You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall..
Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, Unite Stated Marine Corps
From the movie A Few Good Men
Well Faramarz beat me to it. I have been meaning for some time to write about exactly the same thing, which is part of a general enigma for me, firstly why have Iranians no sense of community, cooperative society or collective democratic decision making, secondly the reasons for the abject failure of modernism in Iran and its corollary: thirdly what made the Young Turks – the modern often European educated technocrats who aligned themselves with Reza Shah to build the modern Iran - give up on democracy and come to the realisation nothing was achievable without a strongman.
The vitriolic political polemics of Iranians makes dispassionate historical analysis impossible. But here are few disjointed historical notes of how we have always taken the shortcut.
Starting with the 1299 (1921) Coup, one unappreciated fact is that it is wasn’t just Reza Khan and Seyyed Zia but many others who considered a Coup needed to save Iran. The historical circumstances were such that everyone was crying for a strongman. Once the historical context and the abject misery of the situation in Iran is considered then it becomes understandable. They all wished for it and they regretted it later! The literature of friend and foe of Reza Khan, the future strongman ruler prior to his ascension to dictator and monarch, is full of cries for a strongman to save Iran.
It was indeed crystallised in the writings of the time. For example Malek o Shoa’ray Bahar in his History of Political Parties also called the Demise of Qajar (the first democratic period spanning the 3rd and 4th Parliaments interrupted by the First World War - by the way how many of us are aware Iran became one of the main battlegrounds of the WW I in the East?) firstly tried to distance himself from Reza Khan to substantiate his democratic credentials and he was indeed dismayed by the latter discarding the democratic process writing contemporaneously against it, albeit in secrecy, yet only a few years earlier in the chaotic period after WW I and complete economic collapse in Iran, he wrote longingly for a “strongman” as “nothing else would save the situation”. He came to regret it as it became clear that such strongmen by nature will not tolerate dissent.
The tragic vanguard of modernism in Iran namely Ali Akbar Davar aligned himself with Reza Khan and so did the young technocrats of the Radical Party and Iran e Javan etc. Indeed, before Reza Shah coming to power Davar had passionately argued the situation in Iran required a strongman that the young modernists could follow and build a modern state as the conservative elements backed by the clergy supported by the mob using the parliament would make the task impossible.
It is interesting to note many leaders of Mashruteh save for a few such as Taghizadeh who had opposed the Minor Dictatorship and taken part in the earlier civil war, this time chose to sit home and shunned active politics. Yet some of the same leading politicians returned after the removal of Reza Shah and supported his son before and after Mossadegh.
Later in the mid-20th century it is startling to note from the memoires of people like Dr Ghani writing in 1948 after returning to Iran, why Iran could not have a strong but just leader? He was arguing and longing for a strongman, again! So Dear Faramarz, as long we are the way we are, it is as the fictional Colonel Jessup said.
Very good. Thanks.
"...why have Iranians no sense of community, cooperative society...."? Of course, they do! They like communities for as long as they can abuse and take advantage of it! In other words, they want to "take" from it and not "give" anything in return! This is in contrast to the Americans' sense of communities where they approach it more from a "giving to" perspective rather than "taking from" one! IRanians love cooperative societies for as long as the society cooperates with them and not the other way around! Again, they want to abuse and take advantage of the society and not offer or compromise anything in return! As you can see, there is a consistent pattern of selfishness reinforced with the intent to abuse that captures the collective psyche of IRanians ergo the need for a Reza Khan to the power of a large number (i.e., RK^75000000) to turn this massive mess of a selfish distributed non-cooperative lardasses of a society around!
Simply stated, IRanians are the type of back-seat drivers driving on one-way streets!
Americans, on the other hand, are the type of driver-seat drivers driving on two-way streets!
"Strong but just leader" -
I thought we had begun the jouney to mental modernization, which would foster an environment where the leaders can be strong, yet fair and just (eventually) - Clearly, we weren't ready as evident by the 1979 backward leap to mental diarrhea . The question remains whether we'll ever be ready before the country disintegrates into further perpetual chaos from which recovery will be practically impossible!
Thanks Fozolie.
2500 years of one-man rule is hard to shake off. Even today and living in the west, many Iranians see a strong and charismatic military ruler as the solution to our problems. In contrast, the Eastern European countries transitioned from communist dictatorship to democracy with only two recognizable national leaders, Lech Walesa and Václav Havel. The rest were just average Joe's!
Yup! I am glad you went all around the circle to come back to re-join us, the Shah lovers, brother Faramarz!
Unfortunately, our Shah didn't have the balls to competely exterminate the Shia clergy class and the Toudehi oppurtunists when he has the chance to do so. It would have eliminated mass murder, mayhem, and destruction not just in Iran, but around the world. It would have nipped Islamist extremism and terrorism--a creation of the Iranian Devolution of 1979--in the bud.
Attaturk pretty much did that in Turkey and they still reverted to Islamism albeit not completely but enough to tear their society. I don't think there are any shortcuts and that may be why modernism failed in our part of the world.
But the rise of Turkey's Islamists within the past couple of decades could be directly attributed to the islamization of the region that has happened as a result of Iran's 1979 Devolution.
Look I hate to disappoint all of the democracy loving crowds in here but at the end of the day the decision making for a country, city, company and even a family comes from one person call him chief executive ,president, king, god father or whatever you want . And yes there will be people that advice the person here and there but ultimately one person is going to be the musical conductor.
Now if you are lucky that you end up with some hard working, sane, nationalist and no none sense person chances are the country will be doing all right to fine. The opposite of it is also true if you end up with lazy, corrupt, degenerate everything goes down the tube.
Problem with shah of Iran was he got sick too early and went down too fast and he did or could not have a chance of putting a capable person in charge and the rest is history as they say, and if you had sewdish style democracy over there (how?) chances are islamists would have come to power decades earlier than 1979!