear: Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamists
(London: Zed Books: 1997) Shariati, Ali. Collected Works, Vol. 1 (Tehran:
1357/1979) _____. Collected Works, Vol. 4 (Tehran: 1358/1980) _____. Collected Works, Vol. 20 (Tehran: 1361/1981). Skocpol, Theda. "Cultural idioms and Political
Ideologies in the Revolutionary Reconstruction of State Power: A Rejoinder to Sewell," Journal of
Modern History,” 57(1985) |
Copyright
© 2004 Iranian Studies Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[1] This paper was presented at the Conference held at
University of Toronto in February 13-14, 2004:
“Reflections on the Iranian Revolution: A Quarter
Century After”.