Structural And Exogenous Forces Affecting The Electorate

With the shah still sick, it was hard to manage what was back in Iran. The speed of change in Iran was too hard to get command. “The shah was in trouble, reaping the harvest of years of brutal and unpopular policies, including the use of secret police that controlled dissent with arbitrary arrests and torture.” It was obvious that the shah had lost all control of his people of Iran, but the president had hoped for an alliance of opponents to be formed. A man

Civil societies are voluntary social institutions and organizations that are separate from the government and the market where a community of citizens are able to come together and pursue their shared common interest. They are beneficial to the community as well as the broader society as civil societies ultimately promote progressive policies, nurture positive social norms that encourage stability, and advocates accountability and checks against state authority (Edwards 2010). Moreover, civil societies represent a third sphere of association where citizens are able to address the deficiencies that the state and market fail to handle and then have the opportunity to develop their own

Thesis: Iran, because of these events, is in worse condition because of the cultural revolution, poisoned from within, and is the victim of the actions of the western powers.

The [Bush] administration found it consistently difficult to get the measure of Tehran. Bush depicted it as a “nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is repressing and isolating its people,” but the reality was far more complex. (482)

Fast forward twenty-five years, and we arrive at the beginning of the Iranian Revolution. In August of 1978, riots and civil violence were escalating dramatically within Iran, as supporters of the Iranian Shah and the Supreme Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini clashed in demonstrations that frequently turned lethal. The problem for American President Jimmy Carter was that both sides represented different evils, as the Shah employed the use of the SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, as well as torture to maintain control; but Khomeini represented a vehement hatred for all Western influence in his country, and his supporters often lit cinemas and other Western symbols on fire (Farber, 92). One incident in particular sparked the beginning of a

Rebellions, protests, civil unrest, and underrepresentation are just some of the side effects of group grievance. While there are many factors that determine whether or not a certain nation’s populace is happy, well-represented, secure, and involved in their state’s political affairs, one rather large and interesting factor to consider is the form of government of the nation. For centuries scholars have debated what forms of political regimes are most successful in satisfying the needs of its people. While that topic is interesting, it is terribly broad. To entertain this concept with a narrower lens of comparative analysis, one can instead decide to contrast the key differences between two forms of government and see how said differences impact

By 1951 Mohammad Mossadegh had established himself firmly in the political scene in the mountainous country of Iran. Mossadegh ran for the office of Prime Minister with just one campaign promise: to free Iran from the British imperial yoke (Gavin, 1999, p.64). He had also built his political strength, based largely on his call to nationalize the concession and installations in Iran of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (Risen, 2000, p.10). Mossadegh embodied the fierce nationalistic pride felt by so many Iranians, this brought Mohammad Mossadegh an easy victory (Gregory,1951,p.31). On May Day 1951, after three days of raging Pro-Mossadegh rioting, Mossadegh announced that the Majlis had passed the Nationalization Act, despite strong opposition by many members of the Majlis (Gavin,1999, 65). By this time Mossadegh's power had grown so great that the Shah (monarchy) was virtually forced to appoint him Premier. Even after being appointed to the Premiership, popularity continued to skyrocket for Mossadegh. Mossadegh's popularity, growing power, and intransigence on the oil issue were creating friction between the prime minister and the Shah.

As Michael Axworthy states on the back cover of his book, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, Iran is a “land of contradictions”. As this is true these contradictions is what makes Iran, Iran. Iran today is looked as the pinnacle of the Islamic faith in the form of a Government structure. Since 1979, Iran has been known as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iran will continue being an Islamic Republic for centuries to come. Iran has a rich history of intellectuals and scholars. Iran is known for its vibrant culture that dates back longer than the Western Ideals were even conceived. However Axworthy asks a question about Iran and its impact on the world’s history and the current events that we see in Iran today, Axworthy asks “Is Iran an aggressive power, or a victim?” This statement is a true paradox, can Iran be the next Nazi Germany, the next Soviet Union or the next Great Islamic Caliphate or is Iran just fighting to keep its culture alive from a vast array of attacks from foreign entities and internal struggles.

Buck-Morss argues in “The Political Frame” that those societies claiming to be democratic often operate with power out of control of the masses. This “wild zone” is above the law, because it is a function of the state that makes the law. This relates to Buck-Morss’ next point on the issue of sovereignty and legitimacy of a state. According to the nation-state societies, the state monopoly on violence is legitimate because it is operated by legislation.

This paper will describe a series of three time periods during which educated, western-oriented Iranians left Iran in ever greater numbers. Then the paper will analyze how the lack of human rights affected the

The search for democracy in Iran can be seen from the nineteenth century, where the sown seeds of democracy emerged in 1906 with the Constitutional Revolution. The democracy being searched for by Iran is about self-rule and the pursuit of life, liberty and personal freedom where the common good is found in justice and equality. These democratic values are a basic reaction to the inflicted monarchical and theocratic dictatorships that have ensued the political past of Iran. What inflicts the most pain to the phycological reality effecting the id and ego of the people, are the brief moments in time during the past century, in almost each generation, that have given the people a taste of what it could be like to have the democratic values they are searching for. These brief moments in time, served to have wetted the appetite for justice. The other side of the coin is the constant injustices and lack of freedoms that exist in today’s Iran under a regime that controls the populous to guard the elite’s power and position. The trending demographics and polarization of the Iranian cultural, ethnic, religious, and social fabric show a building up in frustration of what is and in hope towards a new future. These trends are a progressive movement in time, albeit a slow and stunted by interference from foreign countries and self-imposed choices or actions sometimes taken against the people. The writer Ryszard Kapuscinski remarked about Iran in his book Shah of Shahs,

Overall, using Gough’s concept, we can conclude that the Iranian government fails to address even the most basic needs for its individuals and even with the

The Research Paper would deal with the question of the legitimacy of the theocratic regime in Iran and explain why the clerics are not the true representatives of the Iranian people and that in their urge to get rid of the Shah, the Iranian people imposed upon themselves a regime, which has proved to be far worse than the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi, the last king of Iran. It would be argued that not only the people of Iran but the entire region would be better-off with a secular, liberal peoples’ government in Tehran; the solution to the conundrum of a strife ridden Persian Gulf and Middle East. And for this to be achieved, rigorous diplomacy is needed to bring reforms in Iran.

Iran is a country with a rich history that stretches back to the formation of the Persian Empire in 550 BC. It is important to discuss the history of Iran when viewing its current state of politics because over this vast period of time there was a distinct set of rule that had just ended less than forty years ago. From 550 BC to 1979, Iran (formerly known as Persia, changed names in 1935) had been ruled by emperors, kings and shahs (Persian for ‘king of kings’), until the Iranian Revolution of 1979 when the last shah, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi, was overthrown. An important event that occurred under the leadership of shahs, occurred in 1501 under the leadership of the Safavid dynasty, when Iran adopted Shia Islam as their official religion. This event was important in many ways as it shaped the current political landscape of Iran and has been an increasingly debated topic in comparative politics.

The first section will briefly summarize the emergence of civil society in South Africa. The next section will discuss transformations that occurred in civil society during South Africa’s transitional period from the Apartheid regime toward democracy in 1994. The third section will discuss some of the successes of civil society during and after the transitional period followed by the fourth section, which will discuss some challenges facing civil society as South Africa continues its path toward democracy. Finally, the last section contains analysis on the roles of civil society in relation to the state in the post-Apartheid regime.