Protest Politics in Iran: Late 1800S and Early 1900S Versus 1979
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Protest Politics in Iran: Late 1800s and Early 1900s versus 1979 Armaan Sahgal Introduction a significant impact throughout the late Qajar Dynasty yet succeed in 1979? More The Islamic Revolution that took specifically, I would like to address how place in Iran in 1979 is often viewed in the level of support among the peasantry the Anglophone world with a mixture of and the Ulama made it possible for the contempt and confusion underscored by 1979 Revolution to overthrow the monar- an aura of unfamiliarity. It stands seem- chy despite prior failures in the late 19th ingly alone as a revolution that took a and 20th centuries. The peasantry is de- country into the throngs of religiosity and fined here as the portion of the population put under question the Marxian notion who are neither royal, nor aristocratic no- of revolution as the culmination of class bility, nor business owners, whilst the Ula- struggle. This paper seeks to demistify ma are the religious clergy and scholars. such phenomena by bridging the gap be- Mirroring the two-pronged nature of this tween a class-based conception of revo- study, there are two substantial sections 69 lution and the role of religion in causing to this paper. The first section focuses on the 1979 Revolution. I will be examining the role of class relations in determining the success of protest in Iran in relation the outcome of contentious events in Iran, to two factors: 1) the support of the peas- analyzing the importance of the peasantry antry, and 2) the support of the religious to the success of acts of contentious poli- clergy or Ulama. As such, this paper seeks tics through a Marxian lens. In the second to address the following question: why did portion of the paper, I focus specifically protests against the monarchy fail to yield on the role of the Ulama in providing a XII | ISSUE Copyright© 2020 Armaan Sahgal mobilizing structure for acts of conten- analyzing the role of the Ulama, is rooted tious claim-making in the context of Iran, in Charles Tilly’s conceptualization of pro- drawing largely on Charles Tilly’s concept test and revolutionary politics as acts of of protest. As such, I argue that while both contentious claim making wherein parties featured acts of contentious claim-making make “claims that bear on” the interests against the monarchy, a realignment in the of other parties.3 This section centres on support of the peasantry and the Ulama the unique role historically played by the enabled the 1979 Revolution to succeed in Ulama in providing the structure for con- abolishing the monarchy whereas similar tentious episodes and performances to be contentious action under the late Qajar executed, as Amina Elbendary outlines in dynasty failed. the context of the Middle East4 and as Er- vand Abrahamian does so in the specific Methodology: Marx, Tilly, and Conten- context of Iran.2 The analysis in these two tious Claim-Making portions of this paper yield two import- As discussed, the first section of ant and interconnected findings. First- this paper will analyze the peasantry’s role ly, that the success of acts of contentious in contentious claim-making in Iran in claim-making in Iran has historically cor- the context of class warfare from a Marx- related with the support of the peasantry. ian lens, conceptualizing history in terms Secondly, that the Ulama exercises signifi- of class conflict.1 The traditional Marxian cant influence over the success of such acts view of history is centred on the notion on account of organized religion’s role as that industrialization is accompanied and the most important mobilizing structure driven by a successful “Bourgeois revo- for acts of contentious claim making in lution” that is subsequently followed by a Iran. Through a mixture of a class-centric successful “Proletarian revolution.”1 In the Marxian analysis of Iranian protest poli- Iranian context, however, bourgeois acts tics and an analysis of the role of religion of contentious claim-making against the as a pivotal mobilizing structure for acts of aristocracy at the dawn of industrializa- contentious claim-making in the country, tion were only partially successful. In the I demonstrate that the support of the peas- aftermath of the First World War, the 1921 antry and the Ulama is crucial to the suc- Persian Coup d’État saw the Qajar Dynas- cess of such acts. Thus, a shift in the sen- ty overthrown. While the initial goal of the timents of two segments of the populace Coup was to install a republic, the peas- is identified as the primary reason why antry’s demand for the maintenance of a the Revolution of 1979 succeeded while monarchical state as opposed to a republic anti-Monarchist protests in the late Qajar 70 led to the installation of the Pahlavi Dy- Dynasty failed to establish a republic. nasty.2 The second portion of this paper, 1 Benno Teschke, “Bourgeois Revolu- tion, State Formation and the Absence of the 3 Charles Tilly, Contentious Perfor- International,” Historical Materialism 13, no. 2 mances (Cambridge: Cambridge University (2005): 3. Press, 2013), 5. 