Source: Doran Emrooz
Fariborz Darjazi
The questions now facing the specialists and analysts both within and outside the country, as the result of the recent course of events of the political society of Iran are questions such as whether the reformation movement would once again fail? Whether the experience of Constitutional Revolution and the subsequent transformation would repeat again? Must Iran remain in the stage of transition forever?
If we take the Constitutional Revolution (Mashroteh) as the beginning of the political reformation in the political society of Iran, our society has gone through different stages ever since the onset of reformation. The constitutional movement was suppressed almost immediately after its formation. The oil nationalization movement, as the second major movement in this respect, did not get much further. Other various movements before the Islamic revolution could not present any important policies for reformation. These negative results have convinced some people that the political society of Iran will not ever be able to accomplish democracy and reformation. But the fundamental point is that we should not look at the Islamic revolution and its great consequence and achievement i.e. the reformation movement of Khordad 2nd from this point of view. We should examine Khordad 2nd from another angle. This movement possesses a distinguishing characteristic that separates it from the previous movements. At present the central slogans of reformation movement of Khordad 2nd i.e. 'freedom and reformation' which are in fact the continuation of the major slogans of 'independence, freedom and Islamic republic' of the Revolution are regarded as the main ideology of this movement approved by the constitutional law as well. The ideology of none of the previous movements such as the constitutional movement, the oil nationalization movement and other various movements before the revolution was not directly based on reformation and freedom.
During the constitutional revolution the masses did not revolt directly and explicitly for the sake of freedom, nor did they have the theoretical bases of the establishment of a free society in mind. The aim of the masses of people taking refugee in the British Embassy was mainly to 'feast' as it was said that the British Embassy served food to 200-300 thousands people revolting against the Shah. In addition, at that time the cultural grounds were not yet ready for reformation.
Similarly during the oil nationalization movement, freedom and reformation were not the fundamental aim of this movement. The idea of freedom was raised after planning for the nationalization of the oil industry. If during the constitutional revolution, people were told that with the abolition of despotism, freedom would automatically be established, during the oil nationalization movement they were told that if the oil industry would be nationalized, freedom would automatically pervade. Therefore, when the first goal was achieved, people's enthusiasm subdued and no reformation plan was effected. Before the Islamic Revolution, the Marxist movements were more testing themselves and their first goal was to found a Marxist society and freedom was supposed to be automatically achieved under its flag.
Within the framework of any movement, the ideology makes the content of its discourse. The main core of the discourse ruling the present political society is reformation and freedom. In his work, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn maintains that among the major resisting factors, those related to the discourse are more intense and lasting. The political discourse ruling the society does not easily become questionable. On the other hand, any discourse will experience various damages during its life, but this should not be considered as the weakness of the ruling discourse. On the country, the damages experienced by the discourse during its life will certainly strengthen its foundations. Any transformation within the framework of the ruling discourse leads to its reinforcement.
The transformations experienced during the past two or three years, forced many of the theoreticians outside the country to review their old attitudes and reach the conclusion that the political society of Iran would never complete the transition stage. They have always emphasized on this point that Iran has remained in the transition period for the past 100-150 years and they have regarded the cultural weakness as the cause.
In reply to them we should say that during the past three years of their political history Iranians showed that there is no question of going back to the conditions of the time before the revolution, resumption of despotism and…and they are actually experiencing the transition period.
Indeed, we should look at the reformation part of the movement of Khordad 2nd from a different angle.
