Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Sara Sharifpour ¹
• Noori Hadi ²
• Mohammad Reza Gholami Shekarsaraee ²

¹ LLM, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities, Guilan University, Rasht, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Gilan, Rasht, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
The present research deals with the discrepancy between the hypothesized theory of the Asiatic mode of production and the empirical evidence from the Qajar era. Specifically, it explored whether the state–class relationship in the Qajar era can accurately be characterized as oriental despotism (or an Asian state), or it reflects a state where the power of the king was limited by influential classes, such as the clergy, affluent merchants, local nobility, provincial rulers, princes, large landowners, and tribal chiefs. The central focus of this research was to determine whether the Qajar state enjoyed power concentration or operated within a kind of power plurality. In this respect, the central question is: Was the power of the Qajar state limited by social classes, or did it wield absolute and supra-class authority?
Theoretical Framework
The study examined the state–class relationship through the lens of Karl Marx’s theory of the state. Marx’s perspective on the state can be categorized into three distinct models: the powerless state, the state with relative power, and the state with absolute power. Applying these three models, the present study analyzed the dynamics of the state–class relationship during the Qajar era.
According to Marx’s instrumentalist theory, the concept of a class state suggests that both the form and essence of the state are contingent upon prevailing classes. While the state may exhibit diverse variations and characteristics in different historical contexts, it fundamentally relies on classes. In all instances, the state functions as a dependent entity and a tool of the ruling class. Marx presented his theory of the Bonapartist state in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) and The Class Struggles in France 1848-1850 (1850). Marx acknowledges that the state possesses a certain degree of independent power or relative autonomy from the ruling class. According to Marx and Engels, the absence of private land ownership and the existence of large-scale state-controlled water facilities, despite their apparent contradiction, are the defining characteristics of the Asian state, in which the autocratic state machinery exercises control over the production surplus and serves not only as the central apparatus for oppression but also as a tool for economic exploitation at the disposal of the ruling class. In such a setting, “the state reigns supreme.”
As evident, Marx’s triadic model of the state analyzes the state–class relationship at three levels. The model of class state portrays a state that lacks power and relative autonomy from the ruling class. The Bonapartist state enjoys relative autonomy from the ruling class, while the Asian state wields absolute power and autocratic authority over all societal classes. The present research used Marx’s triadic model as the analytical framework to examine the state–class relationship during the Qajar era.
Materials and Methods
This research employed a historical case study approach, which involves gathering extensive information through various data collection methods over an extended temporal span. The collected information is systematically analyzed with the explicit objective of deriving theoretical insights. The documentary research method within the framework of recorded or written history was used to collect the relevant information. There are three strategies for data analysis: pattern matching, explanation building, and time series analysis. Given the descriptive nature of the current case study, the pattern matching method, specifically the type of rival explanations, was utilized. This method involves comparing the historical pattern derived from experience with the predicted theoretical pattern.
Results and Discussion
The central question addressed in the present article pertains to the extent of the Qajar state’s power; whether it was constrained by social classes or characterized by absolute and supra-class authority. According to the research findings, the influential clerics, relying on their social support base, exerted their influence over the state. This influence manifested openly through the issuance of fatwas in significant events such as the Russo-Persian Wars, the Persian Tobacco Protest, or the Constitutional Movement. Furthermore, the clerics often succeeded in establishing common interests through their relationships with statesmen, thereby exerting influence over high-ranking state officials. Notably, clerics comprised 20% of the social composition of the first parliament, which signifies their official entry into the power structure of the time.
Prominent and affluent merchants, particularly in the first half of the 19th century, wielded influence by fulfilling the financial requirements of the state and cooperating closely with it. However, their role evolved in the second half of the 19th century marked by events like the Tobacco Protests and Monsieur Naus, when they joined the protesters and disrupted the country’s economic cycles due to conflicting interests. This class emerged as one of the most influential groups in Iran during the Qajar era. With the establishment of the Constituent Assembly, they secured a significant one-third of the parliament composition.
The influential patriarchs of tribes and the heads of important clans held significant sway due to their independent geographic position and economic resources, military strength, and provision of manpower to the Qajar army. This enabled them to exert influence and even engage in direct conflicts with the state, such as during the Constitutional Movement.
Given Iran’s population structure, which predominantly comprised farmers, the large landowners assumed the role of quasi-sovereigns within the territories under their ownership. Their possession of extensive estates, personal military forces, and substantial incomes derived from landownership, combined with a weak bureaucracy and an inefficient tax system, granted them considerable autonomy in areas under their influence.
Conclusion
According to the findings, it becomes highly challenging to conceive of the Qajar state as the entity possessing absolute power, as Marx suggests as the primary characteristic of the Asian state. In the Qajar Iran, influential social classes, including the clergy, affluent merchants, local nobility, provincial rulers, princes, large landowners, and tribal chiefs, served as intermediary layers that limited the state’s power and prevented the establishment of a supreme master or an absolute ruler. Moreover, the Qajar state, originating from the Qajar tribe, was not practically reliant on the tribe itself or other social classes, so the Qajar state actually employed various methods, such as granting state positions or making discord between tribes, to control and even suppress them. Accordingly, the Qajar state cannot be categorized as a mere instrument of the ruling class or an entity with absolute power. It does not align with the concept of a class state or even a supra-class state. Instead, enjoying power and relative autonomy from the dominant class, the Qajar state could create a relative balance between social forces, leading to its characterization as a Bonapartist state.

Keywords

• Oriental despotism
• Iran
• Bonapartism
• Asiatic Mode of Production
• Qajar

Main Subjects

• Political Sociology