Part three of Abbas Amanat’s Lecture Series on the Intertwined Dualities and the Challenges of Modernity in Iran. The intricate balance of power between the Dargah (court) and the Divan (bureaucracy) has been a defining feature of Iranian political history. As Abbas Amanat explores, this tension—rooted in the Shah’s absolute authority and the administrative power of the Divan—has shaped Iran’s governance across millennia, reflecting a consistent struggle to reconcile centralized power with the practicalities of state administration.

The Shah’s Authority: Rooted in Inherent Legitimacy

Amanat traces the concept of the Shah to its ancient Persian roots, meaning “self-worthy” or “legitimate in itself.” Unlike European monarchs, who claimed divine right through clerical intermediaries, the Shah’s authority derived directly from inherent personal qualities and divine favor. This concept positioned the Shah as an autonomous figure, constrained only by the abstract and cosmic principle of Dad (justice).

Shahanshah (King of Kings) further symbolized the Shah’s supremacy, granting him ultimate authority over provincial rulers. Amanat contrasts the Shah with leaders in other cultures, such as the Raja in Sanskrit or the European Rex, arguing that while these figures followed a predetermined religious path, the Shah wielded absolute power over governance and justice.

Visual and literary symbols reinforced this autonomy. For example, in Sassanian rock reliefs, the Shah is shown receiving the farr-e izadi (divine glory) directly from a deity, bypassing any clerical intermediary. Similarly, Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh encapsulates the Shah’s dual role as arbiter of divine justice and a ruler not bound by pre-existing religious laws.

The Role of the Vazir and the Divan

The Divan, representing the bureaucratic apparatus, served as the backbone of the Iranian state. Headed by the Vazir (minister), the Divan ensured the functioning of the empire’s administrative, financial, and military systems. Amanat highlights the enduring nature of this institution, tracing its origins to the Sassanian Empire and noting its influence on Islamic governance models, including the Abbasid Caliphate.

The Vazir: Administrator and Scapegoat

The Vazir, derived from the Middle Persian term vazurg (great), was the Shah’s chief advisor and administrator. Figures such as Buzurjmihr exemplified the ideal Vazir: pragmatic, loyal, and deeply invested in the well-being of the empire. In Persian literature, the Vazir was often portrayed as a mentor to the Shah, balancing the ruler’s absolute authority with the needs of the state.

However, the Vazir‘s role was precarious. Elevated by the Shah, the Vazir depended on royal favor and was vulnerable to court intrigues and rival factions. This dynamic gave rise to the recurring phenomenon of Vazir–Koshi (minister-killing), where powerful ministers, perceived as threats to the Shah’s autonomy, met their downfall. Notable examples include Amir Kabir, whose reforms under Naser al-Din Shah Qajar led to his execution.

Types of Vezarats: Delegatory vs. Confirmatory

Amanat identifies two types of Vezarat (ministerial authority):

1. Tafweezi (Delegatory): The Vazir wielded significant independent power, effectively governing on the Shah’s behalf.

2. Tanfeezi (Confirmatory): The Vazir primarily executed the Shah’s directives, acting as an extension of the ruler’s will.

This distinction often blurred in practice, leading to conflicts when Vazirs with delegatory authority, such as Amirkabir, sought to enact reforms that clashed with the Shah’s interests or threatened court elites.

The Wheel of Justice: A Model of Governance

Amanat uses the metaphor of the “Wheel of Justice” to illustrate the interconnectedness of the Shah, the Divan, the military, and the subjects. In this model:

• The Shah occupies the apex, embodying justice and divine authority.
• The Divan and military enforce the Shah’s policies and maintain order.
• The subjects provide the resources, such as taxes, to sustain the state.

This balance was crucial for stability, as illustrated by anecdotes from Sa’di’s Gulistan. For instance, the just king Anushirvan’s insistence on paying for salt during a hunting trip underscored the importance of fairness and the dangers of exploitation. The “Wheel” emphasized the mutual dependence of all elements in maintaining justice and prosperity.

Historical Patterns of Tension

Pre-Islamic Era

During the Sassanian Empire, the Dargah–Divan relationship showcased early examples of this tension. While the Divan was vital for managing the empire’s complexity, powerful Vazirs often clashed with the Shah, leading to frequent upheavals.

Islamic Period

Under the Safavids, the Divan expanded its role, but the Shah’s absolute authority remained dominant. The concept of dawla (state), introduced during the Abbasid period, reflected the need for a balanced governance model. However, the tension between centralized power and bureaucratic autonomy persisted.

Modern Period

The Constitutional Revolution of 1906 introduced formal structures, such as a parliament and prime minister, to balance the Shah’s power. Yet, figures like Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah undermined these institutions, ensuring the monarchy retained supremacy. Amanat compares Reza Shah’s authoritarianism to Henry VIII’s dominance over his ministers, illustrating the continuity of centralized power in Iranian politics.

The Islamic Republic: A Modern Iteration

Despite the fall of the monarchy in 1979, the Islamic Republic inherited the Dargah–Divan dynamic. The concept of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist) replaced the Shah with the Supreme Leader as the ultimate authority. This shift preserved the centralization of power, with elected presidents from Bazargan to Rouhani facing limitations similar to those experienced by historical Vazirs. The enduring struggle to establish an independent executive branch reflects the deep historical roots of this tension.

Conclusion

Abbas Amanat’s analysis of the Dargah and Divan highlights a persistent theme in Iranian political culture: the tension between centralized authority and bureaucratic governance. Rooted in ancient traditions and shaped by successive historical contexts, this dynamic has defined Iran’s political landscape across millennia. Whether under the Sassanian Shahanshah, the Pahlavi monarchy, or the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, the challenge of balancing absolute power with effective administration remains central to understanding Iran’s governance.

---

In line with the vision of the Iran 1400 Project, which aims to explore the evolution of ideas and institutions in Iran over the past century to foster informed discussions about its future, we are pleased to share a summary of Abbas Amanat’s lecture series titled “Intertwined Dualities and the Challenge of Modernity in Iran.” This series was produced by Aasoo, a non-profit organization affiliated with the Tasselmi Foundation. Aasoo promotes dialogue and tolerance through research, publications, and multimedia initiatives, fostering understanding and inclusion within Iranian society. We extend our gratitude to our friends at Aasoo for facilitating this enlightening lecture series, which addresses the complex challenges of modernity in Iran.

The lectures are conducted in Farsi, and the Iran 1400 Project provides a summary and key takeaways of each lecture in English to engage a broader audience.

• Overview of Abbas Amanat’s Lecture Series on “Intertwined Dualities and the Challenge of Modernity in Iran”
• Part 1: The Evolution of Bum and Bar in Iran
• Part 2: The Evolution of “Iran” and “Aniran” in Iranian Identity