Constitutional Revolution
During the early 1900s the only way to save country from government corruption and foreign manipulation was to make a written code of laws. This sentiment caused the Constitutional Revolution. There had been a series of ongoing covert and overt activities against Naser o-Din Shah’s despotic rule, for which many had lost their lives. The efforts of freedom fighters finally bore fruit during the reign of Moazaferedin Shah. Mozafaredin shah ascended to throne on June 1896. In the wake of the relentless efforts of freedom fighters, Mozafar o-Din Shah of Qajar dynasty was forced to issue the decree for the constitution and the creation of an elected parliament (the Majlis) in August 5, 1906. The royal power limited and a parliamentary system established.
 |
| Bakhtiari Revolutionaries in camp outside Esfahan (June 1909) In front, in a white coat with a sword, is Mohammad Ebrahim Khan, Zabet of Julfa. |
On August 18, 1906, the first Legislative assembly (called as Supreme National Assembly), was formed in the Military Academy to make the preparations for the opening of the first Term of the National Consultative Assembly and drafting the election law thereof. During this meeting, Prime Minister Moshirul Doleh delivered a speech as the head of the cabinet. The session concluded with the address made by Malek Al Motokalemin.
On October 7th, 1906 in a speech made in spite of his poor health, Mozaferedin Shah inaugurated the first session of the National Consultative Assembly. At this time the session was formed in the absence of representatives from provinces.
Following Mozafaredin Shah’s death, his successor, Mohammad Ali Mirza who was then ruled Tabriz as a crown prince, ascended to the throne on January 21st, 1907. Before taking the reign, he pledged to respect the fundaments of Constitution and Nation’s Rights. But he contravened this from the very beginning which made Constitutionalists to react.
Capitalizing on the internal struggles, both Russia and Britain entered a pact to settle their own differences; effectively dividing Iran into two areas of influence for their respected countries. This made headlines in early September 1907 and united the various factions in Iran. The Iranian government was officially notified of this pact on September 7, 1907 by Russian and British Ambassadors.
The rising tides of dissatisfaction and discontent caused Mohammad Mirza to summon the cabinet members on December 17, 1907 under the false pretense of soliciting advice. He immediately orders their detention. Only Nasserul Molk, who was the prime minister, was let free.
On December 22, 1907 a new cabinet was formed headed by Nezamul Saltaneh Mafi. On the surface the air is cleared and the tensions are eased. But on February 1908, a bomb is thrown at Shah’s Coach, making him highly suspicious. On June 1st, 1908 Shah purges some of the courtiers. Ambassador Zapolski of Russia and Ambassador Marling of Britain warn the Iranian Government to submit to Shah’s intents.
 |
| Freedom Fighters of Tabriz The two men in the center are Sattar Khan & Bagher Khan. |
During these times, the Tabriz uprising culminated and within the span of four months spread to Rasht, Qazvin, Esfahan, Lar, Shiraz, Hamadan,Mashhad, Astar-Abad, Bandar Abbas andBushehr. The Freedom fighters prevailed against the tyranny at all points. Yet Tabriz was still under economic and military blocked set up by government forces.
On February 17, 1909, Freedom Forces captured Rasht. By March, they succeed in taking control of Rasht and Qazvin main roads. By April 22nd, 1909, Tabriz Freedom Fighters under the leadership of Sattar Khan(Sardar-e Meli) made their attack to break through the blockade. They lost huge number of their fighters. An English Reporter named Moore and an American Missionary called Howard Baskerville, who were sympathetic with the freedom fighters were killed.
Commanded by General Yeprim and Brigadier Mohi, freedom fighters of Rasht occupied Qazvin and advanced towards Tehran.
On June 22, 1909, Bakhtiari Chieftains, led by Samsam-ul-Saltaneh and Haj Aligholi Khan Bakhtiari (Sardar As’ad) reached the city of Qum, which they took over on July 8th,1909. The intimidations and interventions made by Russian and British embassies failed to stop the advance of freedom fighters. Inevitably, a number of Russian troops were dispatched to Gilan via Badkobeh, reaching Qazvin on July 12th, 1909. Russians warned Gilan Fighters to stop moving in against Tehran.
 |
| A nationalist council at Rasht |
On July 16, 1909, the capital was under complete control of freedom fighters. At 8:30, on the morning of July 17, 1909, Mohammad shah and a number of his supporters, under armed escort of Russian soldiers, took asylum with Russian Embassy in Zargandeh.
