top of page
Search

Katouzian's

  • Writer: lchamankhah
    lchamankhah
  • 4 minutes ago
  • 1 min read
Homa Katouzian's books, Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran (translated into Persian) and Iran and Revolution, contain the author's signature ideas, including Iran being a short-term and not a long-term society, and the unpopularity of the word 'compromise' (sāzesh) in Iranian political culture. What Katouzian adds to them is that Iran has already entered its new phase as a long-term society, and that happened by the death of Khomeini in 1989. Katouzian reads: "The passing of Khomeini ended an Iranian short term and began another, but only within the regime itself, since otherwise the Islamic Republic continued to exist long after his death" (2009, p. 354). Because Khomeini was not an arbitrary ruler in the way the Shah and his predecessors were, as he enjoyed some kinds of popularity within society. Also (this is my own observation), the post-revolutionary regime is able to build institutes, which, with the help of ideology, guarantees its long-term and more enduring life after the passing of the ruler). As for the term "compromise", Katouzian believes that it is one of the characteristics of Iranian politics, although "failure to compromise (the hated sazesh) led to a radical result" (Ibid., p. 337).
Homa Katouzian's books, Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran (translated into Persian) and Iran and Revolution, contain the author's signature ideas, including Iran being a short-term and not a long-term society, and the unpopularity of the word 'compromise' (sāzesh) in Iranian political culture. What Katouzian adds to them is that Iran has already entered its new phase as a long-term society, and that happened by the death of Khomeini in 1989. Katouzian reads: "The passing of Khomeini ended an Iranian short term and began another, but only within the regime itself, since otherwise the Islamic Republic continued to exist long after his death" (2009, p. 354). Because Khomeini was not an arbitrary ruler in the way the Shah and his predecessors were, as he enjoyed some kinds of popularity within society. Also (this is my own observation), the post-revolutionary regime is able to build institutes, which, with the help of ideology, guarantees its long-term and more enduring life after the passing of the ruler). As for the term "compromise", Katouzian believes that it is one of the characteristics of Iranian politics, although "failure to compromise (the hated sazesh) led to a radical result" (Ibid., p. 337).

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

©2021 by intellectualhistory. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page