Blog Discussion Group Ten
Blog post due at 11:55pm on April 10 and comment due at 11:55pm on April 13.
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?
The Bolshevik Revolution took place in November of 1917. The goal of this revolution was to overthrow the government by sending soldiers and armed workers. This strike proved to be successful and the Provisional Government in Petrograd transferred all of its authority to the soviets in Moscow. This allowed the Bolsheviks to gain a strong base of support from the soviets as well as establishing a new federal government to reorganize the empire ruling prior to the revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
ReplyDeleteSimilar to the events that occurred in Russia, the main goal of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 was to overthrow the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran. Protests against the shah began with slanderous remarks from young religious school students and mostly unemployed Iranian youth. The shah was shocked and weakened by the sudden outpour of hatred towards him. He was also afraid of a start of an international conspiracy against him. Eventually, the shah and his family fled Iran allowing the Regency Council to begin running the country during the shah's absence. (Kesselman, et al., 603-605)
When comparing these two revolutions, it is apparent that both Russia and Iran disliked the government that was in place. So, they both used force and protest to try and overthrow the government. Russia's revolution used more soldiers to help them while Iran's revolution used mainly protest and guilt.
I agree with your assessment of the differences between the two revolutions. The Bolsheviks tended to be more aggressive and violent than the rebels of the Islamic revolution. There are also many similarities and I think that you did a good job explaining those.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYour assessment is right on point, although they had the same goal how they went about it was a bit different. With the words you described made it easy to imagine it as today we see a lot of youth protesting and showing their opinions on government around the world. Some South American countries have been experiencing issues with their government and you can see how they are similar to these as well. Brazil have organized nation wide walkouts to show their feeling towards the government which led to the presidents impeachment. The continue to stand together looking for a better tomorrow, and I believe that is how the Iranians went against the Shah.
DeleteI totally agree with your composition of the similarities between the Bolshevik and Islamic revolutions. I did not realize that the Bolsheviks were more aggressive and violent than the Islamic Revolution, but that is absolutely an extremely imperative difference to point out. You touched on some of the same similarities that I discussed and you did a great job picking out the most important points.
DeleteBoth the Bolshevik and Islamic Revolutions were similar in a number of ways. For one, each resulted in the overthrow of a monarchy. Each revolution involved foreign powers, Germany for the Bolsheviks and the U.S. who supported the Shah before he was overthrown. Each revolution started from the idea that order could be brought to a chaotic government and country.
ReplyDeleteThere were several similarities between the Bolshevik and Islamic Revolutions. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia began with a goal to overthrow the Provisional Government with a Proletariat Government (http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/EastEurope/OctRev.html). The Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran was the take down of the Pahlavi dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution). Both Revolutions involved "civilian resistance" or going against the main government of the places involved. Outside forces were used as aid during the Revolutions for back up and other matters. These are some of the main similarities of the two events.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the similarities that you pointed out between the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Islamic Revolution in Iran. However, it is important to note that the Russians used more force and violence than the Iranians did. The Russians used a small militia and killings to overthrow the government while the Iranians just used lots and lots of protest. Very different methods to get the same job done.
DeleteIn both the Bolshevik and Islamic revolution there were clear goals in mind. The governments were not in good standing with the people they represented. Both involved resistance from the general population and a mindset to overthrow the government. Another similarity was the use of outside assistance. They were each successful.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally I would add both the leaders of each revolution was extremely charismatic which contributed to their successful campaign against the ruling governements. And both were heavily influenced by Marxist communism. Lastly each leader adapted communism to suit their country's respective needs and cultural relevancy. Ayatollah Khomeini heavily applied Marxism with Islamic principles of egalitarianism, community, justice, and no greed.
DeleteI do think religious identity can sustain secular state institutions and even bolster developmental goals. It’s a matter of how we're defining religious identity and developmental goals.
ReplyDeleteFirst consider the secularizing rule under the Pahrvadi dynasty. The Shahs increasingly secularized the country restricting the clergy's power over judicial and legislative decisions. They did contribute positively in some ways to Iran's development in terms of infrastructure, education, and land reforms - known as "the White Revolution". However, the Shah and foreign linked Iranian elites benefited from ridiculous policies that dramatically worsened the wealth gap. The founding Shah Reza, "had used coercion, confiscation, and diversion of irrigation water to make himself one of the largest landowners in the Middle East. This wealth transformed the Shah’s imperial court into a large military-monied complex…" (602). His rule could be an example of how pure state secularism isn't necessarily the ideal in establishing state institutions and country development.
I know things didn't play out exactly as Ayatollah Khomeini perfectly envisioned but the man had good points. Applying a heavily religious lens Khomeini re-politisized Islam using it as a guide/source for governmental reform. Khomeini argued that Islam and democracy were compatible" (602). He rightly critiqued the Shah's greedy secular rule which operated counter to country wide development and "secular state institutions" did little to help the people in need. Other intellectuals like Jalal Al-e Ahmad and Ali Shariati echoed Khomeini's views. They all saw that "the ruling class was destroying Iran by mindlessly imitating the West; neglecting the peasantry; showing contempt for popular religion; worshipping mechanization, regimentation, and industrialization; and flooding the country with foreign ideas, tastes, luxury items, and mass- consumption goods" (614). Jalal "stressed that developing countries such as Iran could survive this “plague” of Western imperialism only by returning to their cultural roots and developing a self-reliant society, especially a fully independent economy" (614). This is all to say that the Islamic Revolution was not grounded in simple minded religious fundamentalism. Everyone from academics to clerics associated liberal modernization with imperialism - the root of their social problems. And many saw Islam as a social, political, and economic remedy.
Also under Iran's complex theocratic/democratic regime the country has developed significantly. There were improvements in health, life expectancy, literacy which suggests that institutions such as public health and education were also successful. The state using a religious identity is still able to create policies flexible and responsive to the people's needs. For example mass population growth was stopped by state policies that reopened birth clinics, and incentivized smaller family sizes.
President Rouhani ran on a reform platform which "emphasized the need for 'cautious realism,' “moderation,'… ‘hope’; ‘economic well-being’ … and greater interaction with the outside world and “normalization of relations,” especially with the United States and the West; as well as the importance of citizen’s rights and gender equality" (622). Which is to suggest that even under an authoritative theocracy there's still much flexibility at different levels of the state to implement a wide variety of policies and different approaches to development. Iran has a robust bureaucracy which operate to serve the people/country's interests. The implementation of conservative interpretations of shari'a law in the judiciary has also decreased over the years due to resistance. Guided by religious identity, although there are many places were Iran may improve, Islam isn't stopping this country from functioning and development.
I agree with your comment. It is very interesting that two different approaches were able to achieve the same goal. I also noticed the similarities between the revolutions and found that the differences were very important. i also believe it is important to mention the exact world aids support that was offered that led to their success.
ReplyDelete