The Clergy's Involvement as an Aspect of the Iranian Revolution - Research Paper Example

Introduction The revolution in Iran in 1979 can be considered as one of the most important events of that era, resulting in the revival of Islam in Iran and striving to resist modernization in various Muslim countries. According to our opinions, the truth is that the revolution of Iran was a worker’s revolution. If it had not been for the mobilisation of the labour class, Ayatollah and his companions would have stayed in France until better times. On February 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini was welcomed by his people on his return to Iran. Hence, according to our opinion how could this man provoke a revolution? The Revolution In 1978, the youngsters and the working class of Iran protested and challenged the Shah’s army SAVAK, the most hated and powerful army used for repression in the entire world. When the masses were on roads, many soldiers of this army threw their uniforms and weapons away fearing the retaliation from the people. The reasons for their fear were due to the fact that they have been involved in brutal acts against innocent people of Iran. (Stempel 110) Under the rule of the Shah, industrialization of the country took place which resulted in massive unemployment, which ultimately played an important role in the revolution. The movement led by the oil workers was very important. At the crucial moments, these workers did not move since they knew the importance of oil industry for Iran, hence leading to the end of the Shah’s regime. This was the first time in the history of 14 years that thousands of Iranians dwelling in slum areas, protested against the Monarch. The movement was basically started by the labour working class and the less-privileged classes of the urban population opened the gate of the protests in July 1977. This also involved other sectors of the society like the traditional clergy and the intellectuals who were disturbed by the attitude of the foreign companies and the economic boom in the country. The largest recorded protest in the history took place with around 2 million people on September 7, 1978 in the city of Tehran. To these protests, the monarchist regime retaliated by killings of thousands of innocent protestors and imposing martial law in the country. This resulted in strikes by the working class. One of the massive strikes was of the 30,000 people from the working class of the oil industry, which affected the country’s economy to still. This was the opening up of another massive strike where the working class started taking over hospitals, factories, universities and offices of the country. A committee of the democratic workers was organized and named as Shoras, their purpose was to either sidestep or confront the owners and the managers. The committees were also formed around local mosques consisting of the slum dwellers, which played an important role in assisting the clergy taking control of the movement. They also guarded their neighbourhoods from Shah’s army. The significant forces were People’s Mujahidin guerrillas, people’s Fedayeen and communist Tudeh party, who played a key role in mobilizing the urban revolts. In February, 1979, with the help of a rebellion from the Shah’s army, made it possible to pave the way for Ayatollah Khomeini along with clergy and liberal capitalist politicians for gaining control and seize power. Ayatollah Khomeini, who had just returned from the exile, successfully captured the leadership of the movement which was initiated by the labour class. However, Mroue (159) observed that there was no coordinated attacks on the capitalism system by the strike comittees. Also, to ntoe that there was not much coordination observed with the institutions of the civil society. This was the gap which was filled by the religious bodies, which held a previlidged status in the Iranian society whereas other forces were shattered. Role of Islamic Clergy in the Revolution Fading of the ancient traditions of life and the growth of capitalism introduced several reactions both within the rural and the urban sectors of the county. One of these reactions was the conflict of Shi’a Islamic clergy with the land restructuring and reforms and the methods of modernizations. The reason for this conflict was complex. The Islamic clergy played a significant role in justifying ideologically, according to their interpretation of the Islamic laws, for the social lives of the villagers. This also included the rights to involve in self-exploitation, the social relations with the bazaars and the role of absentee land owners. The clergy was a strong supporter of the ancient way of living life in the villages and the cities of Iran. The clergy had close relations with the ancient villagers in the bazaars. There was a specific share that the clergy received from the tithe, which is the surplus amount that the producers keep for themselves. This had compromised the expansion of capitalism in many ways. However, there would have probably no conflict at all if the capitalists agreed to contribute their share to the clergy. (Stempel 89) The ancient ways of living decreased the contribution of surplus produced by self-exploitation. Not only this, it also affected the incomes of social agents negatively, like that of merchants, social land owners, political leaders who relied on receiving the share from this surplus and the moneylenders. It