Blog Discussion Group Ten
Blog post due at 11:55pm on November 28 and comment due at 11:55pm on December 1.
Iran
- In what ways can the global context influence
- What parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in
- Can religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
In what ways can the global context influence Iran’s development from this point forward?
ReplyDeleteJust as global context has prior consistently influenced Iran's development for better or for worse, depending on the new face of liberal democracies sworn enemy (once communism, now Islam), it seems there are three ways in which the world can shape Iran as a nation. The first possibility would be to bend them at our will, which the global powers have been trying to do, but alas have been unsuccessful due to how "viable and well-established" (Kesselman, 591) the country is. The second possibility is antagonize them and alienate them internationally. This option is what we have done, which in turn has created a country that "in the recent past--especially the Islamic Revolution and the eight-year war with Iraq-- has helped create a strong sense of national solidarity again the outside world--not just against the West but also much of the Sunni Muslim World" (591) I wanted to point this out to high light just how much we have to take responsibility for the problems we see in the world. We point fingers at them for being closed off, when we had part in creating them to be this way. The last option (and the best in my opinion) is to wake up to our values and allow them to change for the better. We need to acknowledge the wrong-doings we have had part in and allow them to go back to their original liberal democratic ways.
Good post! The citation of Kesselman is very supportive to the ideas of this post. Moreover, I get that there are three ways in which the world can shape Iran as a nation. The summary of the book also benefits us, which is very accurate and clear.
DeleteWhat parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteIntroduction to western culture was a catalyst for both the Bolshevik Revolution and the Islamic Revolution. During the 19th century in Russia, there was a westernizing movement for the culture. This split the country in half. Bolshevik's held onto the western ideals over those of the Tsar's. The people were inspired by these ideals to revolt against their government in order to change it.
The situation of the Islamic Revolution mirrored the Bolshevik Revolution, only the opposite. They were not the biggest fans of Western culture. One of the many things the current government was deemed guilty of was "...disseminating Western Culture(Kessleman, 589)." They saw Western culture as a threat to their society rather than a boon.
This is very interesting to me. Through my research I did not find this so I feel that it is very interesting that they both have westernizing culture involved in there. I think it is very interesting that two different countries are fighting fro the same type of westernizing movement for Culture.
DeleteIt seems to be a theme in most of history that Western involvement and specifically the involvement of the United States causes many problems that we then blame on them instead of accepting blame. This is an important point when we are thinking about the politics in our country today and the rhetoric of ignoring our past. What I am trying to say basically is that the man in charge really needs to confront our history head on when deciding future policy.
DeleteThis is a very good point. The research that I found did not mention anything about Western culture. So, it's quite interesting on this idea. It's also interesting how we blame others instead of talking charge and accepting that we are to blame in some of the problems that the US has experienced. Overall great idea!
DeleteYes, great points about the Western influence. There are countries all over the world who dislike Americans constant influence. Really good read. I think that the United States is always getting involved in things the shouldn't.
DeleteWhat parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteThe Bolshevik Russian Revolution in 1917 brought the rise of the Soviet Union. Russian Empire collapsed and the old rule was replaced with provisional government. There was a dual power rule where the provisional government and held state power. The Russian Revolution swept away the czarist regime (O’Neil pg194) The Islamic revolution was the overthrowing of Pahlavi dynasty and the replacement of the Persian Monarchy. They seem to be both an overthrow of power of some kind. They are both overturns of power from the people.
This was a very interesting post for me. I really enjoyed reading this post. In the findings that I found I didn't come to the same conclusion as you did. I didn't find the information you did saying there was dual power. I didn't agree with that. Other than that great post and good job.
DeleteI would imagine that in many political societies (such as these two), there are power struggles between conservative and liberal groups... Whether it be conservative religious beliefs, secular and progressive ones, or even things like ethnicity or region, there is always a division of some sort; which often leads to revolutions or overthrows. It's easy to see how it can go both ways here, as both countries have a similar motivation for the power struggle.
DeleteIn what ways can the global context influence Iran’s development from this point forward?
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about Iran’s global influence, we must speak about the big elephant (nuclear bomb capabilities) in the room. The denuclearization of Iran is going to be the only way that Iran will be able to develop with global influence. Iran's economy received a boost when the United States lifted sanctions in 2015 due to the Iran Deal. In February 2016, Iran began shipping oil to Europe for the first time in three years. Four million barrels were shipped to France, Spain, and Russia. Its economy grew 6.5 percent in 2016 thanks to the Iran nuclear deal. Iran is the world's sixth-largest oil producer, pumping three million barrels per day. It exports nearly half that. It expected to double that amount after the nuclear deal lifted sanctions. If the Iran Deal were to be violated, it would crush Iran’s economy. The agreement does not remove many other problems with Iran's behavior. These include its support of terrorism, its refusal to turn over four American hostages, its ballistic missiles, and its human rights violations. But it does make it easier to address those issues, knowing Iran is not a nuclear power.
