The revolution for law

In 1906 a constitution laid down the rules and procedures for government based in law. It was the first time in Iranian history that government was 'conditioned' (mashrut) to a set of fundamental laws which defined the limits of executive power, and detailed the rights and obligations of the state and society. No such revolution had ever happened in Europe, because - as a rule - there had always been legal limits to the exercise of power in European societies, however powerful the government might be, and however narrow, limited and unequal the scope of the law in defining the relationship between the state and society, and among the social classes. In Europe, the law had often been unequal, and unfair to the majority of the people. But, even in the four centuries of absolutism or despotism which reigned over the continent from England to Russia - although absolutism survived for so long only in Russia - there had been limits to exercise of state power, but they were considerably less in Russia than in the West. Revolts and revolutions in Europe had never been fought for law as such, but for changing the existing law to increase its scope of application, or to make it fairer

Legitimacy and succession in Iranian history

In Iran, both before and after Islam, the ruler was thought to be God’s vicegerent on earth and, unlike Europe, his legitimacy was not dependent on the law of primogeniture. Thus he was not bound by any written or unwritten law or tradition and could take decisions up to the utmost of his physical power, the only restraint being the fear of rebellion. He would lose God’s Grace and somehow fall from power if he ruled unjustly, but there was no test either for possessing the grace or for losing it except by virtue of holding power or being overthrown. There were thus no rules for succession and rebels could and did claim legitimacy once they were successful. The position both justified and was justified by arbitrary rule, where long-term functional social classes did not exist and history became a series of connected short terms, a sociological phenomenon which still persists in Iranian society

Women in Hedayat's fiction

Featuring contributions from leading scholars of Iranian studies and / or comparative literature, this edited comprehensive and critical edited collection provides detailed scholarly analysis of Hedayat's life and work using a variety of methodological and conceptual approaches. Hedayat is the author of The Blind Owl, the most famous Persian novel both in Iran and in Europe and America. Many of his short stories are in a critical realist style and are regarded as among some of the best written in twentieth century Iran. But his most original contribution was the use of modernist, more often surrealist, techniques in Persian fiction. Thus, he was not only a great writer, but also the founder of modernism in Persian fiction. Yet both Hedayat's life and his death came to symbolize much more than leading writers would normally claim. He still towers over modern Persian fiction and will remain a highly controversial figure so long as the clash of the modern and the traditional, the Persian and the European, and the religious and the secular, has not led to a synthesis and a consensus

Private parts and public discourses in modern Iran

The first half of the 20th century excluding the Reza Shah period is unique in the whole history of Persian literature in the amount of satire, lampoons and invectives which were published largely though not entirely through the press, and usually with a political motive. It was characteristic of Iranian history that the fall of an arbitrary state, often even the death of a ruler, led to division and chaos. The first quarter of the twentieth century was a period of revolution, chaos and coup. And in the period after the fall of Reza Shah up to the 1953 coup, chaos was resumed and was once again accompanied by licentious journalism and pamphleteering

Iraj, the Poet of Love and Humour

Iraj was a leading poet of the late Qajar era, a major poet in the whole history of Persian poetry and by far the greatest of the poets who descended from Fath'ali Shah. Two things in particular distinguish Iraj's poetry: eloquence and humor. It is difficult to describe him as a satirist in the strict sense of this term since satire in his works is normally incidental and a natural result of his unique humor when writing about most subjects. His best works are Aref-Nameh, Enqelab-e Adabi and Zohreh o Manuchehr, although there is hardly any piece by him which is less than delightful, especially those which he wrote during the Constitutional era

Sadeq Hedayat: his life and works

Sadeq Hedayat was born on 17 February 1903 and died on 9 April 1951. He was descended from Rezaqoli Khan Hedayat, a notable 19th century poet, historian, and historian of Persian literature, and author of Majma‘ al-Fosaha, Riyaz al-‘Arefin and Rawza al-Safa-ye Naseri. Many members of his extended family were important state officials, political leaders and army generals, both in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.</p

Riza Shah's political legitimacy and social base

Riza Khan led the Cossacks in the coup d'etat of 1921 when it looked as if the country was doomed to brigandage, civil war and probable disintegration. The period between 1921 and 1926 may be described as a transitional period, a period of interregnum and power struggles, which he won by a series of successful operations, both political and military. That is also the period when he had the highest political legitimacy and widest support of his career. The next five-year period, from 1926 to 1931 was a period of growing dictatorship and autocracy, when the shah became absolute ruler, though there was still some consultation and participation, and he still had some support among the modern middle classes. Finally, over the next ten year period, from 1931 until the allied occupation in 1941, the shah 's power became not just absolute but arbitrary as well, and he lost the support of all the social classes, both high and low, both modern and traditional

Towards a general theory of Iranian revolutions

There is no universal theory of revolutions if only because no scientific theory can be universal. Neither is there even a general theory of European revolutions. But elements of such a theory do exist, including the crucial fact that European revolutions, though very different in time and space, were revolts against the ruling social classes by the rest of the society. Iranian revolts were typically against an 'unjust' arbitrary state, and were not resisted by any social class. The two revolutions in the twentieth century shared these basic features, notwithstanding the differences between them as well as with traditional Iranian revolts.</p