is evident that the clergy successfully justified the position of the ancient landowners. The question arises that what was provided by these land owners to the clergy in return? One of the methods of these ancient landowners to show appreciation was to offer them cash and valuables. Some of the land owners were famous for their generosity towards the clergy However; the clergy did not have any materialistic needs. It is important to note that the modern land reforms resulted in a decrease in incomes for the ancient land owners and other associated agents. Due to this fact, the contribution made to clergy was also reduced. But, it can be possible that the capitalists and their associated agents can pay up to balance the contribution to the clergy. (Mroue 214) The clergy were also the receivers of rent from charitable land donations, which were restricted for the ancient producers who were given the right to work on these lands by paying rent. The clergy was actually, a group of ancient land owners who shared surplus labour as rent. According to the modern land reforms, the clergy was forced to enter into contracts (long term 99-years contracts), with the ancient producers who had actually worked on these lands on rents which were quite less than the historical standards. This was considered as a direct attack on the relationship of clergy with ancient ways. The attack on the economic status of the clergy resulted in disturbance of their relations with ancient economic agents. This was the point when the social relationships started to fade away between the clergy and the ancient agents which later defined the individuality of Islamic Shi’a clergy. (Keddie 117) The disturbance in the economic situation of the clergy was one of the factors that clergy opposed against modernization and land reforms. The support in the form of ideological justifications, provided by the Islamic clergy, did not only aim at justifying self-exploitation, the part of the absentee land owners and the status of the bazaars, but it also aimed at justifying the role of clergy as ancient land owners and as beneficiaries of the supporters of ancient ways. It clearly indicates that the changes in the relationships which were caused by the modernization of urban areas and the land reforms destabilized the traditional and social relationships between the towns, cities and villages. If the capitalists would have agreed to pay up for the revenue to the clergy, it cannot be assured that the status of the clergy in overall environment could have been reproduced. This was the process by which the people of ancient Iran were concerned and questioned the sacredness of the role and the social status of the clergy. Due to this, quite a number of clergy members declared that the modern changes were not according to the regulations of Islam. This strong rebelliousness and disobedience with the state laws, undoubtedly one of the conservative fundamentals of the Iranian society; played as a step towards the revolution of 1979. (January 245) Urban Bazaars and the Shi’a Clergy The attack of the monarchist regime on the ancientism was not restricted to the countryside. Urban Iran was separated into zones which were marked from the rest of the areas in the city or town. There were relatively small storefronts operated which were collectively known as the Bazaars. These Bazaars comprised of ancient merchants, moneylenders, artisans and restaurant owners. Most of this population was either involved in self-exploitation or were dependent on ancient surplus. The bazaries had very strong political organizations of their own. Their vocabularies and traditions led to close relations with the Shi’a clergy. The bazar was not just a commercial production space but it was strongly affected and influenced by the Islamic regulations. The bazar’s survival depended on the organize the collective relationships with the existing cultural, economic and political bodies. The bazars were well formulated and organized financial and politically powerful sector. The main body of the ASNAF organization was the High Council of Asnaf, which held close relations with the Shi’a clergy. This council together with the clergy affected the social and political lives of the people of ancient Iran. It was one fo the oldest political organizatiosn of Iran, which proposed difficulties for the monatrchist regime, based on the changes in the social classes. (Mroue 169) At the time when the monarchist regime tried to lessen the power of the ancient land owners, the High Council used a similar strategy.The regime initiated such political and economic policies which devastated the bazaar’s viability.Even some members of the Hight Council were bribed from the monarchist regime to have their political agreement on the regime’s policies and principles. However, with the implmentation of the economic and political policies, the oligarchic enterprises expanded to greater levels creatign a threat for the survival fo the bazaars. The regime only focused on implementing policies to promote the growth of the larger corporations making it difficult for the ancient Irani artisans like the tailors, potters and furniture makers. The development of larger corporations were focused on, like super stores, development stores, shopping centres and super markets. The banks of the state also expanded and the share of loanable fund market was decreased, which was collected and