Exploring “Iranian Citizenry” as a Unifying Framework for Iran’s Future

In his book Two Three Words, Aram Hessami offers a compelling framework for understanding the path to meaningful change in Iran: a society composed of three dynamic spheres—civic, political, and economic—each playing a distinct role in shaping the nation’s destiny. His argument, previously discussed in essays on Iran1400.org, suggests that an “Iranian citizenry” rooted in dignity, responsibility, and participation could serve as a unifying narrative across these fragmented sectors.

This article, while necessarily a broad-brush overview, traces the evolution of each of these “societies” over the past century to explore whether such a convergence is possible. Can a shared civic identity transcend entrenched divisions and institutional distrust? And might it offer Iranians, across generations and geographies, a common language for renewal?

Civic Society: From Associations to Digital Solidarity

Inside Iran: Iran’s civic society has deep roots in the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, when associations (anjoman-ha), guilds, newspapers, and educational initiatives emerged to hold authority accountable. Under the Pahlavis, these institutions were often co-opted or suppressed, even as urbanization and modernization created new social actors—students, professionals, and technocrats—who demanded space for participation.

After the 1979 Revolution, the new regime mobilized civic forces around religious ideology but later moved to suppress or control independent associations. Still, professional unions, student groups, women’s networks, and local initiatives persisted. Despite repression, Iran’s civic sphere remains resilient and adaptive, operating in informal, creative, and often high-risk ways.

In the Diaspora: As repression inside Iran intensified, civic society found new expression abroad. Diaspora communities—especially in North America and Europe—established independent Persian-language media, human rights organizations, academic networks, and cultural initiatives that preserved memory and nurtured free expression.

This diasporic civic society often acts as a mirror and amplifier, giving voice to those silenced at home. It organizes petitions, produces research, and facilitates cross-border solidarity campaigns. Technological tools—from YouTube to Twitter to Clubhouse—have turned exilic spaces into virtual civic forums, connecting Iranians across borders in real time.

Yet the diaspora also faces its constraints: fragmentation, ideological rivalry, and distance from local realities inside Iran. While it can powerfully shape narratives and support initiatives, it remains institutionally detached from the grassroots organizing and risk-taking that define civic life inside the country.

In this dual context, citizenship as a unifying narrative depends on shared values and memory and on bridging the experience of living under constraint with the freedom to speak without consequence. True convergence will require empathy, accountability, and coordination between grounded local actors and their global allies.

Political Society: From Constitutional Hopes to Crisis of Legitimacy

Inside Iran: Iran’s modern political society began in the early 20th century with the Constitutional Revolution (1905–1911), which introduced concepts of parliamentary governance, the rule of law, and the idea that state power should be accountable to the people. Although repeatedly interrupted by foreign intervention and internal autocracy, this moment planted the idea of politics as a space for collective negotiation and representation.

Political pluralism eroded under the Pahlavi dynasty, especially after the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. While the era brought significant modernization efforts—from infrastructure expansion and educational reforms to the empowerment of a professional bureaucracy—these advancements occurred within an increasingly centralized and authoritarian framework. The state’s surveillance apparatus curtailed political dissent, banned independent parties, and turned elections into symbolic exercises. As a result, popular political agency shrank, and trust in political institutions diminished.

The 1979 Revolution initially seemed to promise a rebirth of political society, with mass mobilization, revolutionary councils, and the drafting of a new constitution. Yet the resulting system produced a hybrid regime: combining elected institutions with powerful unelected bodies—most notably the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council—resulting in a dual sovereignty structure. Over time, this limited the scope of political contestation and disillusioned many who had hoped for genuine representation.

Efforts at reform, particularly during Mohammad Khatami’s presidency (1997–2005), sparked temporary hope for institutional change. However, the inability to deliver sustained political reform, followed by violent crackdowns on post-election protests in 2009 and again in 2019 and 2022, deepened a crisis of legitimacy. Today, many Iranians see formal political structures as hollowed out, with real power inaccessible and political society as a domain where agency is blocked rather than enabled.

In the Diaspora: Outside the country, political activism has taken on different forms. Over the past four decades, the Iranian diaspora has produced a broad spectrum of opposition groups, parties-in-exile, lobby organizations, and advocacy coalitions. These entities often adopt the language of political society, calling for regime change, transitional government, or constitutional reforms—but they operate without institutional proximity to the state and mechanisms to implement their proposals.

This gap has created what some refer to as the illusion of political agency. While these groups frame themselves as political actors, their lack of accountability to constituents inside Iran and absence of operational power mean they function more as civic voices with political messaging. Some play an essential role in international lobbying or global advocacy but remain disconnected from domestic political institutions, lawmaking processes, or power-sharing arrangements.

Furthermore, internal rivalries, ideological purism, and a lack of strategic unity have limited the diaspora’s ability to build a coherent political alternative. Their political activity is real but lacks the institutional embeddedness that defines a functioning political society.

A future convergence around citizenship must acknowledge these limitations while also recognizing that political society in Iran will only be renewed through bottom-up participation, accountable structures, and citizen-led negotiation of power inside the country. The diaspora can play a supporting role—but not a substitutive one.

Economic Society: From Bazaar Autonomy to Fragmented Capitalism

Inside Iran: Iran’s economic society has long been central to shaping public life and political movements. Historically rooted in the bazaar system, economic actors such as merchants, guilds, and local trade networks maintained influence over commerce and social relations. The bazaar was a market space and a moral and communal institution, tied to religious endowments and civic norms.

