اقتدارگرایی

Contrary to the optimistic predictions following the Cold War about the promotion and consolidation of liberal democracy worldwide, we are now witnessing the expansion and entrenchment of various forms of authoritarian governance. To the extent that, authoritarianism is currently the dominant governance model globally. This reality signifies profound changes in the political and social structures of societies and necessitates greater attention and research to understand its dimensions and consequences. To this end, this research seeks to answer the following questions: What are the distinct characteristics and forms of 21st-century authoritarianism? What mechanisms does it employ to gain and maintain power? What are the differences between authoritarianism in developing and developed countries?

This research employs a mixed-methods approach (quantitative-qualitative) with a descriptive-analytical framework to investigate the dimensions and characteristics of the expansion of authoritarianism in governance. The quantitative section utilizes statistics and data from international organizations such as Freedom House and the V-Dem Institute. The qualitative section, after reviewing and analyzing the findings of prominent researchers in the fields of democracy and authoritarianism, first compares old and new authoritarianism. Subsequently, it compares the ways in which new authoritarianism manifests and emerges in developing and developed countries. The necessary data has been collected through documentary and library resources, as well as statistical databases of international organizations.

Authoritarianism in the 21st century possesses characteristics distinct from its historical forms. This type of authoritarianism generally relies on elections, exhibits limited pluralism, employs less overt violence, and advances more subtly under the guise of democracy. In other words, modern authoritarian regimes, while not overtly despotic in appearance, also do not take steps towards democratization, while demonstrating greater resistance and resilience compared to the past. These regimes avoid actions that would lead to domestic and international condemnation. Repression, mass arrests, and executions are rarely used, and most citizens do not experience direct state violence. Nevertheless, the essence of authoritarianism remains based on the concentration of power and tight control over society, which is exercised through instruments such as the suppression of political opponents, censorship of the media, restrictions on civil liberties, and a lack of accountability and transparency in government institutions. The global spread of authoritarianism, both in advanced countries with a democratic history and in developing countries, has manifested in various ways: the election of populist figures who oppose legal procedures, such as Donald Trump in the United States; the rise to power of far-right figures, such as Giorgia Meloni in Italy; the continued power of authoritarians such as Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey; and the deepening of authoritarianism in countries such as China under the leadership of Xi Jinping.

Based on the research findings, it can be said that the dominance of the democratic paradigm in the form of the third wave of democracy after the Cold War was an unusual and transient phenomenon. This is due to the halt in the progress of democracy and the spread of authoritarian governance models, which have historically been the dominant form of managing societies. New authoritarianism, with its specific characteristics, is becoming increasingly stronger and more prevalent; particularly, young people are to some extent accepting it and may even demand it. Although there is a possibility of internal transformations and a reduction of the grounds for authoritarianism in some countries, evidence suggests that current authoritarian regimes will not easily disappear in the near future.

The present paper is aimed at investigating the intellectual – historical roots of institutional secularization of the Turkish government, and fundamental characteristics and contradictions of the Turkish secularism model (known as Laiklik) during its establishment period. Later on, these contradictions caused major challenges in the Turkish politics, keeping the religion – government gap still an active political issue. Despite the officiality of the Laiklik and the official secular rhetoric, the government’s authoritative interventions into religious affairs, nationalization of Islam, and failure to preserve the neutrality of the government in practice (regarding different religions and sects) are among the most important characteristics of the Turkish secularism during its establishment period. These three contradicting characteristics are among the most important distinctions between this particular model of secularism and the western models of secularism.Considering equal dignity for people with different religious and non-religious beliefs and ensuring conscience – religion freedom have been among the most basic objectives of the secularism. The principle of non-interference of the government in religious affairs and the principle of neutrality are basic instruments for realizing such an objective. In the Turkish model, however, from the early stages of establishment of the secularism (Ataturk Administration), the objectives were pretty ambiguous. During this stage, the secular politics was based on political authoritarianism, extreme ethnic nationalism, and authoritative modernization, of which the secularization was only a part. Accordingly, this model of secularism possessed particular features and contradictions that have remained unresolved till today

The Fourth Industrial Revolution represents a transformative wave in the industry with the potential to impact various facets of human existence, promising widespread individual and societal prosperity. However, it also presents a significant risk, particularly for governments not firmly rooted in democratic principles, who may be tempted to assert control over their citizens due to the expanded capabilities afforded by this revolution. Such a scenario, if realized, threatens the emergence of new dictatorships and erodes the individuality of citizens. This article, employing an analytical-descriptive approach, seeks to explore the multifaceted human rights crises precipitated by these conditions. It endeavors to address the question: How can individual freedoms and human and citizenship rights be safeguarded against governmental encroachment in this era? Based on the results of this research, due to the expansion of capabilities arising from the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the potential for government abuse is increasing more than ever, inviting all political structures towards authoritarianism. Consequently, to prevent this situation and safeguard the rights and freedoms of citizens, the current governance models need to be re-evaluated, emphasizing on aspects of enhancing freedoms. These changes should aim to reduce the intrusion of governments into personal spheres as much as possible, moving towards absolute neutrality.

