|
In some ways, a history of confrontation persuaded the proponents of “modern ways” to undertake, for instance, the translation and publication of Western works in order to introduce these views and values into the society at large. On the other hand, the same confrontation convinced the supporters of traditional values to make utmost use of their influence over the traditional sectors of the population— creating a tension in order to place pressure on the constitutionalists. The aforementioned supplement to the constitution was the initiative of a group of people who wished to avoid an all-out anti-constitutional uprising. In this document, they attempted to prove that constitutional monarchy was not at odds with the tenets of Islam. Ultimately, Articles One and Two of the supplement were integrated into the document. These articles declared:
1. The official religion of Iran is Islam and the sect of Ja’fari Asna Ashari (Twelve Imamate Shi’ism) and the Shah of Iran must be a follower and promoter of this faith.
2. The National Consultative Assembly (Majles) may not in any age or time have its legislated laws in opposition to the sacred rules of Islam and the laws legislated by the Prophet of Islam. The discernment of conflict between legislated laws and the Islamic rules should be entrusted to the ulama (clergy). A board of no less than five mujtahids (clerics of higher standing) and religious faqihs (religious lawyers) who are also expected to be acquainted with the conditions of the present age are to be chosen in the following manner. The marjas (sources of emulation) of Shi’ites will introduce the names of twenty qualified ulama to the Majles for the latter to choose five or more from among them as the conditions of the time necessitate and appoint them to a board whose duty is to study and ponder over articles raised in the Majles and reject any article which they deem in contradiction to the sacred rules of Islam.
Despite the passage of the supplement, the gradual secularization of legislative processes continued. In fact, the second article of the supplement was put into effect only for a few preliminary sessions of the Majles, later losing its influence though it was never actually repealed; in more ways than one it was a dead article of law. Nonetheless, the forces of traditionalism still dominated the minds of some members of the Majles. Continued legal obstacles to women’s enfranchisement, for example, serve as prime manifestation of such traditionalism.
Among the laws passed by the Majles in 1909 was Article 10 of the electoral law, which deprived the following groups from the right to vote for parliament:
• Women
• Persons who have not reached legal maturity or are under religiously determined guardianship
• Persons whose “exit from the sublime religion of Islam” has been established before a fully qualified religious judge
• Bankrupt persons by default
• Beggars and all those who earn their living in dishonest ways
• Those who have committed murder and theft and other convicts who are deserving of Islamic hudud (religious punishments for serious offenses)
• Political convicts who have risen against the foundation of the national state and the independence of the country
Article 13 of the same law forbade the following persons from running for parliamentary seats:
Princes of royal blood, meaning the children and brothers and paternal uncles of the reigning monarch
Women
Officers and members of the armed forces
Officers and members of the Police and Gendarmerie
Governors-general and their deputies, heads of government departments, tax officers, heads of the courts of law, prosecutors and prosecuting judges in the area of their appointments and cabinet ministers and their deputies throughout the country. Other government employees may be elected to Majles provided that upon their election, they resign from their post for the duration of their membership
Political convicts who have risen and acted against the foundation of the national state and the independence of the country
Despite the fact that the force of traditionalism continued, the Constitutional Revolution managed to familiarize the people of Iran with novel political concepts. Ideas such as the rejection of absolute rule, parliamentary sovereignty, political parties, popular participation in the affairs of the state and civil society all appeared prominently amid the set of norms and ideas the architects of the Constitutional Revolution pioneered. In this manner, the Constitutional Revolution was not merely a political change, but also was an all-embracing cultural change of sorts. At the same time there were ambiguities in the wholesale call for change. For instance, the philosophical bases of their argument could not logically deprive women from the right to take part in the political life of the nation. Yet the 1906 constitution restricted the right of succession to the throne to the male descendants of the king, thus marked at the outset by an inequality based on gender division.
At the same time, despite such shortcomings, the legislative process remained marked by an overwhelmingly secular course. The judicial structure in Iran was organized entirely on a secular basis, despite the fact that there was significant resistance.
|
