Why Iran does not progress

Why Iran does not progress. Many experts believe that Iran has fallen behind the growth and development that has occurred globally in recent decades, a progress that has become an unattainable dream and impossible for Iranian citizens, and many hold the Islamic Republic responsible for the current situation.

In a two-part series, Iran Gate examines three main reasons for Iran’s lack of progress in the 19th, 20th, and ultimately the 21st centuries. Of course, all three reasons are rooted in the type of governance in Iran and do not significantly relate to the disposition of Iranian society. In the first part of this series, the obvious issues that have always been neglected by Iranian rulers were mentioned, followed by addressing the gaps in the governmental structure in Iran over the past century, focusing specifically on the deficiencies of the rulers.

The present report is the second and final part of this series, which elaborates on two other major obstacles to Iran’s development. These obstacles relate to the gaps in the dual structure-agent framework and naturally have led to the halt of the development process in the country.

Governance centered on conspiracy theories

Iran has never officially, according to accepted definitions, been a colony of any of the great powers in history. However, Iranians have fallen victim to the colonial policies of Western superpowers at various times. Many sociologists believe that this historical harm and humiliation by foreigners have led Iranians to immediately resort to what is called conspiracy theories when faced with phenomena they are ignorant of.

Naturally, Iranian rulers are no exception to this rule, from the first and second Pahlavi to the officials of the Islamic Republic, with numerous instances of their conspiracy-oriented approach evident in Iran’s contemporary history. History will never forget the fear Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had of Western conspiracies, especially from Britain and the USA.

Pahlavi caught in a dangerous theory

A review of the book ‘Answer to History,’ which was written in French by the last king of Iran after the 1979 revolution, clearly shows his strong belief in conspiracy theories. The famous historian Ervand Abrahamian describes the Shah as being heavily involved in conspiracy theories in this book.

To the extent that he believes the main reason for the 1979 revolution was Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s support for the Palestinian cause and defense of OPEC’s independence. Abrahamian believes that from the moment his father was exiled in September 1941 until the day he left Iran forever in 1979, Mohammad Reza Shah was always fearful of Western conspiracies against him.

Amazingly, in this book, the Shah strongly emphasizes the hypothesis that a coalition of clerics, extremist Shia Muslims, communists, the Seven Sisters oil companies, the media of developed Western countries, and finally, most importantly, the governments of the USA and Britain, are the main obstacles to Iran’s development.

It is well known that during the peak of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and on the day known as the 17th of Shahrivar uprising, the Shah had a meeting with the British ambassador in Tehran. It is said that Sir Anthony Parsons, the then British ambassador to Iran, encountered gatherings of revolutionaries on his way to the court, and the demonstrators almost set the ambassador’s car on fire. However, when Parsons reached the presence of Mohammad Reza Shah, the king sarcastically told him, ‘I heard you almost got burned in the fire you started yourself.’ This sentence shows the depth of the Shah’s entanglement in conspiracy theories.

The Islamic Republic and the imaginary enemy

The Islamic Republic, despite its formal differences with the Pahlavi regime, shows significant similarities in the temperament of its rulers and policymakers with the monarchy in Iran. Although the 1979 revolutionaries believed that the Shah was a Western agent in the Middle East, it seems that both sides have similar views towards the West. Both parties believe that Western governments are always conspiring against Iran and the country’s development, and this approach is rooted in the harsh Anglo-Saxon temperament.

Many analysts believe that the anti-American and anti-Western policies of the past 45 years in Iran have roots in the years following September 1941 in Iran, in such a way that it was said the Shah, from the early days of his reign and the society after the 1953 coup, also considered America as one of the blue-eyed conspirators. The excessive emphasis of the rulers of the Islamic Republic on conspiracy theories not only can cause the country to fall behind in the global development cycle but also renders actors passive in influencing their own destiny.

Iranian rulers dreaming of changing the world

According to the slogans and statements of the 1979 revolutionaries, the Islamic Republic promised to change the world, create a paradise on God’s earth, and build a world and afterlife for the Muslim community, seizing full political power. In fact, Ayatollah Khomeini established a system that was supposed to create a world filled with religion, freedom, and justice, nurturing the goal of establishing divine justice and the return of the Mahdi in the world.

However, about 45 years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the established system has not only failed to create paradise on earth but has also made the world a more insecure place than before. Unfortunately, it must be said that this delusion has not only not ended but has continually added to the burdens on the people. Naturally, no expert believes that a country with such governance as described can achieve development. It is even more challenging because almost all experts believe that such a system rapidly distances its country from development and progress.

