The Quest for Democracy in Iran: A
Century of Struggle against
Authoritarian Rule by Fakhreddin
Azimi
A Book For Scholars, Historians, Political Leaders And Anyone Interested In An
Original In-Depth Account Of The Iranian Socio-Po
The Constitutional Revolution of 1906 launched Iran as a pioneer in a
broad-based movement to establish democratic rule in the non-Western
world. In a book that provides essential context for understanding modern
Iran, Fakhreddin Azimi traces a century of struggle for the establishment of
representative government.
The promise of constitutional rule was cut short in the 1920s with the rise
of the Pahlavi dynasty. Reza Shah, whose despotic rule Azimi deftly
captures, maintained the façade of a constitutional monarch but greeted
any challenge with an iron fist: “I will eliminate you,” he routinely barked at

his officials. In 1941, fearful of losing control of the oil-rich region, the Allies
forced Reza Shah to abdicate but allowed Mohammad Reza to succeed
his father. Though promising to abide by the constitution, the new Shah
missed no opportunity to undermine it.
The Anglo-American–backed coup of 1953, which ousted reformist
premier Mohammed Mosaddeq, dealt a blow to the constitutionalists. The
Shah’s repressive policies and subservience to the United States
radicalized both secular and religious opponents, leading to the revolution
of 1979. Azimi argues that we have fundamentally misunderstood this
event by characterizing it as an “Islamic” revolution when it was in reality
the expression of a long-repressed desire for popular sovereignty. This
explains why the clerical rulers have failed to counter the growing public
conviction that the Islamic Republic, too, is impervious to political reform—
and why the democratic impulse that began with the Constitutional
Revolution continues to be a potent and resilient force.
(20090425)
Personal Review: The Quest for Democracy in Iran: A Century
of Struggle against Authoritarian Rule by Fakhreddin Azimi
Iran is almost constantly in the news today.
One cannot but wonder about it, have opinions, and hear and have to
respond to opinions. For an informed citizen today, Iran is firmly on the
docket of current issues, whether one fears he-who-cannot-be-[properly]-
named [President aeh-meh-dee-ne-jhaud, or, "I'm-in-need-(of)-a-job"], or
chuckles when he shouts out, "Ya, well I won't meet with McCAIN without
preconditions," Iran is there, and always will be - it was an old empire when
Mohammed was born, and a great power went the ancient Greek city-
states were just coming together. Azimi's book takes an incisive look at
the most-currently-pertinent aspect of this great culture: its struggle
towards democracy. 512 pages [really more like 450, when one subtracts
the end-notes etc.] is concise for a serious addressal of a pivotal issue in a
place as complex as Iran. Aside from being a society almost as old as
China, Iran is one of the more nuanced and complicated places on earth.
Contemporary Iran is hardcore-Islamic. But even within Islam, Iran is a bit
of an pariah state - it is Shi'ite, rather than Sunni; even within its own
religion, it has a long history of being a staunch minority, willing to oppose
overwhelming force for what it thinks is right, including its rights - whether
by it is cultural praising of Husayn's valiant martyrdom at Karbala, or a
willingness to defy the world to exercise their right to sovereignty, security,
and prosperity, whether by proceeding with a nuclear program today, or by
resisting the Arab conquests [for centuries in some pockets] long ago. Just
a few days ago, one of my Iranian friends was looking at another book of
mine. He scoffed at the idea that there is "no compulsion in religion." I
argued that although the Arab conquerors didn't always live up to this ideal
perfectly, the Visigoths they opposed in al-Andalus axiomatically
BELIEVED IN religious compulsion, and so, the Moors were a big
improvement for medieval Spain, however imperfect they may have been.

My Iranian friend, however, did not judge the Arab conquerors treatment of
Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia so kindly, however, and lamented the fall of
that Persian Empire. After my Persian-Muslim friend's passionate lecture
about Arab-Muslim oppression of Zoroastrian Persia, I told him, "Merci." In
one of the more anti-western lands on Earth, the language has absorbed
many French words, harkening back to a Persian-French entente, when
Iran, and the heart of the West, were good friends. Iran never ceases to
amaze. Full of the surprises his culture continues to bear, Azimi's book is
full of enlightening - and often unexpected - evidence and arguments. Iran
is too complex a civilization to be understood from a headline; a deeper
investigation is necessary for anyone who likes to think of themselves as a
globally-informed citizen. Azimi's book thoroughly addresses a pivotal
issue in the contemporary Middle-East: democracy - what the American
government has been trying so hard to create there. Today's Iran is a bit
of a theocracy, but also has at least a shell of a working democracy - which
is more than most of her neighbors can say. There already is some
democracy in the Middle East, which not only arose independent of
America but survived our meddling! This book would be fruitful reading for
policy-makers in the region. For Middle-Easterners, it is an opportunity to
learn from Iran's mistakes, and repeat her successes - lessons from a
similar, neighboring country: a closer model than the West's experiences
with democracy. For the Westerner concerned with Iran and her region,
Azimi's book is full of lessons and critical nuance. A pivotal lesson might
be not to derail Iran's own grappling towards democracy on a whim - last
time we did, in a 1953 Cold War oil chess-match, the US overthrew an oil-
nationalizing leader [oil-nationalizing - like Hugo Chaves, - as scary for an
American as Iran's current president, at least]. By overthrowing Iran's
democratically-elected (if bad for American oil interests) government, and
saddling them with the puppet-shah, we have earned their bitter enmity, as
the Shah's reign was better for Washington than for Iran itself. Eventually,
the people overthrew the Shah - their anger boiled over, and the world got
Khomeini, the Iranian Hostage situation, and other upheavels, which, to
say nothing of the strife it as caused Iran, have been bad for America - and
therefore this subject is pertinent to even the most isolationist American
midlander. Excessive, uninformed meddling in Iran is simply bad for us,
and certainly for them. Going in uninformed, policy-makers are shooting
everyone in the foot. Unless they want to risk again making things go from
slightly-bad to much-worse, say, by ignoring a people's sovereignty so that
we can have 20+ years of stability and oil which eventually collapses and
devolves into a people's bitter resentment of us, policy makers should read
Azimi's book. ...Another like it might suffice, but Azimi's is as good as any,
and probably better. His writing informs on a wide range of topics. I met
him once, and walked away with my knowledge of German philosophy and
comparative psychology, increased - as well as my knowledge of the real
subject, Persian history. He has a wide range of ideas to offer. The book
is good writing on an important, widely-relevant topic. Within the subject of
the world today, Azimi's book should be near the top of anyone's reading-
list.

For More 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price:
The Quest for Democracy in Iran: A Century of Struggle against Authoritarian Rule by
Fakhreddin Azimi 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price!