On this very day, the National Consultative Assembly (Majlis) held an emergency session and deposed Mohammad Ali Shah as a monarch, and named his 13 year old son, Ahmad Mirza as his successor. Azadulmolk was named as the Vice-Regent.
On September 10th, 1909, Mohammad Ali Shah left the Russian Embassy and went into exile in Russia.
First Term (October 7th, 1906 – June 23rd, 1908)
The most important task undertaken by the first Majlis was drafting and ratification of the Constitution on December 30th, 1906. It also set out the internal procedures. On October 17th, 1907 it drafted and ratified the constitutional amendments.
The first Majlis was dissolved before the end of its Term due to Mohammad Ali Shah’s opposition against the Constitutionalists as well as foreign intrigues. Colonel Liakhov, the Russian commander of the Iranian Cossack brigade, along with several Russian officers set artillery fire against Majlis. A number of Majlis Representatives and Constitutionalists were detained in Bagh Shah, of which a number were killed. Some fled to and sought asylum with foreign embassies. Thus the First Majlis was dissolved and a martial law was declared.
Second Term (November 15th, 1909 – December 24th, 1911)
The second Majlis came into session after a period of Interregnum that lasted almost 17 months. A two-stage, indirect plebiscite was carried out. Confronted with severe crises and dilemmas arising from interventions by foreign forces and domestic hardships, Majlis stood its ground as far as possible. Finally it was dissolved under foreign pressure. The representatives either fled or went into exile.
Nevertheless important bills were passed during this time. These included the Public Tax Act, Bureau of Audit Act, the new election law, and the Education Bill.
Third Term (December 6th, 1914 – December 14th, 1915)
The Third Majlis did not last more than a year. Faced with the First Word War, Majlis representatives declared Iran’s neutrality. Nevertheless, Iran’s neutrality was blatantly transgressed by foreign expeditionary forces. The Czarist Russian Army expeditionary force left Qazvin for Tehran, bringing up the question of relocating the capital. It raised concerns and led to riots. A number of representatives moved to Qum and from there to Kermanshah. Majlis session could not be held due to lack of quorum. It finally adjourned in November 12th, 1915.
During this period, Majlis approved important laws such as the Military Conscription Act, Ministry of Finance constitution bill, and Real Estate tax law.
Fourth Term (June 21st, 1921 – June 20th, 1923)
Following a long interregnum , that lasted five years and seven months), the Fourth Majlis was inaugurated. Most of its time had been spent in tension and rancor.
The most valuable action taken was when it drafted and approved a bill submitted by Majlis majority leader Seyyed Hassan Modaress. The bill called for the abolition of the 1919 accord, signed between the Iranian Prime Minister and the British Government without Majlis knowledge. The accord had been put into effect before Majlis had any chance on debating it.
Moddares’ bill, once approved, was announced publicly and the British government was formally notified.
The most important legislations passed during this period had been:
Fifth Term (February 11th, 1924 – February 11th, 1924)
One of the tumultuous periods in Majlis, when a combination of generalissimo and foreign influence joined forces to put an end to the Qajar Dynasty. Independent Majlis representatives were harassed, intimidated and even assassinated in order to have the Minister of War, Reza Khan, installed to the throne.
Some of the important bills and legislations approved by Majlis during this period were:
Sixth Term (July 10th, 1926 – August 13th, 1928)
The most important event during this period had been the abolition of Capitulation on May 9th, 1927.
Some of the important bills and legislations approved by Majlis during this period were:
Seventh Term (October 6th, 1928 – November 5th, 1930)
Majlis granted the right of issuing currency to the Iran National Bank (Bank Melli Iran). This task used to be carried out by Iran Royal Bank.
Among the important bills and legislations approved by Majlis during this period were:
Eight Term (December 15th, 1930 – January 14th, 1933)
During this period the Minister of Treasury proposed that Darcy License , which monopolized the Iranian oil fields, be cancelled.
The most important bills passed by Majlis at this time were:
Ninth Term (March 15th, 1933 – April 10th, 1935)
The period saw negotiations with the British government over petroleum. It led to a new agreement. The Tehran University was inaugurated on February 4th, 1936.
Some of the most important legislations were:
Tenth Term (June 6th, 1935– June 12th, 1937)
The most important event during this period had been negotiations for the signing of non-aggression pact between Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq.
