Religious Disputation and Democratic Constitutionalism: The Enduring Legacy of the Constitutional Revolution On the Struggle for Democracy in Iran

Abstract

The key argument of this article is that the origins of today's ideological conflict between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi can be traced back to the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1906Revolution of -1911. One of the key disputes that emerged during this period was between a group of clerics and a coalition of constitutionalists who clashed over whether a council of religious experts should have veto power over parliamentary deliberations. While the constitutionalists prevailed in 1907 over their religious rivals in the short term, the ideological battle over this issue continued throughout the 20 th century and resurfaced again after the Islamic Revolution in 1979. This time religious conservatives were victorious. They successfully wrote and passed a constitution where sovereignty was divided between religious clerics and the masses. If ever the two should clash, it was the clerics who had the final say. The present conflict in Iran today, in the aftermath of the disputed June 12, 2009 presidential election between conservatives and reformists, is rooted in this legacy of the unresolved ideological dispute over the proper location of political sovereignty that began in the early 20 th century. Here I seek to explore these linkages between the past and the present and to comment on the internal struggle for democracy in Iran. The focus of this paper will be on the lessons for democratic theory that emerge from the conflict and tension between religion and politics in Iran. In particular, it will focus on lessons that can be drawn from debates over the moral basis of legitimate political authority and what role religion should play in emerging Muslim democratic polities. The Failure of Democracy in 20 th Century Iran: Relevant Democratic NotesThe current struggle for democracy in Iran today did not emerge out of a vacuum -a century of history lies behind it. Broadly speaking, it is often forgotten that most democratic transformations are rarely victorious on their first attempt; there is a legacy of struggle, defeat, intellectual transformation, sacrifice, political experience and democratic learning that is accumulated prior to any transition to democracy. Even when democracy has been consolidated, the possibility of rollback remains. In Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650 Tilly noted that examples of democratization in Europe in the past 350 years are as frequent and numerous as de-democratization. 1 The struggle for democracy in Iran over the past century follows a similar oscillating pattern of democratization and dedemocratization. More recently, the rise and fall of the reformist presidency of Muhammad Khatami (1997Khatami ( -2005, followed by the ascendency of the hard-line presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the brief democratization of Iranian politics in the lead up to the June 12, 2009 presidential election, followed by the subsequent electoral coup d'état all fall within this oscillating pattern.

Reading Arendt in Tehran: on extraordinary democratic politics and the failure of revolutions

“…One was the 1906-1911 Constitutional Revolution, which produced Iran's first constitution, whose enduring legacy has shaped the meaning and memory of democratic constitutionalism in the country (Hashemi, 2010). The largely unexpected revolutionary process of 1979 is part of this legacy, even though it ultimately failed in the sense that one authoritarian regime was replaced by another (Afshari, 2001;Axworthy, 2010;Cama & Abdolmohammadi, 2014;Moruzzi, 2010).…”

3 Governing after protests: the case for political participation in post-2009 Iran

“…18 The memory of the constitutional revolution is still powerful in today's Iran. 19 Intellectuals and politicians consistently refer to it in order to legitimise their claims about rights and the rule of law. 20 Although such claims have often sprung from the most progressive pockets of the elite, or the so-called reformist factions, the historical memory of the constitutional revolution is also used by conservative political forces.…”

Reformism and Political Participation in Iran

“…The general argument was that the post-Iran-Iraq war Islamic Republic was democratising, but little consensus existed on who the leading players of such a drive to democratisation actually were. While some scholars argued that change was elite-led (Ansari 2000;Mirsepassi 2011;Abootalebi 2001), others argued that social transformations ushered in political change thanks to the coming of age of a new, post-war youth with a more liberaloriented sensibility (Gheissari and Nasr 2006;Khosrokhavar 1998Khosrokhavar , 2000Hashemi 2010;Butel 1998;Azimi 2008). Some called this generation 'defiant' (Yaghmaian 2002;Khosravi 2008).…”