This post was very interesting to read. I would have liked for you to elaborate more on the denuclearization that you first mentioned. I also found it interesting that they began shipping oil to Europe in 2016. Was this something that they did not do prior? If not do you know why that was? More detail about your provided information would be great! Otherwise, it was very knowledgeable.
DeleteCan religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is impossible but, improbable is most likely. In Iran right now the Shi'ite regime is alienating and antagonizing everyone that does not align with the government held beliefs including those that are Shi'ite but, do not believe the exact way the government does. In Iran the government is disenchanting the very people that put it in power. People are emigrating and portraying their discontent in secular ways. (Kessleman chapter 13) So I believe that as a government it can start and try to sustain and serve developmental goals in the long run the religious overtones of the government will become too exclusive to truly support secular development.
What parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteThe Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a religious overthrow of the longstanding monarchy of Pahlavi in Iran. This revolution showed that religion could be a major mobilizer of political action rather than smaller secular ideologies. The Iranian Revolution was a series of events that began in the sixteenth century of the Christian Era with the adherence of the majority to the Shi'i school of thought.The Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 involved the replacement of the main patron of the Qajar dynasty with a provisional government. The Bolshevik Revolution involved the interest of finances.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p141_Benson.html
Russian history has been characterized by a series of upheavals and changes that have often made life unpredictable and difficult for the citizen. Russia’s political course since 1991 has been profoundly influenced by the fact that the country underwent simultaneous and radical transformations in four spheres: politics, economics, ideology, and geopolitical position in the world. (Kesselman , page 593).
DeleteContemporary Iran faces both major internal and challenges. Internally, the Islamic Republic continues to struggle with the troubling question of how to combine theocracy with democracy, and clerical authority with mass participation. The development of the democratic idea in Iran has been constricted by theocracy. Some argue that Islam has made this inevitable. (Kesselman, page 635)
In what ways can the global context influence Iran’s development from this point forward?
ReplyDeleteIran has been a hot topic in recently. Most of the world accepts Iran as a powerful country. With power comes fear. Currently most of the discussion and fear around Iran is about their nuclear program. I feel that if Iran participated and increased their willingness to work with other countries to have their embargo’s and sanctions lifted. And sets agreements to export some of their massive resource of crude oil as a bargaining cheap would elevate some of the tense. Having Iran be a part of the United Nations helps because it shows their willing to work as a team with other countries for the greater good.
I agree that there takes a certain effort from Iran to increase their reliability and acceptance into the world. There is obviously more they could be doing but I think it is also important to mention that other nations need to change some as well. The engagement of western nations in the region is seen as "viable and well-established", and this pushes Iran into a corner (Kesselman, 591). While I heavily disagree with the nature of their violent responses to Western engagement it is not difficult to see why they made that choice.
DeleteIn what ways can the global context influence Iran’s development from this point forward?
ReplyDeleteI think a huge factor is how Iran chooses to deal with its neighbors and fellow OPEC members. Their nuclear program is also going influence their development. Iran and Saudi Arabia have rising tensions among themselves, all while the middle east in general is an unstable region, it is unlikely that Iran will denuclearize. I would say that with more hostility from neighboring countries and continuous foreign meddling will only encouraging further military expansion.
https://www.thenation.com/article/saudi-arabias-rivalry-with-iran-is-further-destabilizing-the-middle-east/
• Can religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteIran’s government is almost merely based off of religious values. They put religion before almost anything. I believe they can strengthen non-religious institutions and serve development goals, but it is not likely. The great influence religion has on the country makes it difficult to separate religion and politics. Therefore, religion would be implemented into non-religious state institution because of the strong influence religion has on the country. Eventually secular state institutions would be controlled by religion.
I agree entirely. Religion runs deep no matter what culture you are looking at. Realistically, it would take centuries for Iran to completely shift to a largely secular society. Their government has internalized religious code and principles making it difficult to shift not only personal change, but structural change as well. I highly doubt that Iran will separate church and state in my life time.