managed by the moneyleners of the ancient bazaars. The development of pharmacies and clinics affected the work of ancient herbalists, mid-wives and other health care providers. Hence, the regime was not only striving to have full control ovber the political and economic leadship of the bazaars but also emphasized on policies to destroy self-exploitation and the associated social relationships. (Keddie 85-89) The strategy of the regime was obviously not fruitful and remined a failure. The people of the bazaars were more democratic than imagined. Sunce the ancient producers fo the bazaars and the associated agents were habitual of thinking for their own interests. Which is off course a consequence of self-exploitation. Important to note that the efforts made by the regime to bribe and buy the members of the High Council to gain their aggreement did not turn out to be in their favor. The ordinary Iranians of the bazaars were totally against the policies of the monarchist regime. As the time passed, the people of the ancient bazaars became more and more powerful and aggressive in their opposition towards the regime’s policies. The people from the ancient bazaars allied with the Shi’a clergy and became one of the prominent voices in the days of revolution and initiated in providng the soldiers from their segment to fight for the revolution of 1979. Clash with the Capitalist Iran The regime of the Shah, was also weakened by the neglectful behavior of the government towards the interets of low-scale capitalists. This trivial segment of the capitalist would have been a supporter of the monarch if the political, social and economic policies were developed and implemented to promote the growth fo capitalism. (Mroue 65) Actually, the policies of the monarchist regime only benfited the elite class of oligarchic capitalists and the foreign corporations. In this way, the companies received the supprt from the public for their growth and development and dominion of the labour class. The modernization policies of the regime added in providing this support. The regime was mistakenly considering the elite oligarchic capitalist segment as the highest form of capitalism. The Shah along with his cabinet, wanted to imitate the Japanese and German kinds of intense capitalism, in order to create a local version of the foreign firms and corporations that would characterize “Western Imperialism” for the people of Iran. Modern Iran The regime of Ayatollah Khomeini started after the monarchist regime, which also faced a lot of challenges in the areas of opposition groups which included the National front bureaucrats, the royalists, professionals and intellectuals, guerrilla organizations, communists, and Kurdish rebels. The royalists and the National front leaders had relations with many foreign underground cells and bases. The communists were eliminated in 1983 at the time when Tudeh’s leadership almost declined. The Kurds have been fighting since 1979, and the government has always taken measures to suppress them using force. The National Front politicians have showed their disagreements and views openly, most of them are currently in European capitals. This group was the only one which was tolerated by the monarchist regime. Conclusion The fuedal social configurations including Korea, Russia and Japan have often supported the need of oligarchic kinds of capitalism. But, a larger portion fo the population favour self-exlpoiation and did not favour this kind of transformation. Ancient producers and their associated agents resist the attempts of capitalism. The fact is, that Iran comprised of two different and unequal class segments, the capitalist and the ancient. The capitalist Iran was growing powerful having conflicts between the oligarchic capitalism and the petty capitalism and this power was somewhat combined in the small oligarchy. Most of the people of Iran belonged to the ancient Iran, where there principles were self-exploitation, attachment with the religious principles and political processes to be found upon agreement and consensus. The clergy belonged to this segment. But, the regime focussed totally on the capitalist segment. Important to note that if the boudaries of these two kinds of Irani people did not crossed each other, there would not have been much tension in the society for a revolution. But, the monarchis regime focussed only on the growth and development of a smaller sub-section of the capitalist Iran, and also pushed the boundaries of the two segments of Iran that is the ancient Iran and the capitalist Iran. This was where the clash started in 1979 revolution. Also important that the struggles between different social classes also contributed to the revolutionary restlessness in the country. The monarchist regime’s failure to understadn and consider the class actions and their after effects, proved to be devastating. Works Cited January, Brendan. The Iranian Revolution. Minneapolis [Minn.: Twenty-First Century Books, 2008. Print. Keddie, Nikki R. Religion and Politics in Iran: Shi?ism from Quietism to Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Print. Khater, Akram F. Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Mroue, Dalia. Constitutionalism, Political Participation, and the Role of the Islamic Clergy in Twentieth Century Iran. , 2005. Print. Stempel, John D. Inside the Iranian Revolution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981. Print. Read More