The Pahlavi government arose from the historical and political conditions of post-constitutional Iran. A period in which, despite the optimism for the establishment of a law-abiding and national and of course powerful government, due to the conditions imposed on Iran from inside and outside, an important part of its ideals failed. Until the emergence of the new government, which was expected several years before the coup d'état of 1299, the intellectual and political grounds were provided, which later became the ideology of the future government in a specific formulation. In order to understand this ideology, this research raises the following question: What are the main components of the ideology of the government in the first Pahlavi period and how do they shape this ideology? Considering the existing situation at that time, there were four components that received special attention at this time, which were: "statism", "authoritarianism", "modernism", "nationalism". Statism was the main component of this ideology that created the all-encompassing institution of the modern Pahlavi state, which caused a fundamental difference in the form and function and even the content of the state compared to the past. The other three components were also linked to "statism" and somehow under its control.

Tajikistan is the poorest country of the former Soviet republics, and its proximity to one of the oldest and most important centers of regional crisis (Afghanistan), along with the provision of suitable political, economic, social and security platforms for the growth of terrorism, has made this country vulnerable. While the closing of the political space and the unprecedented increase in the level of authoritarianism in this country since 2014, due to which the activities of many political parties and groups were banned and a large number of political activists were either imprisoned or forced to leave the country, it has made Dushanbe more vulnerable to terrorist groups In this article, after examining the causes and factors of extremist tendencies in Tajikistan, we will list the operations of fundamentalists in Tajikistan and then we will see why Tajikistan is a good target for extremist groups. We will talk about the strategy of extremist groups in Tajikistan, and we will talk about the Tajik government's plan to curb extremism and strategic proposals in this regard. Then we will examine the moderate groups of Tajikistan (Islamic Movement of Tajikistan) and the extremist groups of this country (ISIS Khorasan) and finally, we will look at the horizon of Takfir in Central Asia.

According to statistics and reports of international organizations, the progress of democracy has been stopped for years and the stagnation, decline and regression of democracy in the world has accelerated. In this article, we tried to answer this question in an explanatory way that why democracy declined in the world? According to the research results, it can be said, changing citizens' attitudes about democracy, mistrust of elected officials, abuse of power, the success of authoritarian models of governance, globalization, neo-liberalism and growing inequality, the Internet and virtual space have weakened and declined democracy. In addition to the decline of democracy in developing countries, the problems of advanced countries such as the increase in living costs, despair of improving living conditions, increasing inequality and polarization of society have led to an increase in populism and the gaining of power by extreme right parties. These parties are against democratic procedures, equality, rights of minorities and immigrants. As a result, it should be said that authoritarianism is increasing and authoritarian leaders in the West are gaining power. Democracy became popular and universal at a time when Western civilization was at the peak of its power and influence. The increasing power of countries like China shows the success of non-democratic models. The West and America in particular are no longer ideal and the developing countries see their ideal somewhere other than the West. In such a situation, the shine of democracy is declining even in the West.

This article focuses on the experience of the Chinese government in using digital technologies to collect and analyze data related to its citizens to demonstrate the effects of using these technologies in governance. The article shows that over the past two decades, the Chinese government has created a mass surveillance system by combining several digital technology-based programs, whose primary function is to collect and analyze massive amounts of data related to the visible and hidden activities of Chinese citizens in various areas of their lives. This mega program aims to create the basis for intelligent governance based on accurate data from citizens. In the discussion of the consequences of this mass surveillance system, the article emphasizes two categories of positive and negative effects resulting from implementing this plan. The positive side provides a basis for designing specific policies and efficient implementation in various areas of governance. On the other hand, it lays the groundwork for realizing a mechanism for the intelligent suppression of citizens that gives unprecedented dimensions to communist authoritarianism. The article emphasizes that these two positive and negative sides are intertwined and inseparable from each other.