The most important legislations ratified were:
Eleventh Term (September 11th, 1937 – September 18th, 1939)
The Second World War conflagrated at this time. Iran proclaimed its neutrality in the conflict.
Among the important bills and legislations approved by Majlis during this period were:
Twelfth Term (October 25th, 1940– October 30th, 1941)
Numerous social and economic problems arising from the Second World War gripped the country. While Iran had declared its neutrality, Soviet Union and Britain blatantly disregarded it and sent in their troops into Iran under the pretext of supposed Reich influence in Iran.
During an emergency session on September 17, 1941, Reza Shah abdicated in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza who was sworn in as the new monarch on the next day. Meanwhile with the Generalissimo Reza Khan out of the way, Majlis passed a bill of pardon and clemency for a number of political and general sentences.
Thirteenth Term (November 13th, 1941 – November 23rd, 1943)
This period coincided with the Tehran Conference attended by the head of states of Britain, Soviet Union and United States, where the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran was guaranteed.
Important bills and legislations approved during this period were:
Taken from the Iran Chamber Society:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/constitutional_revolution/constitutional_revolution.php
32 comments:
Salaam. I don't know if Amir still teaches this. I was a student of this decal 2 years ago. I just thought I'd reference these events coming up with regards to Iranian politics. Khudaa Hafez.
---------------------------------
SEPTEMBER EVENTS
---------------------------------
Tuesday, September 22nd: "The Iranian Election and its Aftermath"
12 p.m., 223 Moses Hall
A panel discussion featuring:
--Minoo Moallem, Professor and Chair of Gender and Women's Studies, UC
Berkeley
--Ali Eshraghi, RPGP Research Fellow, former Deputy Editor-in-Chief,
Shargh (reformist newspaper in Tehran)
--Sima Shakhsari, PhD Candidate, Department of Anthropology, Stanford
University
Sponsored by the Religion, Politics and Globalization Program, the Center
for Islamic Studies at GTU and the Iranian Students Alliance in America
---------------------------------
OCTOBER EVENTS
---------------------------------
Thursday, October 1st: "Iran After the Election"
Karim Sadjadpour, Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace
4 p.m., LOCATION CHANGED TO LIPMAN ROOM, BARROWS HALL
(Map: http://berkeley.edu/map/maps/DE45.html)
Part of the Travers Lecture Series on US Foreign Policy
Sponsored by the Institute of International Studies and the Institute of
Governmental Studies
Co-sponsored by the Religion, Politics and Globalization Program and the
Iranian Students Alliance in America
Hi there,
The other article on the Qajar Dynasty was cut off on the right side, so i decided to write my response on "The Qajars, The Shah, and the Constitutional Revolution".
I found the consistent foreign influence of early 20th century, Iran very interesting. As an American, my own vantage point is perhaps equitable with those of the imperial nations encroaching on Iran. This article really paints the picture of an Iran interested in order and preserving its own neutrality. However, the empires of Russia and Britain in the early 20th century not only violated Iran's neutrality on several occasions, the foreigners took advantage of Iran's unwillingness to retaliate.
Iran, also, guaranteed it's political independence in a manner very different from my own America: diplomatically, at the Tehran Conference, rather than through the muscle and bloodshed implored by the United States. It seems to me as though, Iran was able to take the "high road" in regards to its freedom from Britain and Russia.
Hello,
Regarding the articles I see parallels between the early stages of Iran's development as a nation and Americas in regard to its constitutional creation and the fight for independence. I also find it interesting that the Tehran Conference established territorial integrity and political independence of Iran yet was subsequently violated. Also I read that Iran drafted resolutions declaring neutrality in world war 2 and later declaring declaring war on the nazi's. However it seems contradictory because I thought that the Iranian government at the time sided with the nazi's.
-Amir Momenzadeh
In a way, I agree with one of the comments before, that the creation of the Majlis was in a way related to how the United States purged itself of a monarchy and created a democratic republic. But dwelling on that, it reminds me, on a lot of levels, about the Articles of Confederation and Congress today. The Articles of Confederation, although a respectable first attempt, was largely a failure. And in reflection, so was the first Majlis, which was dissolved and martial law was established. But in due time, the Majlis repeatedly came together and passed laws and created programs that they believed was best for the nation, much like Congress does now. And perhaps I did not read carefully, but what happened to the Majlis after about 1940?
