Iranian and Russian Revolution
There is much controversy surrounding the causes of Iran revolution and the Russian revolution. Even though there are some fundamental elements that scholars hold to be associated with both revolutions, analysis of the causes have attempted to explore the economic, social, cultural and political factors that may have motivated the two revolutions. Owing to the different realities in Russia and Iran, the two revolutions were different in character even though they shared in their goal of effecting change in their society. The Russian revolution of 1917 in particular had far reaching consequences since it influenced several revolutions among the third world countries. However, there is no direct association between Russian revolution and Iranian revolution apart from the fact that they all resulted in the overthrow of the old regime. This paper seeks to explore the similarities and differences between the revolutions especially with regard to causal factors.
Theoretical explanations for the causes of both Iranian revolution and Russian revolution fall into two categories social breakdown models and social movement models. Social breakdown models attempt to plain the causes based on the processes that led to the dissolution of traditional values, norms and social structure. The model holds that large-scale social change such as commercialization, industrialization and urbanization lead to social disorganizations and the subsequent grievances, strains, and frustrations which further explode into civil disorder and mass violence (Parsa 19897-8).
A variant of this theory stresses on social mobilization and the subsequent emergence of new needs and demand which in turn invite political tension. Another variant emphasizes on the destabilizing consequences of rapid social and economic transformation and the accompanying separation between economic and political development which may lead to disorder and violence.
The social movement model on the other hand derives from emphasis on authority figures and ideational factors. The model is based on an assessment of the conscious choice, commitment and active participation by members or followers. According to this perspective, groups establish new collective definition of themselves and the world around them that translate new norms of behavior, goals and justification for authorities power. Mass actions of any groups are just an extension of the prior commitment to such specific belief system. This paper employs both models in determining the underlying reasons revolution with the aim of comparing and contrasting the two revolutions.
Russian Revolution and Iranian Revolution A Comparison
The majority of the 20th century revolutions were inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917. The inspiration behind this revolution was the ideas of Marxist Communism. According to Marx, societies could only be moved from one historical stage to the next through revolution. This interpretation reinforced the view of revolution as a universal and unavoidable historical process. For more than fifty years, the Russian revolution offered future revolutionaries around the world a model through which political and socio-economic transformation can be conducted. The revolution that occurred in 1917 was a culmination of various events that spanned many years. Russia had been a nation marred by backwardness from every quarter and could not therefore match up with its neighbors especially the western neighbors. As an effort to keep up pace with her European neighbors, Russia took up far greater wealth belonging to the people as compared to the Europeans.
This not only subjected the people to two-thronged poverty but also weakened the bases of the property owners. As years advanced, discord continued to grow among people of various classes.
1905 event introduced the two revolutions that later took place in 1917. All the elements of the later revolutions were incorporated in the event even though it was not carried through. This is an indication that the Russian people were not satisfied with the ruling authority. The monarchy had been frightened by the liberal bourgeoisie against the backdrop of a mass movement. The workers instituted their own organization independent of the bourgeoisie and in opposition to it. Some kind of organization was formed. What is clear is that the various social classes were not satisfied with the ruling authority. This same scenario is applicable to the Iranian revolution even though the context was different.
The Iranian Revolution also provides another model of revolution even though the circumstances that surrounded its occurrence were different from that of Russia. This revolution that took place in 1979 sought to radically transform the Iranian state and society that the majority saw to be excessively secular and marred by Western values and culture (Avrich 1967347). Both the Russian Revolution and the Iranian Revolution in this regard were conscious attempts to change the society.
The most obvious characteristic of Russian and Iranian Revolutions were the direct intervention and interference of the people in historical events. It is a well established fact that the state ordinarily raises itself above the nation. However, when the masses can no longer endure the old order, they break the barriers that exclude them from the political arena, discard the traditional representatives and establish the initial groundwork for a new system by their own interference. This was true for both Iran and Russia.
One characteristic shared by the Iranian revolution and Russian revolution is the fact that they were not anticipated. The reason lies on the observation that individuals who are dissatisfied and dislike their governments often conceal their desire for change as long as resistance appears to be weak (Parsa 200867). Both the Russian Revolution and the Iranian revolution surprised the world. It may however be said the tsars had sensed that they could be deposed but they also thought that this was something they it could handle. In Iran, none of the major intelligence organization expected that Sha Mohammad Rezas regime would scramble. Up until the period of the revolution, the expectation was that Sha would be in control of the issues. Retrospective views aside, even Ayatollah Ruhola Khomeini did not expect the revolution.
