Political Psychology
Shohreh Pirani; Sajjad Sharifasgari
Abstract
IntroductionFew people acknowledge that Mossadegh’s political style contributed to the loss of a historic opportunity for Iranians to establish democracy and a popular government. Many of his critics—who were ironically his former collaborators in politics and administration—argue that ...
Read More
IntroductionFew people acknowledge that Mossadegh’s political style contributed to the loss of a historic opportunity for Iranians to establish democracy and a popular government. Many of his critics—who were ironically his former collaborators in politics and administration—argue that the opportunity was lost due to Mossadegh’s approach to the oil issue and his management of domestic affairs. According to these critics, despite his libertarian rhetoric, Mossadegh did not often value the opinions of others. They claim he prioritized his public image over the practical realities of politics, which caused him to miss opportunities to resolve the oil crisis and ultimately led to the downfall of the national government. Furthermore, his critics argue that several of Mossadegh’s actions—such as dissolving parliament, holding a referendum, and even defending himself in a military court—lacked legal foundation. They contend that these actions relied more on stirring up public opinion and gaining popular support. The current study aimed to examine Mossadegh’s personality and its impact on his political decisions and relationship with the people. It tried to answer the following question: How did Mossadegh’s personality influence his macro-political decisions and his relationship with the people?Literature ReviewPersonality refers to the unique identity of individuals. The personality analysis of famous and influential figures constitutes an important area of study. The psychological examination of political leaders, however, is not a new phenomenon; it has existed for over a century. In addition to the evaluations by Freud (Jung, 1939) and Erikson of leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini, recent decades have seen growing interest in studying world political leaders, attracting attention from psychologists and researchers in political psychology (Marshall, 2014). Analyzing the personalities of political figures offers a way to explore the contradictions inherent in celebrity culture (Marshall & Barbour, 2015). The political personalities and actions of leaders are influenced by both the era in which they come to power and their mindset and attitudes toward political realities. For example, Mayer (2012) evaluated the personalities of George Bush and Saddam Hussein, while Post (2010) conducted psychological assessments of Bill Clinton and Saddam Hussein. Following the definition of persona in personality studies, some researchers have focused on the persona as the version of one’s personality presented behind their virtual or public personalities (Giles, 2020). Psychoanalytic theories proved to be useful in analyzing the personalities and actions of two Iranian kings from the Pahlavi and Qajar dynasties. For instance, Coolidge (2001) used Horney’s theory to examine how experiences in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood shaped their behavior as rulers. As an another example, Nettmann (2013) applied Jung’s concept of persona to interpret the stories of Iranian writers.Materials and MethodsThe present study used a qualitative document analysis conducted on library resources. Moreover, it relied on Karen Horney’s theory of personality, along with Jung’s model of persona, as the theoretical framework of the study.Results and DiscussionOne of Mossadegh’s notable traits was his insistence on securing majority approval for his opinions during government meetings or other gatherings, even if these opinions included flawed examples. He was willing to take bold actions, even if it meant facing criticism for not aligning with the British, all in order to maintain his image. Despite the controversy, his actions were of great significance. Many believe that, despite his democratic rhetoric, Mossadegh had an autocratic personality. This inner authoritarianism is thought to have been fueled by his aversion to criticism. Both political opponents and individuals with no political affiliation, including some of his relatives, voiced criticisms of Mossadegh and his personal actions. A key weakness of in Mossadegh’s character was his unwillingness to tolerate opposition. He was one of the most authoritarian figures of his time, and while he may have had internal authoritarian tendencies, he rarely expressed them outwardly. For example, Mossadegh’s susceptibility to illness during sensitive situations, his hysterical episodes, his tendency to wear informal clothing in certain meetings, his avoidance of official banquets, and his handling of prime ministerial affairs all point to a leader who struggled with certain personal challenges.The research findings indicate that Mossadegh does not fit neatly into the heroic image his supporters paint nor the purely villainous portrayal by his critics. Despite his valuable service in the nationalization of the oil industry, which sparked a movement for independence in the Middle East, Mossadegh struggled to shed the mask created by his own acclaim. This façade—coupled with his penchant for seeking attention and admiration (some kind of perfectionism)—hindered a true understanding of Mossadegh’s character among Iranians and led to a missed historical opportunity for democracy, culminating in the 1953 coup d'état and the fall of his government. Had Mossadegh relied on communicating facts to the people rather than maintaining his public image, he might have better sustained his government despite severe sanctions. Maintaining a certain image in the public eye sometimes led Mossadegh to take unconstitutional actions to garner support or to fulfill his popular but illegal demands. His unconventional behaviors, such as wearing pajamas in meetings, resting on his lawyer’s shoulder in court, or fainting in moments of crisis, seemed more aimed at drawing public attention and sympathy rather than pursuing justice.ConclusionMossadegh is an influential figure in modern Iranian history, revered by some of his supporters to the point of near sanctification, with his character seen as flawless and beyond criticism. However, this view is not universally held. On the other side are those, largely supporters of the Pahlavi monarchy, who strongly criticize Mossadegh’s actions and hold a negative view of his constitutionalism, which stood in opposition to the absolute rule of Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah. Despite Mossadegh’s success in leading the movement to nationalize the oil industry, a major achievement in his time, his personal characteristics prevented the consolidation and continuation of this victory. While external factors, such as foreign conspiracies and the tyranny of local agents, certainly played a role in his failure, his image as a great leader also contributed significantly to the missed opportunities.
