There has been many comments and analyses concerning the emergence of the Islamic Revolution and system in Iran. Viewing this phenomenon from various angles has revealed its various aspects that have affected the history of at least an important part of the world and generally the whole world. In fact, this even provoked a series of events that integrated into a widespread Islamic political movement. However, what is important in comprehending this phenomenon is the chain of events that led to the victory of the Revolution in 1979. A review at the history of the clergy organization shows that Shiite clerics have always been in a competition with monarchs for a greater share of power. Their power to mobilize masses has determined this share over the history so that when kings in Safavid and Qajar eras engaged in long wars with neighbors the clerics played a key role in mobilizing and inciting peasantry against Koffars [heretics, unbelievers in Islam]. However, with the Constitutional Revolution (1905-1911), the sunrise of modernization in Iranian society that considerably weakened traditional values, including the values that gave a central indisputable influence to the clergy organization, the power of ayatollahs waned in Iran so that their desire for overcoming power unilaterally reduced and turned into a wish for having a seat beside technocrats, bureaucrats and statesmen. The trend of industrialization marginalized the clergy organization and though they always played some part in social movements but they always humbly tried to disguise themselves as social reformers not professional politicians. Of course, this should not be forgotten that major trends in the clergy organization theoretically believed in the rule of Sharia and the revival of a theocratic rule as was in early Islamic era in seventh century or even the semi-theocratic governments under the Safavid and Ottoman empires.
In this circumstances, when social movements began to spread in Iran in 1970s in Iran, the absence of an organized political party or front placed clerics on the top of a huge voluminous movement, and the clerics who never expected to be welcomed so warmly by the people had to turn to religious and even non-religious intellectuals and technocrats to organize the revolution. From the dawn of the Revolution this bilateral game between the two began. A wide spectrum of intellectuals acted as an intermediate between the clergy organization and masses and without the involvement of these intellectuals the clergy organization could not take the helm of the movement and even acquire the self-confidence and morale to direct the revolution.
What has been not been attended precisely is the chain of events that led to collapse of the former regime and the emergence of the first theocratic regime in the modern time. The chronology of events in last days of the Pahlavi regime will help us understand why a clergy-led faction could monopolize power and even, in next years, challenge the Western world. A review of events on the days just before the overthrow of the monarchy shows all sides, including the clergy organization led by Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranian nationalists and secular intellectuals, foreign players, including the US and Europe, and remnants of the former regime were seeking a compromise to share power. There was no doubt that an organ of compromise should have substituted for the former regime but what would be the nature and composition of such organ was still unknown. There are many facts that support this interpretation. Clerics who feared the radicalization of the movement might give an upper hand to leftists and Mojahedin favored the idea of “brotherhood with the army” and when the people chanting the slogan “the only way to freedom is an armed struggle” clerics in streets tried to silence the people and said “Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] has not yet called for a jihad [a sacred war to be waged by Muslims to expand Islam]”. Followers of Ayatollah had started secret talks with army commanders and the former Prime Minister Bakhtiar, and an American general had come to gather all parties under one ceiling. Prime Minister Bakhtiar talked about the possibility of a peaceful transition as the “fourth French Republic”. The leadership of the army, which could put a crucial effect on the trend of events, was assigned to a moderate commander, Gen. Gharabaghi. However, the hesitation of army and remnants of the former regime promoted the morale of ayatollahs and encouraged them to seek the lion’s share but they still did not think of the monopolization of the power. Even radical and leftist groups that favored an armed uprising never imagined everything would be over in few days. Keeping their organizations clandestine they planned for a protracted armed struggle for even a decade. The Iranian revolution is a good instance of spontaneity and self-movement, where masses take the street without the order of leaders and change pre-planned schemes. While leaders and rulers were bargaining the people invaded garrison and erected barricades. In an unplanned armed insurrection, while guerrilla organizations added fuel to the flame, the people changed the balance. This can be called an “immature uprising”, independent of the decision of leaders and organizers. The demoralized army resisted for a short time and power fell like a ripen apple in the hands of leaders who did not expect such windfall fortune. This unplanned immature uprising had great political and historical consequences. First, it seriously damaged the military and bureaucratic apparatus of the former pro-Western regime and excluded a pillar, the army and ex-regime’s remnant, from sharing power, and gave an exclusive unrivalled position to Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers and allowed them to address the West with more self-confidence and ignite a new era in the Middle East whose main feature is the unbridled expansion of political Islam. Possibly, if the people did not attack the Eshratabad stronghold and the Air Force base in Tehran suburb on Feb. 10, 1979 Iran would experience a difference path, and the army and pro-Ayatollah forces counterbalanced each other and perhaps the events would not go beyond the control of the West. In Spite of theories of conspiracy that attribute the Iranian revolution and its aftermath to the collusion between Mullahs and the West or the infiltration of former Soviet Union’s agent in the Iranian revolution and so on and so forth this was an immature armed uprising that created a turning point in the history of Iran and the Middle East with consequences that have gone beyond decades. Therefore, casting a deeper look at the events in last days of the former regime and motivation and psychological factors that incited the people to engage in an immature uprising is both interesting and of great importance.
No comments:
Post a Comment