And on another note, reading history as if it is a cook book isn’t very interesting. First this happened, and then this happened, and here is what this person did. Perhaps because this history isn’t very recent, I find it less enjoyable to read, but I hope that there is a relationship between this and why Iran is the way that it is today.
Definitely agree with the comment on the article's style. The cook book method is a little off-putting. Nevertheless, this article contains some very interesting pieces of Iran's history and raises some good questions.
I am particularly drawn to the gaps that this article has when the legislative body was not operating. I am curious about what the other power structures and government operations looked like in Iran when the Majlis was not in session. In particular, I want to know how the 4th Majlis was established. It seems pretty impressive that after five and a half years of inactivity this body was able to come back onto the political scene so forcefully. I am also curious how British responded to the parliament's nullification of their agreement with the Prime Minister. I wonder if the British and other foreign powers took the legitimacy of the Majlis seriously. I also wonder what the 4th parliament hoped to gain by signing a friendship agreement with the Soviet Union. Were they trying to play the Soviets off the British or did the Soviets really have something to offer them?
What I find interesting about the Constitutional Revolution of Iran is the forces that led to this movement and they also had a great influence on the structure of the Majlis. Before this movement people of Iran used to identify themselves as Muslims rather than Persians. This movement introduced the concept of nationalism to people. Religious leaders, nationalists, writers, poets, and socialists were all leaders of this movement. They all had the same goal, which was an Iran governed by law. However, once the Majlis was created many of them became the representatives of people and had their own ideas of what is best for Iran. I think that the religious leaders had an edge since from the beginning no law could pass if it was contrary to Islamic principles. Different agendas alongside with the influence of British and Russian government did not make things easy.
Hi there,
I definetely agree with the last comment on how this constitutionnal movement introduced the concept of nationalism to people. It seems to me that this period is a key one to understand how moved from being an empire (Persia) to becoming a Nation State (Iran).
I think we can find a lot of similarities with what was initiated in Europe by the revolutions of 1848 and eventually led to the independence or the creation of a lot of new countries, especially Italy and Germany.
Indeed the patterns are quite the same: protests against despotic rulers and claims for more political freedom and representation (backed by the theorization of civil liberties etc.). These initial movements were often also triggered and strengthened by the wish to get rid of a foreign influences, or even dominations (Austria in the Germain and Italian case). All these movements led to overthrows of rulers considered to be too lenient with the foreign power. We can see in the article that the interference of Britain and Russia in the Iranian domestic affairs and the connivance of the Shah did unit various factions in Iran.
Then the second step in the Nation State building process is also common to a lot of other nations history.The goa herel is to create a strong state, able to resist foreign influence and to provok the adhesion of a major part of the citizens. To achieve such a goal the State needs some basic institutions: an efficient tax collection system to guarantee financial resources, an uncontested electoral system, an efficient education system to keep students at home and train future civil servants (to increase administrative efficiency), modern military forces, a control over the exploitation of natural ressources and the setting up of a National bank granted with the monopoly of currency issuing. As reguards this last point, the change of name from Royal Bank to National is highly symbolical of this nationalisation process (which changed the former allegiance to the King as a person to an allegiance to the Nation as a whole).
As Sarah, I'd like to know more about the power structures in Iran when the Majlis were not in session. What allow the Parliament to reform when they wanted to?
I would also like to know if we can consider that the 1979 revolution shared some similar roots with these previous revolutions (protets against political freedoms restrictions, against foreign interferences and exploitations allowed by a "westernized" Shah, wish to emphasize the peculiarity of the Iranian Nation in the context of the Cold War....) ?
Hi
I believe that this article highlights the Constitutional Revolution as one of the greatest milestone of Iran history, which is deeply rooted in the collective consciousness. This need for more freedom, more stability and fairness in a balanced political system, that was expressed during this revolution ( which was the first of that kind in the Meaddle East at that time) reminds us that Iran was on of the most advanced country in the region. If we adopt a wider perspective, we can identify the last century in Iran as a long transition with some steps forwards and some steps backwards to democratisation like it happens in France for instance. 1906 revolution was definitly a step forward that echoes the current events in Iran.