2 Ervand Abrahamian, “The Crowd 4 Amina Elbendary, “Popular Politics In Iranian Politics 1905‐1953,” Past and Pres- in the Medieval Middle East,” History Com- NMC JOURNAL | JOURNAL NMC ent 41, no. 1 (1968): 202. pass 16, no. 2 (2018). Literature Review the rise of wage labour in the aftermath of World War Two as a key distinction This analysis centres on three between Qajar-era and late 20th century types of sources. Firstly, it draws on empir- protests.6 This notion places particular ical data (i.e. the basic structure of events, significance on the role of the peasantry, and how different instances of contentious and specifically on the transformation of claim-making in Iran unfolded at the two their interests as a result of the shift from time-periods in question) from authors rural and agricultural livelihoods to those such as Ervan Abrahamian, Jack Gold- of a rapidly industrializing nation’s prole- stone, Peter Seeberg, Theda Skocpol, and tarian class. Abrahamian also gives signifi- Karen Rasler. Secondly, in order to ana- cance to the role of the Ulama, noting that lyze the importance of the peasantry and during the late Qajar dynasty, Ulama with the Ulama in determining the outcome ties to business interests in the bazaar (or of contentious claim-making, it evaluates marketplace) facilitated protests against the claims made by such sources as to the the monarchy while those with royal ties causes behind the success of the 1979 Rev- facilitated counter-protests, placing the olution and the failure of what Abrahami- Ulama as integral to protest politics in an characterizes as pre-industrial protests the country.7 A competing view posited that took place during the late Qajar Dy- by Goldstone emphasizes the visionary 5 nasty. Thirdly, it incorporates ideas on leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini and contentious claim-making and mobilizing the Ulama as key to the success of those structures drawn from Charles Tilly to protests.8 This view, emphasizing the pri- analyse the structural role played by the macy of religious leadership, is partially Ulama in Iranian protest politics and class supported by Goldstone’s observation that analyses outlined by the Marxist scholars “Shah and Islam” counter-protests led by such as Benno Teschke to analyze the im- loyalist Ulama avoided the establishment portance of the role played by the peasant- of a republic after the 1921 Coup d’État.7 ry. These three lines of research are used to Seeberg, on the other hand, centres his substantiate the thesis that a realignment argument for the success of the Islamic in the support of the peasantry and the Revolution of 1979 on the diversion of the Ulama ultimately enabled the 1979 Revo- nation’s wealth to classes who supported lution to succeed in abolishing the monar- the Shah.9 Similarly, Rasler argues that chy where similar contentious action un- the inconsistent use of repression and the der the late Qajar dynasty had failed. allocation of concessions by the Pahlavi The literature on the role of the Dynasty in the run up to the Islamic Rev- peasantry and the Ulama in Iranian pro- 6 Abrahamian, “The Crowd In Irani- 71 test politics has been construed in a multi- an Politics 1905‐1953,” 202. 7 Ibid., 196. tude of ways by different scholars. Ervand 8 Jack A. Goldstone, Revolutions: Abrahamian, writing in the decade before a Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford the 1979 Revolution, describes the rise University Press, 2014), 101. of class consciousness that accompanied 9 Peter Seeberg, “The Iranian Rev- olution, 1977–79: Interaction and Transfor- 5 Abrahamian, “The Crowd In Irani- mation,” British Journal of Middle Eastern an Politics 1905‐1953,” 180. Studies 41, no. 4 (2014): 485. XII | ISSUE olution can be credited with the regime’s Whereas early contentious action oppos- downfall.10 Ultimately, scholars have come ing monarchy in Iran during the late Qa- to a variety of conclusions on the topic. In jar Dynasty was supported by the wealthy analyzing the two factors outlined in the proto-bourgeoisie of Iran’s bazaars and thesis, the support of the peasantry and opposed by the peasantry, the 1979 Rev- that of the Ulama, this essay posits that a olution was supported by the newly prole- shift in these two factors between the late tarianizing peasantry and opposed by the Qajar dynasty and the run up to the 1979 bourgeoisie reliant on patronage from the revolution explain why the latter success- Shah. In both eras, affirming the thesis, the fully abolished monarchy whilst protests support of the peasantry correlates with against the Shah during the late Qajar dy- the success of protest in Iran.