Social Forces · 2017 · 32 citations · 0 references
Social SciencesHistoryPolitical ScienceComparative PoliticsDemocratizationPolitical HistoryComparative DemocratizationDemocracyHybrid RegimesPolitical RegimesRegime ChangeTransitions To DemocracyBinary Social ChoiceDemocratic IdeologyExit OptionsHistorical SociologyHybrid Regime FormationPolitical Regime ChangeRegime Exit PathwaysReproduction Of Social Inequality
The title of Misagh Parsa’s Democracy in Iran: Why It Failed and How It Might Succeed promises an explanatory analysis in historical sociology, but it delivers a descriptive account in historiography. The work unfolds in four parts. It starts with the premise that Iran, the only “officially recognized theocracy in the world,” is a historically unique case. How might one read the tea leaves of political change for such an idiosyncratic anti-modern hybrid regime? The author suggests a binary choice: reform or revolution. He proposes comparing Iran to Indonesia, the Philippines, and Egypt (similar cases) and contrasting it with South Korea, which succeeded in attaining democracy and prosperity. Whereas Iran and South Korea’s GDP were similar in 1979 (the year of the Iranian revolution), South Korea’s GDP is now three times that of Iran. What went wrong? Parsa identifies a number of culprits: regime exclusivism, non-democratic ideology, elite intervention in the economy, state interference in cultural affairs, mounting social inequality, and lack of exit options for elites.