DeleteReligious identity can sustain secular state institutions in a country like Iran Because the region is developed on theocracy and Islamic principles. Islamic principles are used to determine what type of government and leadership the country wants to have. Therefore, when the foundation starts out with religious principles then it can sustain the institutions. However religious identity rarely is able to serve developmental goals. Religious identity usually has strong indisputed leadership, a small high class, And an extremely poor peasant class like Iran. And in order to sustain the wealth of the top then The top needs the peasant class to stay poor. Ideals like industrialization are not likely to develop and thrive in countries like Iran with their governmental institutions. International trade with countries who judge Iran for their theocratic government hinder trade and growth with the country. Outside influences and their desires to change and mold a country like Iran will always leave Iran in turmoil.
ReplyDelete3. Can religious identity sustain secular state institutions and serve developmental goals?
ReplyDeleteOne of the central functions of religion is to promote the formation and maintenance of identities, so religion has the basic function of constructing individual identity in any society. Religion can stabilize the system of meanings and at the same time reinforce individual's conception of ultimate reality. Identity sanctification For individuals, possessing particular religious beliefs means living in a particular social context and religion is fully capable of maintaining its identity as a stable and continuance. Most Christians regard good deeds as their code of conduct, thus it will pay attention to their personal practice. They advocate charity pay attention to family ties, neighborhood harmony, and actively help the poor. This moral education function of religion has played an important regulatory role in the construction of a harmonious society.
I completely agree with you. Religion has been used since the beginning to control people. Individuals who identify themselves with a particular religion live by a those beliefs. Religion can be used to serve developmental goals and sustain secular state institutions.
DeleteI agree that religious identity can form and sustain certain state institutions, but because the ideals of most religions are based on traditional principles, they generally aren't able to sustain most state institutions. State institutions tend to grow and develop, and change with time. Many of the countries who negotiate with Iran have more liberal stances about marriage, women, and labor which is contrary to the religious traditions. Therefore, not only do the state institutions become stagnant, but also the growth and development of the nation and its economy. The push and pull between religion and states who believe religion shouldn't be included in the government, makes countries like Iran with a lot of natural resources and wealth, have a high poverty class and little industrial or technological growth. But with the capitalistic international theme, even if Iran were to remove their theological principles from their government, there would still be little growth because the wealthy nations will find another reason to exploit the land and the people of their resources.
DeleteIran has rarely not been influenced by the global political climate in recent years. Today is no different and there is no evidence that the future will be either. One of the biggest ways that Iran will be influenced is through oil consumption. A large push from many different countries around the world is to decrease fossil fuel consumption. This initiative could have significant impact towards the Iranian economy because it is so dependent on their oil business. Another area of potential impact is religious dynamics, "in the recent past--especially the Islamic Revolution and the eight-year war with Iraq-- has helped create a strong sense of national solidarity again the outside world--not just against the West but also much of the Sunni Muslim World" Kesselmen et. Al (591). The U.S. especially has played a consequential role in exacerbating Sunni and Shia polarization.
ReplyDeleteThe global context surrounding Iran really narrows down to two big things: Oil production and Nuclear capabilities. Throughout the 20th century, Iran was the number 2 oil supplier to the world. "In Iran oil has been the main engine driving state development and social modernization." (Kesselman, 598) But the draw-back is the non-diversified reliance on one source of main income. Iran has to figure out how to diversify its global economy. The nuclear issue keeps Iran in the news as well with several countries (most notably the USA) maintaining economic sanctions as punishment for their desire to enrich Uranium which may lead to weapon capability.Most western countries fear that those weapons could fall into the hands of Islamic terrorist groups which Iran supports. Iran would need to "provide verifiable guarantees that it is not building nuclear weapons" (Kesselman, 618) if they want to focus on a viable economic future.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Iran's Nuclear capabilites can influence their development based off of global context. Their nuclear capabilities is what makes them powerful and they would be better accepted if they were less capable and agreed to not building nuclear weapons.
DeleteWhat parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteAs a whole i do not think that i can draw a parallel between the Bolshevik and Islamic Revolutions. They are essentially unique to me and the parties involved had different view points and actions. For example (Kessleman, 335) the Bolsheviks were Marxist who lead the formation of the USSR. They functioned under the belief that they reflected the voice of the people/working class. They dominated the state becoming the authoritarians they were revolting against. Whereas with the Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, actually was backed and supported by the working class. "...thousands of young madrassa (religious school) students took to the streets. They were followed by thousands more Iranian youth—mostly unemployed recent immigrants from the countryside—who began protesting the regime’s excesses." (https://www.britannica.com/event/Iranian-Revolution-of-1978-1979).
That sounds like a parallel to me. The connection I get is that the Shah was essentially a Czar. Both leaders exploited their positions to live in luxury at the expense of the masses. The masses of working-class bonded to ideological groups sympathetic to their grievances. And the tipping point for both revolutions was when troops loyal to each regime shot and killed a large group of unarmed protesters led by the clergy: Iran - September 8, 1978 ("Black Friday") and Russia - January 22, 1905 ("Bloody Sunday").