Hello,
I think this article provided a detail timeline of the Revolution that took place in Iran, which helps to me to put everything in perspective. Without question, the strong will of the Iranian people was one of the most important factors that led to the success of the revolution, I can’t even imagine how much the Iranian people had suffered during such a long and painful struggle with the government. From democracy, religious freedom to basic everyday needs such as food and clean water, our society takes all those things for granted, we waste food and clean water supplies without ever considering how people living in other nations are suffering from hunger and diseases due to lack of purified drinking water. I think everyone deserves to be treated equally, and democracy and freedom are the foundations of a stable society that will guarantee the rights of the people.
The detail presented in this article provided a much needed history of modern Iran. As always, in order to better understand today its best to understand the events of yesterday. Just as many other emerging democracies, as Iran was in the early 20th century, there were many trials and tribulations. While it seems the "freedom fighters" and other leaders might have had a chance in the earlier years to create a strong parliament that kept the monarchy in check, foreign influences served as impediment. Whether it was Britain, Russia, or even the U.S., it seems each intervention served more as an impediment to democracy rather than the encouragement of. With this in mind, it becomes more reasonable to understand why anti-west rhetoric is so prevalent among leaders, albeit not very productive. It is also interesting to note that Iran began its democratization process around the turn of the 20th century when some of its neighbors have not even dabbled in the idea.
It is interesting to note how Britain and Russia always seemed to be ready to jump into Iran whenever any opportunity presented itself. It's even more interesting to note how they always seemed to provide reasons that ran counter to what they were actually doing - instead of securing and furthering democracy and rights, their every intervention served only to impede the progress of a strong and fulfilled democracy that would have probably, in their absence, flourished. And even now, Iran still seems to be the target of such accusations that might not be substantiated. Take for example the recent elections in Iran; in the West there was this whole fuss about how the results were tampered with, and how democracy is impossible in Iran. But is it really the case? Jamal Dajani, a director of a news company, argued during a talk that for many Iranians, that the elections were still able to be held was in-itself a proof that there is still hope for democracy.
And there seems to be this discourse/rhetoric in the West, about what needs to be done about the Middle East (or Iran). Does anything need to be done about Iran? This discourse is a way of framing how people see the Middle East (and Iran), and this particular way of framing leads to the assumption that there is something wrong with/in the Middle East that they themselves are incapable of solving. And this can only go downhill from here, because people will start coming up with pseudo-reasons explaining why the Middle East is unable to help itself out of whatever it is in. So perhaps instead of asking "what needs to be done", perhaps we can ask "how can we help". A play on words, perhaps, but we have all seen the power words have in altering the course of history.
After finishing the article, I came to the conclusion that that the struggle for independence in Iran was a very prolonged and multi-faceted process. It seems that the problems Iran faced while trying to develop the country were quite similar to the problems they face today while trying to ensure their spot in today’s fast-paced world. In the past Iran was trying to fight off foreign influence from Russia and Britain and now Iran must deal with constant problems with the Western world about a variety of issues. Although the structure of the article seemed fairly repetitive, the information presented shows the long process of Iranian independence and how effective all the various laws and amendments were. Through the portrayal of this struggle for independence, the article shows that the country of Iran has characteristics of both perseverance and determination.
-Nick Mortazavi
Reading the article about the Constitutional revolution gave some useful insights about Iran's struggle for independence both from Britain and Russia (later the Soviet Union), but also about Iran's internal struggles to form a constitutional nation state. The establishment of the Majlis was, as in most countries, a long and in many ways painful process, where powerful interests are put against each other.
However, I miss a clearer description of the "freedom fighters" in the text, from my understanding the article wants to depict the movement as a democracy movement how established the first parliament in the country. Despite this they appoint Ahmad Mirza as the new monarch of the country in 1909. The text would have benefitted a lot from analyzing or describing the movement more in depth. Was this movement that had popular support or was it mainly constituted by the elite in the country?
I would have to agree about the statements made about the Article's style. I also think that the initial creation of the Majlis was similar to the United States attempt at the Articles of Confederation in that neither were amazing methods but both assisted in building the foundations of the country. As that continued, I feel as though Iran found itself easily vulnerable to various International influences (Russia, Great Britain) because it was still building itself up as a democratic state. The attempts to intervene in Iranian affairs back then seemed to detriment Iranian Society far more than they helped. I believe that the constitutional revolution was one of the largest stepping stones that Iran needed in order to form a legitimate democracy but intervention by foreign forces hindered their cause and eventually led to the downfall of the system that they had in place. I believe the article effectively showed the tribulations Iran has faced in their past, perhaps even with democracy, that may have led to their current situation today. I believe that Iran has a long background of attempts to intervene in their affairs and they are experiencing a very similar situation currently. Iran does seem to have risen up every time clearly exemplifying the dedication of the populace for justice.