There are other ways that the collective actions that deposed the monarchy resembled Russian revolution which makes it to be considered a revolution. To start with, the Russian revolution and the Iranian revolution were instituted by social classes and groups that had been marginalized or excluded in the power structure. The majority of individuals who took part in the strikes and demonstration were opposed to the repressive nature and therefore called for social equality, political freedom, democracy and economic justice. Both revolutions also resulted in power transfer to a new group of leaders who had pictured basic social and economic transformations in both societies. In the case of Iran, Khomeini reiterated his commitment to giving Iranians independence and freedom (Salehi 199734). He also emphasized that the Islamic republic will embrace the principles of equality within the social and economic system where the interests of the oppressed and deprived individuals would be served.
Even though there is no contention concerning the revolution being a popular movement, it is different from the Russia Revolution in several aspects. The authenticity of Iranian revolution can be traced back to Iranian culture and social structures. The style of politics in Iran was shaped by culture which was dotted with frequent disruptions by revolutions. Iran leaders, from Sha Mohammed Reza to Khomeini, were products of this culture and therefore ruled the country in distinctive Iranian style.
Even though Sha followed the dictates of Iranian political culture, he also wanted to modernize the country. This modernization did not however result in fluidity to the often too rigid traditional Iranian politics. It threatened Iranian culture. The countrys political regimes have traditionally been authoritative. The countrys cohesion was dependent on this rigid authority which acted to bring the people together. However, the silent society immediately challenged the regime. This silent society had been loyal and obeyed the political authorities every time it exuded weakness. One of the main causes of the revolution was the converging of the silent but highly dissatisfied groups.
The Iranian revolution was distinct from the Russian revolution in several unique ways. The mass actions that developed and became the foundation of the revolution were fundamentally urban. In contrast with the Russian revolution which had a strong rural inclination, the Iranian revolution did not have peasant participation until the final stage. Their contribution did not however result in the regimes downfall. The mobilization of the opponents of the regime and the subsequent collective action were partly conducted through the institution of the mosque. The status of a section of the Islamic clergy within the opposition was raised and they eventually established a theocracy. This highly contrasts with the Russian revolution which was fought in the name of communism and ended with the transfer of power to a modernizing, secular intelligentsia.
While religion was to some degree a factor in the Iranian revolution, it was not an element in the Russian revolution. Religious motives enthroned all people in Iran thereby resulting in the establishment of a modernized version of Islam. Religion appeared to be the best channel for expressing dissatisfaction against the regime by the social groups.
Numerous sources suggest that the cause of Iranian revolution was basically the peoples opposition to rapid modernization. The Iranians were not opposed to the modernization that the Sha pursued but a deviant form of modernization. It is well established that authoritarian regimes cannot modernize societies. It is also true that the modernization process was started by authoritarian regimes even though they only succeeded in this attempt when they embraced the principles of democracy. In relative terms, Iran was successful in its economic development and it managed, to some extent, to form a highly modernized intellectual groups. This success established a social dichotomy. Shas undemocratic political decisions alienated these intellectuals
The Iranian revolution, unlike the Russian revolution was not made by the communist party, neither was it made by modern revolutionary parties, Islamic guerillas nor Marxist guerillas. It was instead instituted through a set of cultural and organizational forms that were thoroughly ingrained in the urban communal dominions that emerged to be the centers of popular resistance to Shas regime (Skocpol, 1994 250).
Conclusion
Before the 1917 revolution, Russia was expressing symptoms of class conflict. A society arrested by revolution has its classes in conflict. However, it is clear that the course of revolution cannot be sufficiently explained by the changes instituted during the start and the end of the revolution in the societys economic bases and its classes, which can overturn traditional institutions, establish new ones and again overturn them. The fluidity of revolutionary occurrences is directly determined by fast, vivid and passionate alterations in class psychology that are already formed prior to the revolution. This holds true for both Iranian revolution and Russian revolution.
The implication is that institutional change within a society does not arise with needs in the same way that a mechanic may change his tools. Instead, societies see their institutions as things that are given once and for all. For many years, the oppositional criticism was a safety valve for mass dissatisfaction, a condition that is required for the stability of the social structure (Trotsky 195778). In principle, this was the significance that social-democratic criticism acquired. The conditions that are necessary for a society to pull itself from discontent and lead to mass insurrection are exceptional.
The swift changes of mass perception and mood during revolution are therefore not derived from fluidity and mobility of mans mind but from its deep conservatism. The habitual regress of ideas and relations underlying the new objective conditions, from the moment that these relations behind new empirical conditions scramble on people in the form of catastrophe, is what established during the period of revolution a stream of ideas and passion which to a police mind would appear as a consequence of the activities of rubble-rousers.
The people enter a revolution, not with a pre-drawn plan of social construction but with a feeling that they can no longer endure the old regime. As the norm, the individuals who have a political program are the guiding layers of the class. However, it also needs the test of events and approval by the majority. The basic political process of a revolution is therefore composed of gradual understanding by a class of the problems that emerge from the social crisis and orientating the majority through a method of successive approximations.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment