Since 1994/1373, when the Constitutionalist Party of Iran ( "The Constitutional Movement of Iran" at the time) was officially founded; its charter, bylaws, and platform have been the subject of much debate. This booklet tries to articulate on the party’s worldview and its programs, reflecting our intellectual development of the past few years. After a brief analysis of the Constitutional era it goes on to discuss the new Constitutionalist platform and strategy in subsequent chapters.
In the present discourse, political philosophy and practical solutions sometimes come together. A political party ought to have clear ideas about governance; and these ideas should be based on a certain worldview, a political philosophy. Offering slogans and conflicting strategies, has no place with us. Ideology with “I”, meaning a core idea encompassing all phenomena and explaining all questions, is a thing of the past and it is time to be pragmatic in social and economic matters. Flexibility and yielding to the realities of life and practical experience are the hallmarks of any successful political program. However this is not the same as compiling a collection of mutually negating slogans; and in every platform certain values take precedence.
We are not today in a position to have detailed programs for all the problems and it is not necessary. But as a sample of what we have in mind and to highlight our values some cases are dealt with in more detail.
* * *
In the Persian political usage, the word "Mashrooteh” ( Constitution or Constitutional ) has been confused with the word "Mashroot” ( conditional ) due to their similarity; and at the first glance, it implies a government that does not hold unconditional power. However, even the most despotic governments are bound to abide by written and unwritten laws and customs, which limit the power of a ruler (for example, the Saleec Law, the succession of the first male progenitor to the throne). In the final analysis, history's most powerful dictators had to abide by the rules of the "balance of power" and could not do whatever they wished.
The word "Constitution" found its way to the Persian political jargon in the latter part of the 19th Century through the Ottomans who themselves had derived it from the French word "Chartre" and the Latin word Cartula or Carta. The name given to a board, unto it decrees were inscribed." Magna Carta," the first "Constitutional Law" of the world limiting the power of the kings which was given to the House of Lords in the 13'h century by the king of England, is called the Magna Carta, the Big Board." The Constitutional Law in its present form and meaning, started with the American Revolution. Today, all countries possess one. In the U.K., the common law and existing legislature, are doing what a constitutional law does in other countries and its government is indeed one of the most lawful in the world.
In Iran the intellectuals of the time, translated the term "constitutional government" as "hokoumat e mashrouteh," a lawful government that derives its legitimacy from the popular will, versus a despotic monarchy. In the literature of the era of the constitutional movement, "mashrouteh" and "Constitution" were both used in parallel. In a "government of law" or "constitution," the form of the government has no importance, because both monarchical and republican forms are based on a parliamentary system.
Those intellectuals, as the first generation of Iranians exposed to western thought, decided to bring about a fundamental change in the society, by establishing rule of law and freeing the country from arbitrary powers of the king and the royals. The Iran of the epoch was a country that was in total chaos, existing more as a geographic entity -- no army, no finance, no communication or educational infrastructure to speak of -- with a primitive rural economy and a mass of illiterate people living in unhealthy conditions. The role played by the then small Iranian middle class of that era, which, single-handedly, took the task of modernizing Iranian society, is unparalleled in our history.
The project devised by those intellectuals who were known as the Constitutionalists went far beyond the mere form of government. Rightly so, they gave priority to the political problem of Iran, but reform of the government was only the first step of an overall program to preserve the independence and integrity of the country and for pushing Iranian society forward to the level of the most advanced countries in the West. This is why the Constitutional Movement of Iran is known not only as a democratic revolution but also the beginning of the movement for Modernity in Iran. For the Constitutionalists there was no distinction between democracy and Modernity. Democracy, like nationalism, social and economic development, and social justices was just one of the components of their plan for modernization of the country. Their efforts in all aspects of that plan, were at an unprecedented scale in Iranian society.
Whatever we have today in our limited ways, goes back to that era, from mass education to political parties; from newspapers to novels and theatre; from railroad to heavy industry; from medical coverage to equality between men and women; from the political rights of the religious minorities to de-centralization of local government. It is true that the Constitutionalists' plans were not wholly materialized at the time. It is also true that the Iran of today has gone back in many ways to the Iran of pre-1906, the Constitutional Revolution, but that movement has always been and remains the moving force of a society in search of progress.
