The Intellectual Roots of the “First Revolution” in Iran

by Reza Lakestani

The brutal killing of Mahsa Amini in September of last year became the catalyst for a massive protest in Iran that was unprecedented on that scale in the last four decades. For the first time in history, these protests were led by women with high aims, such as establishing democracy and personal freedom, and the rule of law. However, having a political and social revolutionary movement is not new for Iranians. Most people are familiar with the Islamic revolution of 1979 that ousted the monarchy and established the current regime, but even that was not the first revolution in Iran. The first major revolution in Iran was known as the Constitutional Revolution or Mashruteh, which happened over a century ago, in 1906. It aimed to limit the monarchy’s powers by establishing a constitution and a national Parliament, Majlise Shuraye Melli. Rather than retelling the historical events that led to the constitutional revolution, I’d like to focus on the ideas and intellectuals who inspired the movement to more closely examine the origins of Iran’s “First Revolution.”

At the time, Iran struggled with colonial domination by the British and Russians, domestic corruption, and a lack of the rule of law. These factors, coupled with the people’s dissatisfaction with the absolute rule of the monarchy, created a fertile ground for intellectual developments that inspired the revolutionary movement. The rule of law, however, was seen by many of the revolution’s leaders as the central political issue that needed to be addressed.

For most of Iran’s long history, the country had been a formidable force in the region and beyond. The 19th century, however, was very different. The Europeans achieved total political and military supremacy globally, defeating and colonizing most of the world. Iranians, like many others, realized they were falling behind the Europeans and had some catching up to do. After taking heavy losses in the Russo-Persian Wars in the early 19th century, Abbas Mirza, the crown prince, saw how advanced the Russian army was compared to his own and thought that he should send a batch of students to Europe to learn the new science and engineering technologies. This practice of the government funding students to study abroad in Europe to employ their newly learned knowledge in Iran became quite popular throughout this period. While this policy did not make Iran’s army a formidable force that could defeat an invading Russian army, it had an effect unforeseen by those funding this program. Many of these students learned about the intellectual movements and philosophical ideas that had taken Europe by storm at the time. They also realized how different the governmental structure in Western European countries was. They saw the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, and the supremacy of the laws over people. On the other hand, Iran had no constitution and no legal framework outside of the Islamic Sharia and cultural precedents and customs that were loosely enforced. There were no robust government agencies, no coherent tax code, and no limits on what the monarch could do. Stated simply, there were no tangible laws.

The intellectuals of this period, such as Mirza Malkum Khan, noticed this contrast and highlighted it in their writing. He started to publish a newspaper and intentionally called it “Qanun,” which is the Persian word for laws. In its first issue, published in 1890, he wrote: “God has blessed Iran. Unfortunately, his blessing has been negated by the lack of laws. No one in Iran feels secure because no one in Iran is safeguarded by laws…. The servants of foreign diplomats have more security than the noble princes of Iran.” It may be tempting to think that he is exaggerating, but a quick study of Iranian history in this period will have various examples of princes, tribe chiefs, and even prime ministers being killed with no evidence of wrongdoing and no trials. A fellow of Mirza Malkum Khan published a book titled “Yek Kalameh” (One Word), and in it, he discussed how only one word, “Law,” needs to be implemented and tried to convince the more traditional and religious elite that implementation of laws or better yet a constitution has no contradiction with Islamic teachings.

While the educated and Westernized elite started this trend, much of the society, including the most traditional and religious segments of society, such as many well-known Shia clerics, agreed with this point and advocated for establishing laws in the form of a Constitution. These clerics were in fact some of the most well-known leaders of the movement, not only leading politically but also intellectually as well. A case in point was Seyyed Jamal-Al-Din Vaez Esfahani, a wellknown cleric who became one of the most celebrated leaders of the Mashruteh movement. In a sermon, he shouted, “People! Nothing would develop your country other than subjection to law, observation of law, preservation of law, respect for law, implementation of the law, and again law and once again law… The ruler is law and law alone, and no one’s rule is valid but that of the law. The parliament makes the law and is the protector of the law.” Vaez Esfahani seems to be in complete agreement with the intellectuals that we discussed earlier. An odd alliance of Westernized intellectuals and the religious establishment was forming in this period. While they did not agree on everything, they all wanted to limit the monarch’s power and make him subject to a constitution. Some clerics even attempted to argue for a constitution and limited government on religious grounds. The most notable example was a treatise by Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Mohammad-Hossein Naini. He argued that the ideal government is that of Imam Mahdi once he returns, and all governments are illegitimate. Still, a democratic government was far superior to a tyrannical monarchy. A smaller fraction of the clerics stayed with the monarchy and fought against the movement; the most well-known example of this is Sheikh Fazlullah Nouri. He was later executed when the revolutionaries captured Tehran. These exceptions aside, the consensus of most of the classes and rank and file of the society was with the constitutional revolution. Unfortunately, the initial success of the movement did not last for too long. Only days after signing the royal proclamation to establish the parliament, Mozaffar ad-Din Shah passed away. His son was determined to put an end to the parliament and the democratic aspirations of the people, so he and the army shelled the Parliament with some Russian help. Despite violent responses from the monarchy, the revolutionaries succeeded. They conquered the capital and reestablished the parliament, but the following few years were chaotic and coincided with WWI and the invasion of Iran by the British and the Russians. With Reza Shah’s ascension to power in the infamous coup of 1921, and later his acension to the throne in 1926, the power of parliament was dead, and its existence remained in name only. In fact, Reza Shah was more powerful than any of the Qajar Shahs had ever dreamt of being. And so, no one dared oppose him as long as he was in power.

The parliament and democracy got another chance after the fall of Reza Shah during the Allied invasion of Iran in WWII, and a short period of democracy and the rule of law was established under the reign of the new young and powerless Shah. However, those dreams were squashed by a CIA-led coup in 1953 that overthrew the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. Decades later, the Islamic Revolution did nothing in the way of restoring parliamentary democracy and the rule of law and arguably made it significantly worse. Thus, the democratic aspirations of the people of Iran continue to this day. The increasingly more frequent popular-led movements that form in the streets of Iran are a testament that people are still looking for the things that the Constitutional revolution of 1906 was supposed to establish: a legislative body that passes laws in accordance with the wishes of the people, an independent judiciary that serves the best interest of the people in its decisions, and a binding constitution that encompasses such a structure. □

References

Abrahamian, E. Iran between two revolutions. Princeton University Press, 1982.

Amanat, Abbas. Iran: A Modern History. Yale University Press, 2017.

Katouzian, Homa. The Persians: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Iran. Yale University Press, 2010.

Zibakalam, Sadegh. Sunnat Wa Mudirnīta: Ašbābī-Va-ʻilal-I nākāmī-i iṣlāḥāt wa nowsāzī-i siyāsī Dar īrān-i ʻaṣr-I Qāǧār. Rowzaneh, 2000.