- Shahryar Abbasi
While reading the first part of this article about the Freedom Fighters, I drew a connection to the animated video we viewed during class about the grassroots. I know the video was about Iran standing up against and overthrowing the USA, and the Freedom Fighters were involved in a civil war so to speak, but I feel the basic idea is the same. The people are the ones who inevitably hold the key to the fate of the country. If the people are unhappy or feel threatened (whether it be from a foreign or their own government) there comes a point will they will unite and stand together and fight for a better life for themselves and the people of their country. In the end, governments can try to control and manipulate people so that a few benefit at the cost of the many, but this tactic will only last a short while in the larger schemes of things, until the people eventually revolt and win.
To say that the formation of the Majlis was a long process filled with complications would be an understatement. However, this article for me really put into perspective the democratic roots that Iran contains. Although the Majlis failed many times, it did not go away, proving that Iranians would not submit to despotic tendencies. What's more impressive though is the fact that the freedom fighters also overcame the constrictions of Russia and Britain. Sickening to see, Russia and Britain violated Iran many times and prevented efficient progress towards democracy, so it is interesting to see Iran being criticized today for not having a completely democratized state, by similar countries including the United States. To reiterate what was mentioned in lecture, I think myself and a lot of other westerners do not realize that Iran contains such Democratic roots, however, the current crisis in Iran is providing a much more clear and modern picture for all who lack historical knowledge on Iran.
Also, I would have to agree with Shabnam on the cookbook style of the article. I felt it was difficult to read since it lacked somewhat of a flow, however it was informative and contained lots of important facts which illustrated the political history of Iran.
-Skyler Grant
After reading the article, it strikes me no wonder the Iran government has had such revulsion to foreign involvement. Superpowers such as Britain, USA and Russia have repeatedly involved themselves in Iran matters and in a way that will prove helpful to them but eventually hurt Iran. The determination to keep the Majlis going is phenomenal, because despite the amount of times they dismantled they reconvened in order to attempt to better their country and form a constitution.
Also the freedom fighters remind me of the videos we have seen in class, which seem to represent the determination of Iran to have a government which they deem fit and have constructed themselves without foreign influence. The freedom fighters also prove that a government can only govern with the consent of those who are governed. Also to be noted is that corruption seems to be rampart in countries that have resources which the superpowers want.
Hi,
I agree with the comment made about the style of the article. As for me I am not very familiar with the history of Iran so it was one of my motives to enroll in the course and as I read this article it seemed as if I was reading a list of names and what they were known for rather than focusing a bit more on the details of how everything happened. Regardless of that, as I read the beginning of the article I noticed how complex the Iranian history is. As of what I understood, eventually the Majlis overthrew Mohammad Ali Shah, but what happened to the freedom fighters once they were defeated? After the revolution, as I began reading about the different Terms, there were a lot of similarities between the Iran and American history. They both focused on creating a constitution, amendments, passing different bills and laws as they progressed and much more. I am curious however, to learn more about Iran’s role in the Second World War because I think that would help me further understand the current situation in which Iran finds itself in and its relations with other countries.
Reading the article on the Constitutional Revolution truly showed me a side of history that I had known little of. I was in a sense inspired by the many attempts of the Majlis to improve the country by making changes that were necessary for Iran to move into the twenty-first century. I was also disturbed by the many attempts of foreign powers, mainly Britain and Russia, to influence the countries policies and ways of rule. Now I can definitely connect some of the country's modern issues and laws to those of the past. There is now a foundation on which I can begin to corollate what has occurred and what is occurring.
I was amazed that while there was much danger marking the lives of the Majlis, people continued to fill the positions for over thirty-six of those very crucial years and terms from the first to the thirteenth. The history of Iran has been marked by constant foreign influnce from the support of the Shah and the Qajar dynasty to the occupation of Britain and the Soviet Union during World War II. I can understand why anyone who has lived through such a history would feel animosity towards foreign intervention in national affairs.
As I read this article, I felt that I gained a new perspective on the mindset of modern-day Iran. It's easy to see the link between the decades of foreign intervention in Iranian affairs, and the modern isolationism and suspicion of foreign powers. From Britain and the Russian Empire, to the West and the USSR, to modern attempts by the UN to interfere in Iran's nuclear program, it seems Iran's history has been one of internal conflict exacerbated by external actors. However, the article raised a number of questions.