The main issue of this article is about the relationship of work and Coronavirus and the changes and transformations that have been created in the field of work due to the occurrence of this global risk and, as a result, have transformed the role of the government; changes that, according to Ulrich beck's interpretation, by removing the standards and certainties of work, such as working in a specific place as a factory or an office and during specific hours of the day, have caused the destandardization of work and turned the global society into a risk global society and caused citizens to rethink the internal and international role of governments. Indeed, Coronavirus By forcing governments to adopt policies such as quarantine, forced suspension of jobs, limiting social interactions and reducing relations with other countries not only led to the closure of many businesses and unemployment of many people, but also by creating the need for a decisive role of the government in order to support different classes of different societies around the world to deal with this pandemic, it widened the scope of government's influence and the field of its social interventions. So, according to the findings of the research, which are the result of documentary studies by using the historical-adaptive approach to compare two different types of government in China and the United States, it can be inferred that with the outbreak of Corona, the liberal model of government is being replaced by a stronger government that is not a type of Chinese authoritarianism, but is an embedded liberalism that combines economic freedom with domestic social support. Some Important works have been written about the political and social consequences of Corona, among which we can mention Francis Fukuyama's article (2020) entitled "Pandemic and Political Order". The author claims that this crisis, like other global crises such as: The Great Recession, World Wars, the 11th September attack, has special consequences which its political dimensions are even more important than its economic effects; Therefore, this pandemic can lead to the intensification of nationalism, isolationism and an attack to the liberal political order. Farhad zivyar and reza khodabandelou(2019) in an article entitled " corona and reproduction of authoritarianism in democratic states" claim that successful experience of authoritarian states such as china in dealing with coronavirus can turn the global desire in to the accumulation and concentration of power and therefore, the closure of democratic space. But what distinguishes this article from other works that have been written in this field is its focus on the work and risks that have occurred in this arena by the occurrence of Corona that has changed the citizen's attitude about the role of government and the philosophy of its existence. In addition, although these works give priority to authoritarian states in drawing the political order of the post-coronavirus world, in this article, authoritarianism has its own criticisms that reveal the necessity of moving towards a middle path in the frame of embedded liberalism. So, it can be concluded that although since four decades ago, the best government is the one that restricts its field of intervention in society and only provides military security in the country, but in the risk situation, not only governments have found an opportunity to expand their interventions in the society, but also citizens have come to the conclusion that their egalitarianism concerns and their comprehensive security may be more important than their liberal desires. So, they prefer governments that deal with this pandemic and its harmful effects in different aspects with a wider range of power. The weak performance and inefficiency of the United States of America as the leader of the neoliberal agenda of the role and duties of the government on the one hand and the success of Chinese authoritarianism in dealing with this pandemic, verifies the accuracy of this matter. Of course, it does not mean that the Chinese authoritarian system is uncritical and perfect and its acceptance by other countries in the post-corona world is inevitable; Because China, due to the special features of its political system, such as complete controlling the flow of information, may be condemned of intervening the private sphere and totalitarianism. Therefore, it seems that balance is a requirement of dynamism, and this dynamism can be seen in the performance of Denmark government, which seeks to create a balance between international economic freedom and domestic social protection. So it's possible that the political order in the post-Corona world should be based on an embedded liberalism that maintains its economic independence and stands on its own feet in the international arena despite being affected by the flow of global communications and exchanges.

