Islamic Revolution in Iran and Egypt

Islamic Revolution in Iran and Egypt-Introduction

Islamic revolution in both Iran and Egypt took quite a long period to be achieved. There were political resistances as state refuse to led Islamist and Muslim doctrines to be used in the countries. In a bid to overthrow the liberal and communist societies, social movements and other tact were applied. Social movements faced resistance due to the fact that Western influence was immense and the political allies were opposed to Islamic leadership. This essay traces the social factors that that delayed Islamic revolution in both Iran and Egypt.

Islamic revolution in Iran is said to have began in the 1960s and it has been evolving from then. Proponents of Islamic takeover in Iran put pressure by using institutions like the mosque, media, and the hawzeh platform. This was in preparation so that if any opportunity occurred, necessary action was to be taken. According to Bayat, (2007) “Similarly, for Mansoor Moaddel, the emergence of the Islamic ‘discourse’ during the ‘episode’ lasting from 1953 to 1977 culminated in the Islamic revolution.”

Islamic revolution in Iran is quite unique in that Shi’a Islamists knew what they were advocating for while at the same time kept criticizing the ruling regime. The Shi‘an Islamists were fed up with Pahlavi rule and instead they wanted a religious government run on Islamic platform.  Islamic revolution in Iran was also affected by other social factors. First, there was increasing preference to secularism amongst the Iranian population. Also, Iran had a number of Western allies who were against Islamic revolution and this acted as a serious impediment.

Another reason for liberalism of Islamic movement in Iran according to Sa‘id Amir as quoted by Bayat, (2007) was as “result of socioeconomic changes initiated by the state. Unable to integrate the disclosed and disoriented groups into its own structure, the state pushed them into the arms of Shi‘a clergy who since the 1960s had been ready to mobilize them.” In addition to this, Iran revolution was thwarted by structural factors besides rising need for social class. These factors were did not comply with the political framework; hence, contradiction of policies that led to conflict of interests.

Social strive in Iran and Egypt failed due to how the mobilizations were carried out. Examples of mobilization are insurrectionary movements which were used in Iran in the late 1970s and social movements. To main objective of the two mobilization methods is to criticize governance of the day in a bid to set up an alternative mechanisms prior to a complete governance overhaul. Social movements are structured and can its sustainability depend on the number of people advocating for change.

Depending on the nature of institutions in a civil society, social movements can take longer time before its ultimate goals are achieved. In Iran, Western power was against such movements that would take governance to social activists. In addition, Iran has had a long lasting conflict between state and religious leaders that led to a final era of revolution. “In Iran, there has been a steady conflict between a relatively weak state and a relatively strong ‘ulama’ establishment,” (Lapidus, 2002).

Liberal movement however, took a shift in 1997 following adoption of secularism and Islamism instead of the conventional utopianism in Iran. Liberal movements was put a lot of pressure on order of governance due to intense demands of intellectuals religious leaders. Also, Iranians became more concerned with the penetration and influence of Western countries.

Egypt experienced a peculiar relationship of how secularism and state machinery coexisted. Though Egypt moved to an Islamic state, the struggle was not easily won because of immense opposition from the state. To achieve an Islamic revolution, there were bitter civil wars as Islamists’ opposition was seriously crushed. Egyptian society had derived its organization from the Turkish Ottoman model; however, difference was only the extent to which Islam was part of the political process. There was also a liberal regime in the early 1920 who were given go-ahead to set up a monarchy under liberal ideologies.

Liberalization failed due to inability of the regime to implement Ottoman model after as they failed to gain full independence from Britain.  Egyptian elites lacked direct continuity with the Ottoman heritage and the military capability, self-confidence, and authority of the Turks, to carry through the kind of drastic secularism achieved in Turkey,” (Lapidus, 2002)  State rule was put to a series of criticisms from the Muslim Brothers who instead advocate for a Muslim-led leadership to carry out political responsibilities of the nation. Islamic rule was also proposed to put to end ideologies of communism and liberalism. Monarch rule was overthrown in 1952 by the likes of Sadat and Nasser among other leaders.

In a nut shell, the role of liberal leaders in opposing Islamic institutions of political leadership is mainly the reason that led to delayed revolution of Islamic rule in both Iran and Egypt. Though Western allies also played critical role in resisting Islamic revolution, change was inevitable due to constant and immense pressure of social movements.

References
Bayat, A. (2007). “Making Islam democratic: social movements and the post-Islamist turn.”
Stanford studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic societies and cultures Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and I.  London: Stanford University Press
Lapidus, I. M. (2002). A history of Islamic societies. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press