First, after the success of the Freedom Fights in toppling the Shah's regime and restoring the Majlis, why did the Majlis then appoint a new Shah? And the old Shah's son no less? The move strikes me as just asking for more political upheaval down the road. Was it due to political tradition of having a monarch? Was it out of adherence to the idea of a constitutional monarchy rather creating a fully democratic government?
Second, as asked elsewhere, why does the Fourth Majlis sign a friendship pact with the USSR? Is it possible that the Majlis saw the new Soviet government at being fundamentally different from the old Russian Empire, and thus trustworthy? Or rather, was this friendship pact a bit of realist diplomacy with Iran acting in it's own national interest? The move is such a departure from how one would expect Iran to act after decades of foreign interference in it's own affairs.
Lastly, and this question is out of personal curiosity, what role did slavery play in Iran prior to the Seventh term of the Majlis? Ass noted in the article, the Seventh Term passed a law prohibiting slavery and the movement of slaves across Iranian borders. The implication being that there was a slave trade going on in Iran prior to this. What was the size and scope of this trade? Additionally, it wasn't until the later 1920s that slavery was abolished. Yet democratic reform seems to have started much earlier. Why the delay?
Its very tragic to read about the constitutional revolution, a century later, especially knowing the state the country is in now. Foreign intervention may have had a hand in holding Iran at a standstill, however, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The monarchs of the Qajar Dynasty had already had a taste of absolute power and there was no way they would let the majlis, or the Parliament, deny them their 'divine right'. Unfortunately, it was also in the best interest for foreign governments that these monarchs continue their tyrannical rule. Through this timeline of Majlis history, I can see the efforts of the Iranian people to progress to more democratic ways being stalled by Great Britain, Russia, and the USA. This frustration translated half a century later to a revolution which also didn't have the best interest of the general population at mind.
In response to the article from Time's magazine, I found the pan-American fight against anything communist ultimately set the stage for our frustration with Iran, and our habitual patterns of labeling Iranians generally as prone to creating world terror. Our involvement in selecting government officials is hair-raising and completely warrants any sort of grass-roots retaliation. Therefore, to justify all the of negativity Khomeini perpetuated for some is not fair, but neither is taking out our responsibility from creating such a situation. Even if we were just trying to bolster the economy while in ties with Britain, again going so far as to trying to stage a retaliation by organizing religious officials in Qom only shows further justification for any Iranian affected by this time to have feelings of repugnance or indifference towards the U.S. government. This is a key example of why and how the U.S. changes its definitions of terrorism, and in fact this just makes many of the definitions to look like a label placed upon another country as a convenient response to non-cooperative responses with U.S. foreign policy.
Reading over the affairs of the Majlis during its infancy, a few observations stood out very clearly.
First and foremost, I commend the members of the Majlis at the time for having the will and persistence to continue to hold sessions during a tumultuous time; they pushed for the Democratic ideal, and ultimately the betterment of Iran, all while the colonial powers tampered with Iran’s internal affairs.
Secondly, many of the events in Majlis that were outlined during this time resemble that of the years immediately succeeding the American Revolution. I believe this is due to that fact that the years following the American Revolution , and most other revolutions, were disorderly and filled with uncertainty, similar to the this revolution. I would like to learn more about the characters in Majlis who arose to become the leaders of the nation; I want to learn about the “Iranian George Washington” .
Lastly, I am confused why on July 17th, 1909, when Mohammad Shah abdicated the throne due to pressure from the freedom fighters, the freedom fighters allowed him to appoint his son to the throne. Wouldn’t the freedom fighters want to separate the throne from Mohammad Shah’s grip as much as possible?
I agree with Shabnam's comment that this history did read in a very "cookbook" manner. However, I actually preferred that because it was very objective. I think that's important in history especially when you're dealing with something that is still changing and being rewritten/re-evaluated/etc.
Discussing the actual information in the article, I was caught off guard by the sentence "Capitalizing on the internal struggles, both Russia and Britain entered a pact to settle their own differences; effectively dividing Iran into two areas of influence for their respected countries." It was surprising that all of a sudden, the two countries come in and decide to divide Iran into their desired pieces. This was even before D'Arcy struck oil in Iran! What allowed Russia and Britain sovereignty over Iran at this point in time? How could they or any other nation at any other time just come in and claim portions of a country that obviously already claimed self-sovereignty?
