Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Reza Shah Pahlavi: A Comparative Study of Modernization of Turkey and Iran
The bachelor's thesis " Comparison of the Turkish and Iranian Modernization Process: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Reza Shah Pahlavi " deals with the issue of Turkish and Iranian modernization in the interwar period and compares political practices in the modernization of these two Muslim states. The aim of the work is to use a comparative method to clarify the reasons why modernization was successful in the first case and not in the second. The work is based on a comparison of the initial conditions for the start of reforms and continues with an analysis of the key themes of both modernizations. These topics are mainly the roles of nationalism, secularization reforms, socio-economic reforms and westernization. Last but not least, the work deals with the nature of the regime and focuses mainly on the role of leaders Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Reza Shah Pahlaví.
For the comparison of the two modernization processes, the difference between the Ottoman Empire, in which modernization efforts took place for more than a century, and Persia, where the first modernization movement originated only at the beginning of the twentieth century, is crucial.
The Shah's regime became increasingly despotic over time. At the beginning of the government, Reza Shah had considerable public support across sections of society. The urban stratum of the merchants of the base, the intelligentsia, and the bureaucratic apparatus became the support of the regime. Unlike Turkey, Iran became a military regime, where the military not only acted as a law enforcement officer, but also intervened in civilian administration. . The Shah's policy has shown signs of despotism since the 1930s, which was reflected especially in relation to the opposition.
Based on Shils' classification of modernization regimes, Atatürk's Turkey and Iran by Reza Shah Pahlaví are often classified as modernization oligarchies. These are characterized by a strong authoritarian government and certain elements of pluralist parliamentarism, which are, however, only formal. The precondition for the modernization oligarchy is the existence of a strong elite, with an effective tool for maintaining stability, especially the military components, which are often part of this elite.
Since the comparison of initial conditions is decisive for assessing the results of political and social transformation, I will deal in this chapter with a comparison of the rise to power of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Reza Khan. I will try to clarify here the circumstances in which the actors of the coup came to power and, in particular, how they justified their legitimacy. Although these are coups, the question of legitimacy is essential for the maintenance of regimes.
In order to assess the reforms themselves, it is necessary to determine the type of government from the point of view of the holders, which will help to clarify the way in which the reforms were implemented. Both regimes were an authoritarian government led by a charismatic leader. However, the systems differed in the type of formal political establishment ( republic versus constitutional monarchy ) and, above all, in the way power was exercised. Unlike Reza Shah, who exercised power directly or through the established cabinet of ministers, Atatürk ruled through a party he founded, which became a monopoly party. The nature of the regimes also differed in the degree of authoritarianism. Atatürk's regime was undeniably authoritarian, but allowed for broader political participation than the Shah's dictatorship.
In both countries, the period of modernization is inextricably linked to Turkish and Iranian nationalism in its current form. Both nationalisms are characterized by nationalist rhetoric, an emphasis on language policy with the demand for a unified language and the pursuit of national unity, even at the cost of suppressing ethnic minorities. Both Atatürk and Reza Shah based their legitimacy primarily on the principle of nationality. In both states, it is a period of nationalism, or a period of so-called national revival, as defined by Ernest Gellner.
In the secular wave of Muslim states in the 1930s, Turkey and Iran were the leading states of secularization. The nationalist modernists of the Islamic world saw Islam as a reason for backwardness and were inspired by the Western model of separation of church and state, in which they saw the basis of progress. Originally a Western thesis about the negative effect of Islam on material progress, it spread in Muslim intellectual circles at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
One of the biggest differences between Turkish and Iranian modernization is the way the regime is maintained, or the role of the military in the reform process. This factor illustrates well the extent to which the change in society has been imposed by force and the real level of political participation.
In Turkey, there has been talk of a civilian government since 1923, in contrast to Iran, where the military has played a key role a) as a proponent of modernization, b) as a tool for maintaining the regime.
