Chapter 2

Various Backgrounds of the Iranian Revolution,Characteristics of the Pahlavi Regime

The contributing factors of the Islamic Revolution must be sought in the nature of the defunct Pahlavi regime. In other words, one must carefully examine the characteristics of the regime preceding the Revolution and determine its status in the public's eye as well as reasons why people from most social groups found the prevailing conditions unbearable hence, causing revolutionary conditions to appear in Iran. A cursory look back at the contemporary Iranian history seems in order here. The last despotic king of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was the eldest son of Reza Pahlavi (Reza Shah), and was installed on the Peacock throne in 1941 during World War II, after his father had been summarily deposed by the British and the Soviets who were the occupying powers in Iran at the time. The people of Iran were not allowed a say in either the appointment of the new king, or the deposing of his father. Mohammad Reza was 22 years old at the time.The young Shah who lacked the initiative, insight, and the self-confidence necessary for his position began his reign by only reacting to some events. During this period, because of the tumultuous national atmosphere resulting from foreign occupation, a vacuum of power created after the removal of Reza Shah, the weakness of the army and security forces, a rather open political atmosphere, and the nationalization of the oil industry, Iranians were able to enjoy some degree of freedom in participating in national decisions and their fulfillment. The most important result of this socio-political climate appeared years later in 1950, with the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. In reaction to this, the weak government of Mohammad Reza Shah, colluded with foreign governments who had lost their illegitimate rights and interests through nationalization in their plans for a coup d'etat. It was jointly carried out by the United States and Britain in 1953 and marked the revival of despotic Pahavli rule again. The foreign powers made sure that by strengthening the armed forces and security services accountable only to the shah, his rule would continue without serious challenge.Therefore, the genesis and foundations of the Pahlavi dynasty were totally bereft of Iranian people's vote or approval and the majority of people had no position or role in the important matter of governance. Thus, concepts such as public opinion, political culture, political participation, etc. which would speak of people's theoretical and practical participation in the political process as effective participants in the areas of power and politics were totally meaningless. Instead, the most meaningful words at the time were despotism and dictatorship. Unfortunately, dictatorship has had a long history in Iran and the regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was its modern symbol and incarnation. Modern in the sense that some efforts were made by the Pahlavi dynasty to change the society in a superficial way and blindly copy some aspects of Western societies, especially the American society and its values. These efforts were totally devoid of any research, thought, and planning with respect to deep, elemental reasons a society can be transformed into an active, productive, and dynamic one.In additions to its dictatorial rule, the Pahlavi regime also had other characteristics which gradually became unbearable for the people of various social groups, and this, was also a contributing factor to the ensuing Islamic Revolution.One of these was the hereditary nature of the Pahlavi rule. Meaning, from the king down, all the important positions in government were awarded to the children of the super-rich, the courtiers, and the extended Pahlavi family, and the criteria of meritocracy, ability, and knowledge were the last things to be considered in top government appointments. Another distinct characteristic of the Pahlavi rule was, of course, that it was a personalized monarchy. In other words, the king never thought that elections had anything to do with how he ruled the country, and the people were mere subjects who could not object to any of his decisions, let alone be allowed a role in electing their leaders. The king thought himself the owner and ruler of all that existed in Iran and emphasizing the tired slogan, "king is the shadow of God on the earth," he tried to justify his absolute rule.Yet another undesirable characteristic of the Pahlavi rule was its demagogical nature. In the sense, that Mohammad Reza Shah's regime used the Parliament and political parties as tools at this service, instead of instruments of popular rule and elements of dynamic political interaction. Therefore, both the parliament and political parties were totally subservient to the shah, and were used for strengthening the dreaded police state he had created. In addition both also provided a facade of democracy for display to other countries.^[14]Since the regime that Mohammad Reza Shah headed, and particularly the shah himself, saw no need to be accountable to the people and their needs and demands primarily because they were not elected by them and were dependent on foreigners for support and survival they never provided an atmosphere for creativity and initiative of the people to flourish. Furthermore, because of high oil revenues they did not see any reason to look for new, income-producing ways and means in the country. Their concept of management was limited to distribution a distributive system of management which was centered on the personal profit, whims, and wishes.^[15]The next special characteristic of the regime was its consumerist system of management, in the sense that the government relied solely on oil revenues and seemingly separate from the efforts and wishes of the people and stressed "consumption" only. This sick system extended to other arena of the Iranian life. Our universities too, for instance, simply consumed what was fed them from other countries in their curricula. Since the shah himself was comfortable with copying others and taking orders from foreigners, and since the elite of the Iranian society were also consumerists in every sense of the word, it was not surprising that most Iranians followed this consumerism and even accepted it as a positive norm in their lives.^[16]And yet another characteristic of the Pahlavi regime was its total dependence. As we know, dependence is different from healthy two-way trade, which all societies need and depend on. However, in total dependence, national ideals and identity were demeaned, and were instead, presented as the very reasons for underdevelopment or even backwardness, and foreign specially Western ideals and culture were actively and ceaselessly promoted and advertised.In the words of Amin Saikel the multi-dimensional American presence in Iran was followed by an ever-increasing social and cultural influence. This influence, in turn, strengthened dependence on the United States still further and caused Iran to become quite vulnerable. In the words of former U.S. secretary of state, Henry Kissinger: the Shah was a rare kind of leader from our point of view he was an unconditional ally.Another telltale example of this total dependence is recalled in another episode recorded for history. One of the shah's top officials presented him with a new policy, which only concerned domestic Iranian matters. The shah's only answer to the official was: "But do you think the Americans will accept this policy?"And when former C.I.A. director Richard Helms was the United States ambassador to Iran, the shah decided to shut down various radio and television stations that American armed forces had established in Iran with his permission. When Helms objected, the shah is reported to have answered, "We must take delivery of them, but I promise you that there will not be the slightest change in the time and duration of the American broadcasts."^[17] The forgoing are only few examples of the deep dependence of the shah on the West, and on the United States in particular.And yet another destructive characteristic of the Pahlavi regime was its militaristic nature. The regime of Mohammad Reza shah was militaristic from head to toe to the tip of its fingers and armed to the teeth as no other regime Iran had seen in centuries. Over-reliance on naked power as the means and basis of gaining and maintaining perceived legitimacy was a cherished and long-standing Pahlavi policy.^[18] As we read in Abrahamian's "Iran Between two Revolutions": the shah always looked on the military as his main source of support and backing. He would constantly increase and enlarge his military establishment and personnel. Between 1971 and 1977 he spent the stupendous sum of 12 billion dollars to create a massive military arsenal of unprecedented proportions. He paid special attention to military officers, their training, promotions, salaries, and bonuses, and made a point of attending all military maneuvers."He personally oversaw all promotions of staff officers and liked to appear in most government functions and ceremonies in military uniform. Furthermore, he vastly extended the power and reach of his various security services. In the words of a British journalist, 'the SAVAK [acronym for the once dreaded State Intelligence and Security Organization] served as the eyes and ears of the shah, and when necessary, his Iron fist.' In addition to the SAVAK two other intelligence organizations called, 'The Imperial Inspectorate' and 'Army's Second Directorate' were also at his command."^[19]Thus, not surprisingly, the shah's chief weakness was his disregard and lack of attention to the real needs and demands of the Iranian people. This lack of attention, which extended to political, economic, cultural, and social arena were due to the fact that he did not believe in the Iranian people and their power. Therefore, the elite thought they can think for the people, and the people were forced out of mind and thought. The shah's rule left no role for public opinion or national needs and aspirations.