The Political discourses in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Possibility and impossibility of reconciliation between them.

In Iranian culture, reconciliation have negative connotations and hence any compromising voice and effort receive some kind of betrayal label. The fact is that our society is not currently in a state of reconciliation, and the misunderstanding of this concept deprives the society of any compromise. It should be noted that political reconciliation as a political act does not mean passivity and submission. Since political reconciliation does not deny political identities, different political parties and streams, while maintaining their principles and values, can reach an understanding with an emphasis on political reconciliation. Regarding the relationship between political reconciliation with dominant discourses in the Islamic Republic of Iran, this article first studies the formation of the most important discourses and how they have become hegemonic, and in the next stage, the relationship of political reconciliation with each of these discourses have been assessed. The main question of this article is: Is there a possibility of compromise between political discourses in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the present circumstances? Regarding this question, the main hypothesis of the research is based on the fact that: although the hegemony of discourses through the process of antagonism makes it impossible to reconcile political discourses, however, discourses can reach a relative reconciliation through the Agonism approach. In Agonism, we are not dealing with “friend- hostile” relationship, but we see a competitive relationship which recognizes the legitimacy of the opposition.  In search of a theory that can provide an appropriate analysis method for this article, discourse-oriented theories, in particular the readings by Ernst Loclau and Chantal Mouffe from discourse analysis, have been selected.