The idea of modernization is based on the theory of all-round human progress, the most visible and tangible result of which is economic development, technological innovation and economic growth, which presuppose later development in the cultural and political spheres. Reformers of the first half of the twentieth century therefore saw the modernization of the state economy and industry as one of the goals of their efforts. The tools for achieving economic prosperity varied from movement to movement, but their common denominator was industrialization. After the First World War, both Turkey and Iran relied on similar economic conditions, mostly from agrarian countries with relatively backward agriculture and an unfavorable economic situation.
Institutionalization, which has taken place quickly and precisely in Turkey, is crucial for successful modernization, especially thanks to the legacy of the partially reformed state apparatus. The pillar of the regime became an extensive bureaucratic apparatus and state party system.
Power is never an attribute of the individual; belongs to a group and exists only as long as the group remains together
The issue of modernization of Muslim states is a separate topic of the theory of modernization. The specific nature of modernization processes in Islamic countries at the beginning of the twentieth century stems mainly from two facts. Firstly, all these states were confronted with the question of the position of Islam in the political system arising from the historical tradition, and secondly, in this area it is also a period of the emergence of nationalism and nation-states. Turkey and Iran, together with Egypt, were among the first countries in the region to embark on a modernization process and whose reforms have to some extent become a model for other countries.
Comparison of the Turkish and Iranian modernization process: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Reza Shah Pahlavi
Comparison of the Turkish and Iranian modernization process: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Reza Shah Pahlavi
Central Asia is an important region, both militarily and economically, in which the great powers are showing increasing interest. The collapse of the USSR resulted in the independence of the five Central Asian republics, which naturally began to seek new allies and partners in the international system. The involvement of world and regional powers did not take long, and the region soon gained a distinctive name: the New Balkans. The strategic position, the rich raw material base, as well as the ethnic and religious composition are motives that continuously contribute to the intensification of the rivalry between the main international players in Central Asia.
In this work, I want to find the causes of Iran's behavior on the international stage and explain this behavior based on an analysis of the relationship between Iran and selected countries, a description of the modern history of Iran and its domestic political situation. The main goal of this work is to analyze the mutual relations between Iran and selected countries. I also deal with the problems that occur in these relationships.
The events of the second half of the 20th century were crucial not only for Iran's domestic political development, but especially for its foreign policy. Oil wealth has given the country a greater ability to influence events in the region. At the same time, oil has made the country more vulnerable, due to its dependence on oil revenue. After the war, dissatisfaction with the activities of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company began to emerge, as Iran had little income from oil miners. As a result, the oil industry was nationalized in 1951, which severed Britain's relations with Iran. An Anglo-American operation then took place to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddek, who sought further reforms. Suppression of demonstrations in support of Mossadek allowed the Shah to return to the country.
Iran's political system is unusual - it combines elements of modern Islamic theocracy with elements of democracy. There are unelected institutions headed by a very influential and conservative supreme leader that complement elected institutions - the president and parliament. There are often disputes between elected and non-elected institutions - reformists and conservatives.
Iran has been considered an important country in the region since the 1970s. During the Cold War, it gained strategic importance. One of the most significant events in Iran's history was the 1979 revolution, which made Iran and its power visible. It affected the security of states and disrupted the organization in the region. Iran became a state that the great powers took into account in implementing their policies. Despite revolutionary ideas, Iranian foreign policy focused on a pragmatic approach - especially after 1989.
Iran is a country that has played a very important role in history - the Persian Empire had a major center in today's Iran. Even today, Iran is trying to gain a leading role in the region. Iran is an important country in terms of its size, population, geographical location and resource wealth. Already in the 19th century, European powers were interested in the territory of today's Iran for economic reasons.