Even today we are essentially preoccupied with the very same central issue of defining Modernity, its meaning and applications; how to catch up with the most advanced societies of the West. We are still faced with the same conflicting dilemmas of decentralization of power and the rule of the people versus a centralized theocratic system, nationalism versus separatism, versus globalization; economic progress versus the domination of the Bazaar; social progress versus gender inequality; Shiites versus followers of other persuasions; and finally, social justice versus the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor. Our society is now ready as never before to embrace Modernity and reach the goals that even surpass those sought by the Constitutionalists. However the problem in its essence has not much changed; and the Constitutionalists’ project is still the best for Iran.
From 1941 /1320, many writers divided the era of Constitutional Movement into 3 periods according to their own partisans and ideological preferences: The1st “Mashrooteh” from 1285/1906 to 1286/1907 and the bombardment of the parliament building. The 2nd “Mashrooteh” from 1288/1909 to 1299/1921 and the coup d'etats of the 3rd of Esfand. The 3rd “Mashrooteh” from1320/1941 to 1333/1953 and the fall of “Mossadegh” These authors sum up the entire history of the Constitutional Movement to the supremacy of the parliament. According to them, “Mashrooteh” or Constitutionalism existed when the parliament was able to exercise power. Reducing the modernization and reform movement in Iran to only one of its elements, does not conform to the real dimensions of the movement and the true role played by the parliament during much of its few years of ascendancy. In reality, the period between the last decade of the 19th century through the 7th decade of the 20th century should be known as the Constitutional or “Mashrooteh” Era. During this period, the notion of modernization and development dominated the entire national discourse, transforming the traditional Iranian society from its 1000 year old beliefs to the extent that even the current reactionary Islamic theocracy is nothing but a deviation of the movement and in certain fundamental fields, it is serving the Constitutionalists' objectives.
Parliament was the principal achievement of the Constitutionalists. However, at the peak of its power, the parliament was not able to accomplish more than successfully resisting imperial expansion. After its 2nd term and the amendment of the election law, big landlords in smaller cities controlled the election results. Thus, parliament was not the true representative of the people and its power was indeed an obstacle to progress. In addition during the years before the emergence of Reza Shah Iran, as a country with a feudal system, was a disintegrating land with some of its provinces under foreign occupation. Even its banks and customs houses were managed by foreigners and their respective governments.
During the first 15 years of “Mashrooteh”, most often, parliament was not even in session and the cabinets had a median life span of no more than 2 months and 23 days. In the years after the occupation of Iran the parliament did not play its role any better. Most of the cabinets were short lived and the parliamentarians in general only concerned with their personal interests and ready to play into the hands of different power players. Even Mossadegh, who was critical of Reza Shah for bringing the parliament under his control, called it "the house of the thieves" and in his hostility towards the parliament, he went as far as dissolving the same parliament whose members were elected during his own premiership, ignoring the Constitution itself.
In order for democracy to work in a country, an independent judiciary, able to maintain law and order, the rule of law, and a certain degree of economic and social development must exist. In third world countries, only those with strong central governments could eventually reach a certain degree of democracy. Even some of the former colonies, especially those under the British Empire were in better shape than Iran of that period. There has been much talk about democracy in India. But India at the time of its independence had a considerable educational and administrative infrastructure; its judiciary was the envy of any third world country. There were absolutely no correlations between the situation in India and Iran of eight decades ago, where Mullahs and bureaucrats were doing to people whatever they wished.
The Constitutionalists realized the enormity of the task of establishing democracy in a backward country early on, and almost all of them found the solution in a powerful hand. Reza shah came to power with general support – except for a small minority -- and as proved in practice, was the most successful in implementing most of the objectives of the Constitutionalists. Whatever he did during the next20 years, were in essence what had been advocated in the programs of the Constitutionalist parties, parliamentary discussions and the writings of journalists and authors of the time.
The main issue then was the priorities: an independent Iran in its proper boundaries with a strong central government, and an extensive social and economic development program; or democracy for a thin layer of politicos and intellectuals mostly in Tehran, controlling the parliament and press; and disorder, lawlessness and stagnation in the society as a whole? After the Coup d’Etat of 1921, many of those politicians and intellectuals did not hesitate to choose the strong government. The Constitutionalist Movement had won because the society wanted to modernize, but the constitutional government had failed because it could not realize its ideals. Reza Shah too did not achieve what he was after, partly due to scarcity of resources available to him, and partly because of too much reliance on brut force in leading a people who after centuries of oppression was thirsting to feel responsible for itself, and for participation. However, he had succeeded in administering one of the greatest turnarounds in Iranian history. He had saved his homeland
from inevitable disintegration. By organizing an effective civil service and a powerful military, he had created a modern nation-state, uniting a divided land and its diverse ethnic groups; had transformed the government machinery into the instrument for progress and development; had built a modern day economic, educational, and communications infrastructure; emancipated women, which along with Mohamad Reza Shah’s Land Reform and the Pahlavis’ mass education, form the greatest social revolutions in Iranian history. He had dealt such a devastating blow to the clerical dominance in educational and judiciary that even the Islamic republic has not been able to totally remove its impact.