Under the Pahlavi regime, a push for rapid modernization and industrialization shifted economic power toward centralized state planning. Land reforms, state-backed industries, and oil wealth fueled growth, but at the cost of displacing traditional structures and fostering economic inequality. Economic participation became increasingly tied to proximity to state patronage, not merit or entrepreneurial initiative.

Following the 1979 Revolution, the new regime promised redistribution and economic justice. In practice, however, much of the economy came under the control of quasi-governmental foundations (bonyads), the military-industrial sector, and networks with close ties to clerical power. Sanctions, war, and political isolation distorted the market, incentivized corruption, and entrenched a system of clientelism that rewarded loyalty over innovation.

Today, economic life in Iran is deeply fragmented. Many citizens operate in the informal sector, navigating inflation, job insecurity, and financial mismanagement. Despite these challenges, pockets of innovation—especially among youth and women—have emerged in areas like tech startups and the gig economy. Still, most Iranians lack access to stable pathways for upward mobility or economic participation tied to transparent rules and opportunity.

The disconnect between economic hardship and state policy has led to waves of protests driven by material grievances and demands for dignity, fairness, and inclusion—all of which are core to a functional concept of economic citizenship.

In the Diaspora: In parallel, the Iranian diaspora has produced a robust economic presence, from entrepreneurial ventures and academic leadership to significant investments in media and advocacy. This diasporic economic society often operates with greater freedom, transparency, and global access than its counterpart inside Iran. It is key in sustaining families, funding civic projects, and supporting cultural production.

However, as the author believes, these economic flows—while meaningful—exist largely outside of Iran’s formal economic structures. They do not pass through Iran’s labor markets, taxation systems, or production cycles, and thus cannot be equated with direct participation in Iran’s economic society. In many cases, this creates a parallel economic space: connected by sentiment and solidarity, but detached from the systemic realities and constraints facing Iranian workers, business owners, and consumers on the ground.

Some forms of diaspora funding—especially for political media or advocacy groups—also reinforce a feedback loop in which symbolic influence substitutes for structural integration. While they aim to effect change, they do not alter Iran’s economic incentive structures or institutional dynamics.

Any serious path toward convergence must begin with recognizing that economic dignity is local. Citizenship in the financial sense means earning, owning, investing, and innovating within a fair and predictable system. While the diaspora can provide support, inspiration, and relief, it cannot replace the hard work of rebuilding inclusive, transparent economic institutions inside Iran.

Convergence: Toward an Iranian Citizenry

Inside Iran: Across a century of upheaval, Iran’s civic, political, and economic societies have each followed a unique evolutionary path, shaped by reform and justice movements and constrained by authoritarian consolidation, war, and structural fragmentation. Despite these challenges, the desire for dignity, participation, and fairness continues to animate everyday life.

Civic actors inside Iran, from student unions to local environmental campaigns, continue to operate under tremendous pressure while preserving the space for a collective voice. Politically, the erosion of legitimacy and institutional credibility has left many citizens disillusioned, yet increasingly imaginative in their dissent. Economically, survival has become a daily act of resistance, as ordinary Iranians find ways to live with integrity despite systemic injustice.

These internal efforts are not coordinated or always visible, but they express a latent capacity for citizenship grounded in experience, not ideology. They offer the raw material for renewal if given the space to converge.

In the Diaspora: The Iranian diaspora, meanwhile, has played an essential role in preserving memory, amplifying suppressed voices, and creating platforms for dialogue. In civic life, it has launched educational and cultural initiatives that deepen understanding. Politically, it has advocated for change, lobbied international institutions, and attempted to build alternative visions. Economically, it has supported families, funded media, and invested in independent ventures.

Yet, as the author believes, this activity, however valuable, must be situated honestly. The diaspora operates largely outside Iran’s formal institutional systems. Its civic efforts are often freer but less connected to everyday risks. Its political speech is often louder but lacks operational mechanisms. Its economic contributions are generous but structurally detached.

The line between “inside” and “outside” is increasingly blurred in terms of culture, language, and digital presence—but not in terms of institutional power. What differentiates participation in a society is not location alone, but embeddedness in the systems of consequence, accountability, and transformation.

Reclaiming Iranian Citizenry

However, one of the most significant obstacles to such convergence is not structural but psychological. As human beings, we have not yet outgrown the virus of prejudice: our instinct for exclusion, rivalry, and factionalism. Whether in civic forums, political organizations, or cultural tribes, we often lose sight of collective purpose and fall into competition for moral supremacy. No institutional reform can yield a just and inclusive society unless this pattern is named and disrupted.

In this spirit, Aram Hessami’s call for a grassroots initiative to build a democratic alternative becomes more than a proposal—it becomes a civic imperative. It invites all Iranians, regardless of location, to invest in a culture of participation, responsibility, and ethical discourse—not as partisans or spectators, but as citizens.

One truth remains if the path is uncertain: citizenship is not given—it is practiced. It begins where people gather to listen, build, disagree with dignity, and imagine a future that neither geography nor ideology can deny them.

---

The Iran 1400 Project invites scholars, researchers, and engaged citizens to contribute their perspectives on the evolution of ideas and institutions in Iran. The goal is to foster the collective wisdom to shape a more just and inclusive future. The author writes not as an authority, but as someone deeply engaged in listening, learning, and helping connect the threads of ongoing dialogue.