Current Foreign Policy of Iran: Annexes
Iran's current foreign policy is relatively pragmatic. That is why it is an exaggeration to talk about a theocratic regime that is acting irrationally. President Ahmadinejad's statements provoked great opposition and radicalized the face of Iran. However, Iran's foreign policy depends to a large extent on the top leader, who takes a more moderate stance. Due to domestic political struggles between reformists and conservatives, Iran's policy is often based on compromise.
Iran's current foreign policy:
List of abbreviations used
List of used sources
Iran's maritime strategy is an absolutely textbook example of a sea denial strategy. Given Iran's capabilities and resources, it is not only advantageous for it, but practically the only one possible. Although the denial of access strategy is inherently asymmetrical, it makes Iran relatively effective in meeting the main demands of today's navies.
The second part of the article on the war between Iraq and Iran describes the mutual relations and the situation in both countries in the period before the outbreak of the conflict.
In the third part of the article on the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, you will get information about the armament, strength and composition of the armed forces of both opponents.
The storm begins! The next part of the article on the bloody war between Iraq and Iran deals with the outbreak of fighting and the first reactions of world powers.
The next part of the series on the war between Iraq and Iran deals with the successful operations of the Iranian armed forces.
The next part of the series on the war between Iraq and Iran describes the operations in 1981 and 1982, when the Iranians began to gain more and more initiative, but at the same time power struggles broke out between their leaders.
The sequel to the series on the war between Iran and Iraq describes the events of 1982-1985.
The penultimate part of a series on the war between Iran and Iraq describes the events of 1986-1987, including the bloody operations "Va al-Fajr" and "Karbala".
The final part of an article on the fighting between Iraq and Iran describes the events of 1987-1988, including the tragic incident in which a US patrol boat shot down an Iranian civilian transport plane in the area, which it considered as a military one.
They called him a "faceless terrorist." Before Osama ibn Ladin claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001 assassination, the US secret services judged that he, Imad Mughniya, was to blame. Until then, he held the lead in the number of Americans killed in Islamist assassinations around the world. On Tuesday, February 12, his earthly pilgrimage, followed by a great speck of human blood, ended. Whatever one treats, one also lacks. In Damascus, he was killed by a bomb blast located in his off-road Mitsubishi.
The topic addressed in this short article resonates in the last few years not only among experts but also among the general public. However, in relation to the Iranian missile program, several important facts need to be taken into account.
The Iraq-Iran War, also known as the first Gulf War, is certainly one of the longest and bloodiest interstate armed conflicts, not only in the Middle East. In terms of killing, destruction and length, it will overcome only a few conflicts. Despite the fact that it has brought both rival countries almost to the brink of economic, social and political collapse, it is part of their national myth in both countries. In Iran, designations are used as: " Yang-e Tahmili " - forced war, or " Defa-e Mogchaddas " - ( time ) of sacred defense. In Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein, this period was revered as Qādisiyyat Ṣaddām (قادسيّة صدّام) - as a modern equivalent of the battle of Kadisiya between Muslim troops and the army of Sasanian Persia. As a result, it was the trigger for events that culminated ten years later in the occupation of Kuwait and the subsequent confrontation of Iraq with the international community under the leadership of the United States.
The situation in Bahrain remains very complicated, especially in the context of concerns about Iran's growing influence in the country. The following text tries to capture the whole situation from a slightly larger perspective.
The crisis over Iran's nuclear program, which has been going on for several years, has taken on a whole new dynamic in recent weeks, with demonstrations of Iranian navy and armed forces demonstrating the sounds of still rhetorical fire. There is loud speculation in Europe and the USA whether this is no longer the imaginary culmination point that will definitely direct the USA and thus some of its allies to the clash with Iran. The reality is, as is usually the case, much more complicated.
The March parliamentary elections in Iran strengthened the wing of religious conservatives. However, they did not do much good to President Ahmadinejad. His re-election in 2009 is far from certain. The future of the country will be decided by the war of the turbans, the rivalry of the conservative and reform wing of the Iranian clergy. Washington's new White House tenant could help Iranians get rid of the hysterical radical.