Iran, an Exception to Modernization

Joel Migdal's analysis on the state provides some interesting insights into Iranian history. He notes that the first acts of modern European states were to create a standing army, an efficient tax collecting system, and an expanded set of judicial courts in order to consolidate control. They were the keys to greater societal mobilization that could bring greater international clout. Reza Shah and Muhammad Reza Shah sought to institute similar reforms, modernizing the military, revising the tax system, and westernizing the courts. Certainly, these aims were quite successful. Throughout the years leading up to the Islamic Revolution and during the revolution itself, the army always maintained loyalty to the Shah.

Military control, however, is different than social control. Although Muhammad Reza Shah had an army that unquestionably supported him, he never quite understood what Iranians wanted. The shah spoke of the bazaars, a traditionally important merchant group in Iran, in a way that seemed to ignore Iranian history. He described them as "a fanatical lot, highly resistant to change." Indeed, he even said that "their time is past". And therefore, regardless of what the bazaars wanted, he would persist on his path to modernity. The Iranians, in contrast to the example of India, Egypt, and Israel of the same time period, did not want to follow along. The determination of the Shah to modernize managed to create a reactionary tendency in many Iranians to avoid modernity, with some, in complete opposition to the Shah's reasoning, saw a return to strict Islamic principles as the only way Iran could actually flourish. For a leader to be truly powerful influential, this canyon between the Shah and Iranians demonstrates, he/she must maintain some favor in the eyes of at least some of his/her population

Iran provides some lessons to other states, particularly those in the Middle East. Forced mobilization is different social mobilization. One country in particular is walking a fine line. Egypt, which is seeing a growth of Islamic civil society, has a constitution which claims that any legislation must be in accordance with Islam. On the other hand, political parties with a religious agenda are banned. If Egypt does not accept the tendencies of its population, it might soon spark a reactionary attitude, similar to that of the Islamic Republic.