It’s unfortunate that in countries like Iran the Government gets so corrupt that it takes a civil up-rise and a lot of lives to make changes to corrupt politics.
It’s also frustrating and upsetting to have other countries meddling and dictating the politics and rulers in foreign countries.
I find encouraging knowing that a group like the “freedom fighters” can organize to the point of defeating what they believed to be corrupt politics and manage to pass bills and amendments that are important for a more just rule.
There are however a lot of things that I didn’t understand in this articles. It might be that all of what happened during this time in Iran is very complex. Something that I found particularly confusing are all the changes of rulers and takeovers that occurred during this period. Before reading this article, I used to think that the Shah was a name for important position held by an Iranian figure. But after reading this article, I get the impression that Shah is a person’s last name.
Something else that is either not well explained in this article or that I didn’t understand is the terms that the dynasty had. How did the Majlis have so many terms when they were assassinated and defeated by foreign influences?
Agreeing with a previous post, there seems to be alot of parallels to the United States, concerning the initial development of both countries along with the norms and taboos which both are to abide by. Both, seemingly in different ways, have found the creation of such countries to be a difficult process which upon creation plagued daily life.
However unlike the United States, Iran utilized the Tehran conference. Contrast to the U.S, which saw bloodshed and tumult riddle the country upon initiation, the Tehran conference allowed the citizens of Iran to find a diplomatic closure to a potentially very chaotic encounter.
The article on the constitutional revolution in Iran provides great political insight over the last hundred years. It is very interesting to see the relations between the Iran and Western governments. Over time it seems as if the laws in Iran slowly begin to implement western ideology. From what has been covered in lecture to the articles posted a reoccurring theme that has presented numerous problems in the political history of Iran has
been a culmination foreign intervention of political affairs, control over oil, and pressure from pro-western governments. Regardless of the external problems that Iran may face politically, the people Iran remain to express nationalism and fight for political independence even today. The political history of Iran that is depicted in this time line represent the struggle of the people within that country and the culture. Today, Iran faces similar challenges between the current government and its citizens, however things have become more complicated due to technological innovations and modernity.
Much like the American government, Iran desired politcal independence and a constitutional government. However, it seemed that Iran was polarized into two factions, the constitutionalists and those in support of the Qajar, due to the imperial influences of Russia and the West. Britain brought influences of democracy to the Majlis, which pushed for a government ruled by law. A constitutional government was difficult to pass due to the religious principles of Islam that it had to conform with. The outside imperialist influences didn't seem to help the construction of a constitutional government.
One of the more interesting aspects of the article was the force, provided both from the west and from internal political stife, which led to the creation of the Majlis, or the iranian parliamentary.
I just wanted to comment on or provide questions for a theme of this thread regarding this event in Iranian history and its impact on the collective consciousness. It was said that the constitution more generally, but the creation of the Majlis in particular, injected a sort of national identity into the Iranian people, who previously partook of their identity not from their nation but from their religion: islam. I just wanted to ask why the view is that the establishment of the Majlis in particular did this, and why it wasnt the revolution and constituiton more generally which offered a new, comparatively untainted political image for Iran. The portion of the constitution dedicated to the establishment and interworkings of the majlis is nevertheless important, but why is this thought particularly to be the cause of the change from a religious to a national identity?
I feel like this article provided an acceptable survey-type look at the creation and evolution of the Constitutional Revolution in Iran. Like Western Governments, the creation of a Constitution is supposed to provide a written set of rules to protect the country and its citizens from 'government corruption and foreign manipulation.' Drawing from the same theme, I think it is again interesting to draw the parallel to the first term of the Majlis and it's quick dissipation and the Articles of Confederation and it's 'failure' here in the states.
Also, I think it is interesting to point out that during the Majlis second term, education, taxation, and election procedures.
While reading this article, I was really amazed that in every single term the Majilis convened, there either was the formation of some important ministry or the passing of a bill, important negotiations were made, or great measures were taken to better Iran's own problems. I wonder, if not for Mohammad Ali Mirza's corruption which prompted the onset of the Constitutional Revolution, would all the former measures have taken longer to be formed? Or if not for all the internal struggles and conflict and the Shah's suspicion and reappointment of the Majilis,
would the British and the Russians still have wanted to intervene?
Post a Comment