From Domination to Service

In Iran’s modern history, power has frequently been conceived as a tool of domination—wielded through monarchic decree, military force, or ideological control. Yet an alternative conception is possible: power is redefined as service. As Aram Hessami articulates in Two Three Words, the ethical foundation of authority should be grounded not in control, but in responsibility to others. This article explores the historical evolution of power, authority, and public service in Iran, tracing the transition from localized rule to centralized bureaucracies, and considers how reimagining authority as a civic trust may inform the country’s political future.

Authority in the Iranian context has historically oscillated between fragmented legitimacy and centralized imposition, often absent of consent or civic trust. From tribal elders and royal decrees to clerical authority and ideological vetting, legitimate rule has rarely been grounded in participatory governance. This study re-examines authority through a civic lens: Might legitimacy be reconceived as something earned through transparency, ethical responsibility, and public service?

As Abbas Amanat explains in Part 3 of his lecture series on “Intertwined Dualities and the Challenge of Modernity in Iran”, the enduring tension between Dargah (the court and personal rule) and Divan (the bureaucracy and institutional governance) underpins Iran’s political evolution. Understanding this duality is essential to comprehending the recurring conflict between excessive centralization and persistent fragmentation in Iranian governance.

From Fragmentation to Centralization: Power Before and After the Constitutional Revolution

Late Qajar Period

During the late Qajar period, authority was highly localized and inconsistent. Justice operated through a patchwork of customary norms, religious rulings, and arbitrary royal decisions. Education lacked state coordination, and political structures did not conceptualize public service as a governmental function. Power was synonymous with social hierarchy and privilege rather than accountability.

Constitutional Revolutions (1906)

The Constitutional Revolution of 1906 marked a pivotal reorientation in the concept of authority. A new vision emerged, emphasizing legal codification, accountability, and public welfare. Establishing the national parliament and the Iranian Civil Code laid the foundation for structured, institutional governance. Ministries such as justice and education were created to formalize civic functions. However, religious courts retained jurisdiction over family law, thus preserving a bifurcated legal system. As Amanat discusses in his analysis of Dargah and Divan, this period reveals an early but incomplete attempt to institutionalize authority within a legal-rational framework.

The Pahlavi Era: Modernization Through Centralization

Reza Shah (1925-1941)

Reza Shah’s reign marked a decisive turn toward state-led modernization and national integration. He implemented sweeping reforms that secularized and standardized the judiciary and educational systems, expanded infrastructure, and promoted a unified Persian identity through language and curriculum reform. These efforts contributed to the consolidation of national sovereignty and administrative efficiency.

However, the pace and scope of these reforms often came at the expense of civic participation and pluralism. While religious endowments and clerical courts were brought under state control, the persistence of Sharia in personal status laws indicated the limits of secular reform. As examined in Iran’s Modern Judicial System, these changes strengthened state capacity and centralized authority in ways that curtailed dissent and excluded broader segments of society from decision-making.

Mohammad Reza Shah (1941-1979)

Mohammad Reza Shah continued and expanded many of his father’s modernization policies. The White Revolution introduced significant reforms, including land redistribution, women’s suffrage, and expanded access to education and healthcare. These initiatives contributed to the growth of a modern middle class and significant social transformation.

Yet the political system remained highly centralized and resistant to dissent. The professionalization of the judiciary was offset by increasing politicization, and independent civil society was constrained. Security institutions such as SAVAK reinforced a model of governance centered on surveillance and control. While the state delivered material improvements, the lack of participatory mechanisms and reliance on authoritarian tools gradually undermined the regime’s legitimacy.

The Islamic Revolution: Theocratization and the Bureaucratization of Service

Judicial and Civic Control

Following the 1979 Revolution, authority was reconstituted through a theocratic framework. The Supreme Leader assumed the apex position within a clerical system that embedded religious oversight into all state institutions. Revolutionary courts supplanted civil legal systems, and Sharia-based jurisprudence became the dominant legal paradigm. Trials were often politicized, transparency diminished, and judicial independence was compromised.

As Amanat explains in his discussion of Din and Dolat, this period witnessed the institutionalization of religious legitimacy as state authority, transforming clerical power into a formal governing apparatus.

Despite formal claims to independence, the judiciary frequently operated as an extension of state authority, lacking widespread public confidence. Iran’s Modern Judicial System critically analyzes these issues.

The Illusion of Service

Institutions such as the bonyads—ostensibly created for public welfare—came to control vast sectors of the economy with minimal transparency or accountability. Even as health and education services expanded (notably, through advances toward Universal Health Coverage), the absence of local agency and pluralism limited their democratic legitimacy.

Eric Lob’s article analyzes the particularly illustrative case of Construction Jihad (Jahād-e Sāzandegī). Initially conceived as a grassroots volunteer movement for rural development, it reflected an ethos of revolutionary service. However, its absorption into the state apparatus by 1983 eroded its participatory character, highlighting the vulnerability of service-based authority to bureaucratic co-optation.

Revisiting Power Through the Lens of Service

In Two Three Words, Hessami redefines authority as moral leadership, predicated on ethical integrity, humility, and a commitment to the common good. This conception aligns with ethical traditions such as the Bahá’í teachings—a 19th-century Iranian-born ethical and spiritual tradition—where true leadership is described as “servitude to the people.” These perspectives challenge the deeply rooted association of authority with domination in Iranian political culture. Similar ideals are echoed across other traditions—from early Islamic governance, which emphasized leadership as a trust (amānah), to Confucian and Western democratic thought, where the legitimacy of power is derived from ethical service to the public.

Reframing power as service entails:

• Reconceptualizing leadership as responsibility rather than entitlement
  
• Designing institutions that prioritize participation and transparency
  
• Promoting education that fosters civic and ethical agency over obedience
  

A New Paradigm: Toward Ethical Authority

Realizing this alternative vision would require systemic reforms, such as:

• Decentralized governance that empowers local communities
  
• Participatory budgeting and civic councils to enhance accountability
  
• A justice system oriented around restorative principles rather than retributive ones
  
• Educational reform that cultivates critical thinking, pluralism, and civic values
  

These proposals are not utopian abstractions. They reflect recurring aspirations in Iranian political thought—from the Constitutional Revolution to the early promises of the 1979 Revolution—and persist today in the practices of civil society, grassroots activism, and informal mutual aid networks.

To avoid the fate of initiatives like Construction Jihad, Iran’s future institutions must be both adaptive and resilient, capable of retaining the spirit of service even as they scale.

Conclusion: From Power Over to Power For

Iran’s political history has been defined by repeated attempts to assert power over the people. The emerging imperative is to cultivate models of power for the people. Authority must be reimagined as a public trust, exercised through service rather than domination.

Service, not control, should define leadership.
Justice, not vengeance, should guide law.
Education, not indoctrination, should shape future citizens.

Achieving this vision demands institutional reform and a fundamental rethinking of power and authority in Iran’s civic life.

---

This article is part of the Iran 1400 Project’s ongoing series exploring how philosophical concepts—freedom, justice, hope, power, and authority—can inform Iran’s more inclusive and ethical civic future.

Recommended Related Content