The Historical Analysis of the Theory of Equilibrium Adjustment through Focusing on the Struggle between Absolutism and Constitutionalism

In the first phases of constitutionalism, its pioneers only described and prescribed the western readings from constitutionalism for Iran. However, the scholars and thinker started gradually to present more native versions of modernization of the country’s political structures. Emphasis on the rule of law and separation of monarchy from direct political and administrative affairs had become the frequent issues of the period. These issues eventually facilitated the emergence of power equilibrium in Iran. The theory of equilibrium adjustment sought to limit statesmen’ despotism and establish a constitutional monarchy in the Qajar period in Iran. The discourse of constitutionalism was the result of such a theory that eventually facilitated the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. It needs to be mentioned that the first phases of constitutionalism in Iran were heavily imbued with absolutist affinities of monarchism. Keeping this paradox in mind, the present study addresses it through asking the following research question: Why did not the theory of equilibrium adjustment succeed in establishing true constitutionalism in Iran, leading the scholars towards absolutism and monarchism? Through historical investigation and the adoption of historical and legal framework, the study answers the abovementioned question. The study believes that although Iran’s constitutional movement played an important part in materialization of some political ideals, its imbuement with absolutist ideas challenged true indoctrination of the theory of equilibrium adjustment. The present study looks at the tension between the paradoxical elements of Iran’s constitutionalism within its historical and legal framework.