Delete(Kesselman, 586)
What parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeletePart 1
---------
Prior to their respective revolutions, both countries were straining under repressive patrimonial regimes. Patrimonialism is “the injection of private interest into public policy making” (Kessleman, pg. 460). In Russia under the czars, even though the Emancipation Act of 1861 gave the serfs legal freedom and transferred some land holdings to peasants, the “crown and the treasury owned almost 50% of the land of European Russia. The remainder was split between the gentry and the peasants” [1, pg. 24]. It was still a feudal system, and Tsarists authorities kept a tight rein on economic growth in agricultural and industrial sectors through a huge and unwieldy bureaucracy [1, pg. 122]. For example, the land reforms under the Emancipation Act didn't really provide serfs with economic freedom, because the Tsarists feared peasant revolts [1, pg. 24]. And they hampered the development of railroads out of the fear of factory towns developing that would lead to a proletariat revolution [1, pg. 20]. These tensions and economic conditions led to the agricultural revolution of 1905 which prompted the crown to institute reforms. However, it was too little too late. These conditions, plus excessive foreign investment in Russia led to the Bolshevik Revolution [1, pg. 25. Kessleman, pg. 520].
Likewise in Iran, the Shahs’ regime became “one of the largest landowners in the middle east,” and ‘created a patronage system’ that “transformed the royal court into a large military-landed complex, providing work for thousands in it's palace, hotels, casinos, charities and beach resorts” (Kessleman, pg. 588). They created a huge bureaucracy of 300,000 civil servants,” and an army of “more than 410,000” troops. The ruling families private foundation “controlled more than 3 billion dollars and administered 207 large companies active in banking, insurance, tourism, agribusiness, real estate, mining, construction, and manufacturing” (pg. 588). They tried to control the lower classes by competing with the bazaars, traditional middle eastern marketplaces. They establish their own bizarre guilds, newspapers, women's groups, professional associations, and labor unions [pg. 588]. The Shah was trying to create a ‘“white revolution” to forestall the possibility of a communist-led “red revolution” (pg. 588).
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
Part 2
ReplyDelete---------
The Bolshevik Revolution was set in motion by the “educated and privileged, the intelligentsia” who created a Marxist vanguard party to navigate their relationships with the working class (proletariat) and an electoral framework of democratic centralism that “mandated a hierarchical party structure in which leaders were elected from below, but strict discipline was required in implementing party policy once a decision was made” (pg. 522). Overtime , this became an authoritarian structure that lacked “democratic procedures or accountability of the leaders” and was “ bolstered by the vanguard ideology of the party” (pg. 522).
The Iranian Revolution was also set in motion by an educated and privileged class, but one comprised of clerics, led by Ayatollah Khomeini. Contrasted with the Bolshevik Revolution, the bulk of work in the (relatively bloodless) Iranian Revolution was carried out by the masses taking to the streets and included ‘lawyers, doctors, women's associations, the Fedayin, the Mojahedin’ and ‘students, shopkeepers, and craftsmen’ (pg. 591). In 1978 they called a general strike that shut down the entire country, ‘paralyzing the oil industry, factories, banks, the civil service, the media, the bazaars, and the educational and transportation systems” (pg. 590, 591). The vanguard of this revolution were the Jurist’s Guardianship, a body of senior clergy claiming legitimacy through inherited “divine authority given to the prophet and the imams,” and the authority of the Q’uran, rather than through a political ideology (pg. 590). When the revolutionaries tried to ‘offer the electorate a democratic Islamic Republic,’ “Khomeini overruled them on the grounds that [. . .] Islam itself was democratic” (p. 592). Within the next decade, ‘the clerics consolidated power,’ and created a theocratic machine that was scarcely accountable to the populace, until Ayatollah Khatami's reforms began in 1997 (pg 592, 593).
[1] Gregory, Paul. 2001. Russian And Soviet Economic Performance And Structure.
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
What parallels can be drawn to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran?
ReplyDeleteRussian history has been characterized by a series of upheavals and changes that have often made life unpredictable and difficult for the citizen. Russia’s political course since 1991 has been profoundly influenced by the fact that the country underwent simultaneous and radical transformations in four spheres: politics, economics, ideology, and geopolitical position in the world. (Kesselman , page 593).
Contemporary Iran faces both major internal and challenges. Internally, the Islamic Republic continues to struggle with the troubling question of how to combine theocracy with democracy, and clerical authority with mass participation. The development of the democratic idea in Iran has been constricted by theocracy. Some argue that Islam has made this inevitable. (Kesselman, page 635)