Search Results

This chapter discusses the Constitutional Revolution of 1906-1911 and subsequent efforts to balance the demand for a viable state with the demand for democracy and rule of law. It then traces the rise and triumph of the Iranian state under Reza Shah between 1925 and 1941.

In the challenge of the Constitutional Revolution (1905–11), an emerging modern middle class argued that the earlier reformist focus on politics had failed. The new creed held that change would come about only through profound sociocultural reforms—and modern science was the key that would unlock that door. This reformist change of mind was of consequence only, however, because it interacted with momentous social and political transformations and a shift in Iran's international position. The supposed Great Game preserving regional geostrategic stability did not survive World War 1. Around the same time, a modern middle class began to emerge in Iran, replacing the Qajar court as the spearhead of modern sociocultural production and the adoption of modern science, boosting their popularization, instruction, and practical application. The patrimonial Qajar bureaucracy finally gave way to a reformed, interventionist state administration interested in advancing higher modern education.

This chapter explores the role of private institutions and associations, including schools and committees, in creating new spaces for the production and circulation of histories outside of the imperial court. The relatively autonomous character of most of these schools and educational associations—often receiving no funding from the state—facilitated the writing of diverse historical narratives in textbooks rarely seen in later periods. This chapter then turns to how after the outbreak of the Constitutional Revolution, historians highlighted the civic function of history emphasizing the centrality of the “people” and the “nation” as agents of political change instead of monarchs and their ministers.

This chapter demonstrates that the Qajar court’s creation of the Translation and Publication Bureaus in the mid-nineteenth century marked a break with previous patterns of court patronage for official chroniclers. The court charged government officials with the task of translating and composing histories not only to bolster the legitimacy of the Iranian imperial monarchy, but also to seek out autocratic top-down models for modernization through the biographies of European monarchs. By the late nineteenth century and especially with the 1906 Iranian Constitutional Revolution, historians outside of the court gained a measure of autonomy from the patronage and authority of the Qajar state. This chapter argues that the autonomy in the realm of printing was reflected in the selection of histories on revolution, anti-imperialism, and democracy for translation into Persian.

Constitutional systems of government promoting the protection of property actually lead to a mix of democracy and despotism. This is due to the fact that property, with its absolute prerogatives and the decentralization of sovereignty it represents, was designed to protect individuals’ autonomy. With the advent of a corporate economy, however, these prerogatives were concentrated within corporations used to legally structure business firms. A new form of legal pluralism developed, in an unofficial manner. Global firms are organizations coordinating the operation of large sectors of the economy. But they do it in an unofficial manner. After each of the major crises of the twentieth century - the two World Wars and the Great Depression, in particular - radical evolutions occurred in the legal systems to equilibrate the imbalanced operation of the private side of the Power System. Protective laws were adopted, social rights were granted. Via the Constitutional Revolutions of the twentieth century, the liberal, night watchman State, moved to become the welfare and regulatory State. These Constitutional Revolutions are now being challenged by globalization.

This chapter provides an introduction to Charand-o Parand. In the early years of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution (1906–11), Ali-Akbar Dehkhodā (1879–1956) published a series of satirical columns under the title Charand-o Parand for the social democratic newspaper Sur-e Esrāfil (SE). Sur-e Esrāfil, which began publication on May 30, 1907, adopted an uncompromising anticolonialist position and routinely exposed the machinations of Western diplomats in Iran, specifically those of Russia and Great Britain. But it reserved its harshest criticisms for the clerical establishment, both the lowest-ranking members of the caste of mullas, who were blamed for propagating ignorance and superstition, and those belonging to the highest echelons who had openly sided with the anticonstitutionalist faction. The popularity of the Charand-o Parand columns made SE one of the best-known publications of the Constitutional Revolution and a harbinger of modern journalism in Iran. The remainder of the chapter briefly assesses the historical period in which SE appeared, the life and career of Dehkhod rā, and the groundbreaking contributions of the Charand-o Parand essays.

The introduction sets the background for the situation of the Jews in Iran at the turn of the twentieth century. This initial chapter provides a brief history of Jews in Iran and in the Middle East and touches on the creation of transnational networks that became increasingly important in the twentieth century. It seeks to introduce and contextualize for the reader Iran’s Jewish community and the manner in which it has been addressed in past works. It provides an overview of the political, social, and cultural changes the community experienced, including the implementation of a constitution, urbanization, and a different perception of the “nation” in terms of postimperial identity and structure.

This chapter presents a column published on June 27, 1907, where Dakhow mocks the overzealous journalists who abandoned their newspapers in the midst the Constitutional Revolution. He also reports on the atrocities committed by tribal brigands loyal to the king; the financial corruption, forgery, and theft of the supporters of the shah; and attempts by parliamentarians to limit democratic reforms to Tehran and major urban centers. The column also includes a pseudotelegram where the conservative Shaykh Fazlollāh Nuri, who joined Mohammad-Ali Shah in opposing the new order, proposes additions to the Supplementary Constitutional Law that would give five top-tiered mojtaheds veto power over the deliberations of the Majlis.

This chapter talks about how Turkish historiography has long overlooked the Republic's origins in earlier successive revolutions, above all the Constitutional Revolution of 1876, and later the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. Each reinforced the others and pressed toward the ultimate republican Revolution of 1923. There were two decisive moments in its concluding phase during the War of Independence, the establishment of the parliament in 1920, and the monarch's flight from the country in 1922, which smoothly ushered in the young Republic after years of preparation and collective effort by patriots and revolutionaries. This period of political crisis saw the rejuvenation of a radical republican language, incorporated with militarism and nationalism.

This chapter presents a column published on February 27, 1908, featuring a short masnavi that uses very colloquial language, being replete with mother's baby talk. The metaphor of the sickly child who expires in the arms of its wretched and incompetent parent could hardly be clearer. This is followed by a piece entitled Meanings of a Phrase [Amān az dugh-e Leyli], where Dehkhodā talks about how one cannot trust the lofty promises of government authorities, politicians, and even some radical constitutionalists, no matter how sincere they seem. He says that power corrupts, people can be bought with money, and even the most seemingly earnest might change course under new circumstances. He illustrates these old truths with examples from the Constitutional Revolution, barely disguising his obvious intent under the familiar mask of the scholarly philologist.