Religious vs. Secular Legitimacy in the Iranian Constitutional Era
Keywords:
Religious legitimacy, secular legitimacy, Shi‘a political jurisprudence, Iranian Constitutional Revolution, constitution, national parliament, discourse analysis, religion and modernityAbstract
This article explores the confrontation between religious and secular legitimacy during Iran’s Constitutional Revolution—an intellectual and political conflict that not only shaped the crisis of that era but also constitutes one of the most enduring fault lines in Iranian political thought. Religious legitimacy, rooted in Shi‘a jurisprudence, posits that political authority must derive from divine will and the clerical representation of the Hidden Imam. In contrast, secular legitimacy is grounded in modern rationality, popular sovereignty, and the rule of law. Adopting a historical-discursive approach, this study reconstructs the conceptual structures and epistemological logics of these rival discourses by examining legal treatises, political writings, and archival materials from the constitutional era. It demonstrates how these conflicting paradigms manifested not only in abstract theories but also in concrete institutions such as the parliament, the constitution, and the controversial clerical oversight clause. The article further investigates attempts by moderate clerics—such as Na’ini, Tabataba’i, and Behbahani—to reconcile the two modes of legitimacy. Despite occasional compromises, these efforts ultimately failed to bridge the foundational rift between the two worldviews. The study concludes that a comprehensive understanding of the Constitutional Revolution is impossible without analyzing this fundamental clash over political legitimacy—an issue that has echoed into the Islamic Republic. The article also suggests directions for future research, including comparisons with post-1979 legitimacy frameworks, to continue probing this critical dimension of Iran’s political development.
Downloads
References
Abrahamian, E. (2008). A History of Modern Iran. Cambridge University Press.
Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception (K. Attell, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Amanat, A. (1997). Pivot of the Universe: Nasir al-Din Shah and the Iranian Monarchy, 1831–1896. University of California Press.
Dyzenhaus, D. (1997). Legality and Legitimacy: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen and Hermann Heller in Weimar. Oxford University Press.
Keddie, N. R. (2003). Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. Yale University Press.
Lambton, A. K. S. (1980). State and Government in Medieval Islam: An Introduction to the Study of Islamic Political Theory. Oxford University Press.
McCormick, J. P. (1997). Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism: Against Politics as Technology. Cambridge University Press.
Milani, A. (2008). The Shah. Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmitt, C. (1996). The Concept of the Political (G. Schwab, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1932)
Schmitt, C. (2005). Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (G. Schwab, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1922)