Struggling for survival

Almost all experts and historians agree that both the Pahlavi monarchy and now the Islamic Republic, after a period of riding the wave of success, soon found themselves struggling for survival. A mixture of ignoring the obvious in governance, reliance on conspiracy theories in the governing structure, and the ideological-driven aspirations of rulers have been the main reasons for Iran’s lag in development. This situation has led to a state where not only is the country not on a path to development, but we are witnessing the system’s struggle for survival. Naturally, no country in a situation similar to Iran, with rulers always worried about their survival, will prioritize development, now or in the future.

Why Iran Does Not Progress

Why Iran Does Not Progress According to Iran Gate, many experts believe that Iran is one of the few countries that had the necessary resources for development in the 21st century, but not only has it stagnated, it is also facing extreme backwardness. Some believe that the Iranian people do not have the necessary capacities for development, while others argue that the governance structure of the Islamic Republic is such that it hinders the country’s progress and development.

Many sociologists believe that the governance in Iran has never been able to put the country on the path of comprehensive development. Indeed, at times such as the 1960s and late 1990s and early 2000s, the governing approach was towards the country’s development, but due to structural weaknesses, this was not realized, and the development process faced serious obstacles. Before the revolution, the Shah and Aryamehr’s despotism blocked the path, and after the revolution, the anti-West ideology and the dominance of the clergy took the country off the development track.

However, the question remains as to why Iran is stagnating and even falling behind in the global development race. Why has Iran, despite having abundant resources, still not managed to even take steps towards development? Iran Gate, in a two-part series, tries to provide a suitable answer to these two questions and inform the audience in this regard. The present report is the first part of this series, which addresses the reasons for the lack of progress and one of its main obstacles in Iran.

We Do Not Recognize the Obvious

Many sociologists believe that for rational governance in a governing structure, obvious factors such as adherence to natural laws, recognition of collective wisdom, technocracy, and understanding of collective interests must be acknowledged. However, looking at the record of governments before and after the 1979 revolution in Iran, one can clearly see the absence of all or some of the above factors.

Significant Gaps

Experts believe that constructive relations with the world, prioritizing the economy over politics, internal consensus for development, and utilizing international opportunities are among the globally accepted basics in development-oriented governance. If we take a step forward, we can observe the absence of factors such as prioritizing the economy over politics or pragmatic foreign policy based on national interests in the approach of the Islamic Republic in governance. Of course, during the second Pahlavi era, some of these elements, including constructive relations with the world, held a special place in Iranian governance, but in other areas, the absence of elements like technocracy or the prioritization of the economy over politics is clearly seen.

The Agent Trapped in a Hard Ideological Shell

Looking at the successful experiences of countries like Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and even China shows that all of these cases benefited from worldly and non-ideological leaders. Of course, almost in all cases, these leaders created an authoritarian framework, but overall, none had an ideological approach to state affairs.

For example, Deng Xiaoping, known as the father of modern China, despite being a prominent leader of the Chinese Communist Party, his performance indicates a completely pragmatic and technocratic approach to governance. In other cases, such as General Park in South Korea, Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia, and Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, this pattern is clearly identifiable.

Of course, regarding Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the element of worldliness cannot be considered valid, but it should not be forgotten that the authoritarian foundation of the Pahlavi government in Iran was so strong that it cornered and nullified the modernizing approach of the second Pahlavi. However, after the revolution, both the founder of the Islamic Republic and Ayatollah Khamenei were from the clergy who had little familiarity with the outside world and even in many cases supported anti-modern and ultimately anti-development thoughts.

Additionally, one should not overlook the ideological nature of the 1979 revolution in Iran, which naturally paved the way for the emergence of leaders representing the ruling ideology. Although in some cases, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is mentioned as a non-ideological and pragmatic figure among the officials of the Islamic Republic, he also recorded traces of revolutionary and ideological actions in his record until the mid-1980s and even early 1990s.

However, despite all this, many believe that among the officials who worked in the governance structure of the Islamic Republic after the revolution, there are cases that serve as suitable models for future generations. Among them, one can mention individuals like Mehdi Bazargan, Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mohammad Khatami, Hassan Rouhani, and even Ali Larijani, as these individuals are categorized among the elites who, in addition to being familiar with the world and its governing relations, also had a significant distance from ideological and revolutionary actions under the banner of the Islamic Republic.

In the next part of the series ‘Why Iran Does Not Progress,’ two other major reasons that are among the most important obstacles to Iran’s development will be addressed.