Arbitrary rule: a comparative theory of state, politics and society in Iran

Abstract

Modern studies of Iranian history and society have often been based on theories developed for the study of European society. This has led to important anomalies which can be resolved by recognizing the fundamental differences in the development of the two types of society within the framework of a single social science. Agricultural property was owned by the state, parts of which it assigned or farmed out to individuals or groups as a privilege, but not a right. There was social stratification, but the social classes did not enjoy any rights independently from the state; hence there was no aristocracy, and the composition of the social classes changed rapidly through time. Therefore there was no law outside the will of the state, which stood above the society, despite a body of rules which were subject to rapid and unpredictable change. The state's legitimacy was not founded in law and the consent of the influential social classes, and the mere success of a rebellion was sufficient ground for its legitimacy. This explains the frequent crises of succession in Iranian history. Until modern times, revolts and revolutions were led against an ‘unjust’ arbitrary ruler to replace it with a ‘just’ one. The result was generalized chaos until a new arbitrary rule was established. Notwithstanding their many differences, the two revolutions in the twentieth century were massive revolts by the society against the state for lawful government. But, despite some temporary successes, the long experience of the society proved to be more powerful than the newly acquired political ideas and programmes.