Most of Mohammad Reza Shah's 37 years rule was spent in conflicts and crises that left little opportunity to follow up the Constitutionalists’ modernizing goals. Only during the last 15 years of his rule, as a result of greater resources that became available, that effort were resumed with breakneck speed and unprecedented dimensions, which underlined its strong and
weak Points. Once again, an all powerful king from Tehran embarked on a wast plan of social and economic progress that for the first time since the peak of the Safavid era, enabled Iran to enter the economic "take off “ stage in the latter part of the
2nd Millennium. But, due to concentration of decision making and the narrow perspective of the project, not only it resulted in corruption, waste, and improper priorities, it also caused the society's political weakness and vulnerability to such dangerous extent that were finally apparent in the Islamic revolution.
Concentration of the entire decision making process in a single man, with all the shortcomings of a normal person led to every kind of excess, erroneous judgment, nepotism and cronyism in public affairs; to the extent that a small circle around the shah and a group of politically connected capitalists had the lion's share of the national wealth. It is easy to influence a single person who makes all the major and minor decisions on a daily basis. The emphasis on progress, primarily from a quantitative and statistical standpoint, prevented the development plan to reach the depth of the society, and maximum exploitation of immense resources that for the first time was at our disposal. Iran’s development in those years was not impressive enough and lacking in harmony. A greater deficiency and imbalance emerged in the political arena.
One of the monumental contributions of the Pahlavi monarchs was to create a modem and dynamic middle class for the first time in Iran. An industrial and democratic society could not be realized without this class. During the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah, this class had developed to such an extent that could, hand in hand with a reformist monarch like Mohammad Reza Shah have built an industrial democratic society. However this middle class, instead of finding its deserved place in the society, not only was blocked by different political obstacles but was openly humiliated by the political leadership. At least, from the 40s /60s, Iranians could not be accused of being unable to rule
themselves and still needing some supreme leader who knows it all, better than anyone else, to preside over their fate.
In the middle of all these great achievements and excruciating shortcomings, the Constitutional era of came to an end by the Islamic evolution that crystallized all cultural, social, and political failings of Iran. However, that experience with Modernity was profound enough not to be erased by any means and under any name. Resurgence of the dormant Iranian nationalism and a justified pride in the 3000 years history of the land, in its present name of Iran, was one of the characteristics of this Modernity. Abolition of feudalism, emancipation of women and peasants, and the emergence of a middle class were other aspects of it. Iranians have never experienced such standard of living either before or after. The Iranian society acquired all the trappings of modern day living, albeit insufficiently, and Iran regained its place in the international community. The Constitutionalists, from every camp, and with all their transgressions and shortcomings, did a great service to their country the extent of which becomes more apparent with the passage of time.
Nevertheless the undeniable failure of the Constitutionalist project in its first phase until the Islamic revolution, demanded a thorough re-evaluation both in theory and practice. This re-evaluation began immediately after the Islamic revolution, resulting in the formation of what is called the New Constitutionalism and has become the foundation for the political programs of the present Constitutionalist Party of Iran.
The New Constitutionalism indeed reflects the original message and significance of the Constitutionalist Movement, that is Modernity. This meaning has been obscured in the partisan politics of the past decades; by those in both camps who successfully gave a one-dimensional interpretation of our recent history. Constitutionalism had a much deeper and more extensive meaning than what was instilled in people's mind particularly after the World War two. It was reduced into just a form of government, and a despotic one at that, by the Opposition; and a mere ceremony, and a forced one, by the Regime itself. It was one of the major failings of the Pahlavi Monarchy that as an offspring of the Constitutional Movement and the one that realized most of the farfetched aspirations of the Constitutionalists, so much tried to ignore it.
As indicated earlier, nationalism, liberty, progress, and social justice, in an integrated whole, made the Constitutionalist project. At the onset of the 20th century, intellectual and political leadership of the Movement saw these four elements as a whole. The New Constitutionalists have taken this project in its entirety, cleansing it from the philosophical and political contradictions and shortcomings experienced in the seventy years of Constitutional era; remodelling it in its 21st century form.
| Introduction |
| Chapter 1 |
| Chapter 2 |
| Chapter 3 |
| Chapter 4 |
| Chapter 5 |
| Chapter 6 |