Non-democratic Politics, brutality of politics, stable presence of military forces in the eco-political life, institutionalization of authoritarianism, detachment of ideological and strategic thoughts, the descriptive function of democracy in the Egyptian political history had turned politics as the exclusive prerogative of political sovereignty and military forces. By discourse of anti-otherness, attempting to monopolize the politics, and considering the democratizing movements as an action vacating the spoiled fervors of collective actions, this kind of governance prevented to transition to democracy. Affecting by the power structure and the behaviors of the main policymakers on the one hand, and the ceaseless cycle of populist authoritarianism, pseudo-democracy, and neo-authoritarianism on the other hand, the failed democratic experience, and fluctuation of transition to democracy in Egypt is regarded as the triumph of the structure against the agency. Thus, the main question of the current paper is to study why the process of transition to democracy was unsuccessful in Egypt? According to the main hypothesis, policymaking and governance in Egypt are based on undemocratic liberalism. In other words, despite rising the pseudo-liberal creeds in different periods, Egypt has never experienced an institutionalized democratic political life. So, by the logic of historical sociology and the theory of transition to democracy, this paper will test the mentioned hypothesis analytically. By showing up the cycle of populist authoritarianism, quasi-authoritarianism, pseudo-democracy, and neo-authoritarianism in Egypt, the findings show that alienation with democratic values, institutionalized authoritarian values, and lack of democratic culture in the political life of Egypt led to the failure of democratization movements.
As the most populous country in the Middle East subsystem and the third most populous country in the Black Continent, Egypt is one of the main candidates for the transition to democracy. Despite the suspension of political development and the geopolitical and geostrategic instability of the region, the desire for democracy and the effort to transition to a democratic political life is a social and sustainable demand in Egypt. From a historical point of view, despite the experience of democracy in Egypt, the lack of political participation of the people caused the fragility and instability of these movements until the 1980s. But with the transition to the third wave of democracy, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the gradual transition of Latin American and Eastern European countries to democracy, pro-democracy actions in Egypt were pursued more seriously. Studying the history of political and social developments in Egypt as a vanguard of the transition to native democracy is a sign of the emergence of an authoritarian structure and society, which seeks to lay the groundwork for the emergence of political pluralism and democracy by constantly trying to marginalize the hierarchical structure of power. In fact, the growth of social demands, political developments, the emergence of technological and cognitive processes, and the rising waves of globalization caused democracy to become one of the main demands of the Egyptian society. But such a demand is not a one-time thing, but has a hundred years of political history.
The first round of the transition to democracy in Egypt began with the country's independence in 1922, which continued until 1949 despite its fragility and instability. Colonialism, as the dominant logic on the African continent, made no country capable of transitioning to democracy. Now, during the constitutional monarchy of King Farouk in the years 1922 to 1949, Egypt was able to experience a quasi-democratic political system for the first time. Egypt experienced the second period of transition to democracy during the rule of Anwar Sadat. The emergence of various political forces, the support of Islamist organizations and forces, and the application of open-door liberal policies were considered as signs of Egypt's desire for democracy, which leads it to political development and social reforms. But the third period of the transition to democracy in Egypt can be seen as the result of the political and social developments of 2011, when the revolutionaries were trying to establish a new political plan for governance and politics. It is worth noting that neglecting the differences between different periods of transition to democracy in Egypt is a kind of cognitive reductionism.
One of the main differences between the third transition period and the previous two periods is the type of democratic and reformist social actors. In the sense that the main reformists and democrats in the first and second period were the political rulers and the main actors in the national power scene, while the main pro-democracy activists in the third period were the society and the people. Democracy and political reformism in the first and second periods were hierarchical and from top to bottom, in the third period it came from the bottom to the top. Unlike the first and second periods, democratization and reformism in the third period were derived from the cognitive equipping of society and the emergence of the third wave of knowledge due to the existence of social networks. Democracy in the first and second period did not necessarily change the structure of political power, while the rotation of political actors and the relative change in the ruling attitudes towards the society have been the reasons for the third period of transition. Despite these differences, fragility and instability are common features of different transition periods in Egypt. In such a way that after a short period of time, the movement for democracy and reformism was stopped. In this article, we want to pathologically examine the pro-democracy movements in Egypt from 1950 to 2020. This question is raised, why the transition to democracy in Egypt has failed? In response to this hypothesis, politics and governance in Egypt is based on undemocratic liberalism; In this way, despite the emergence of pseudo-liberal teachings in different periods, democratic political life was never institutionalized in Egypt. According to the hypothesis of the research, institutional cultural and traditional habits, unfamiliarity with democratic teachings and the institutionalization of authoritarian norms in Egypt caused closeness with some pseudo-liberal behaviors. These conditions, along with the lack of democratic biopolitical institutions, failed the transition to democracy.
In a summary, it should be said that the political and social developments in Egypt during the post-Mubarak era, especially after the inauguration of Muhammad Morsi, with the relative increase in the level of economic activity and the creation of a platform for the emergence of various political and social parties and forces, promised democracy in the new era. But the lack of strategic vision between the revolutionary coalition forces, the lack of serious commitment of the Islamist, liberal, secular and leftist forces to democratic teachings, seeking power as the main logic of the Islamists in the 2012 elections and tactical alliance with the military to win the election, increasing the political and economic privileges of the military by The ruling Islamists after the election victory, the cooperation of liberal and secular forces with the military in 2013 in criticizing the Islamists, the inability of the ruling political forces to connect strategic thoughts and ideological stances, the distance from democratic teachings and cultural habits ruling Egypt and the cooperation of transnational forces to support The presence of the military in the political and economic life of Egypt caused the transition to democracy to face many challenges in the current era. In other words, Egypt's failure to transition to democracy and the continuation of the cycle of authoritarianism and quasi-democracy is a strategy to control power and stabilize the political position of those in power.

After the Arab Spring in 2011, there was a lot of hope in the Middle East and North Africa to improve the political and economic situation; But what can be seen today is the growing concern and fear of worsening conditions. Egypt is one of the countries that were expected to experience profound political changes after the fall of Hosni Mubarak, and especially to put an end to decades of authoritarianism and inefficiency. However, the course of events progressed in such a way that the previous crises and problems continued, and today we are faced with the question of how to manage the internal and external challenges of this country. It seems that Egyptian managers and policymakers are trying to cover internal and external problems through an active diplomacy and strengthen national pride and identity by implementing ambitious plans. This paper tries to investigate and analyze the subject by collecting the necessary data and evidence through the library and the Internet and with a descriptive-analytical approach. Based on this, first, a review of the internal (economic and political) problems of Egypt is done, and then there are explanations about the issues and events of the southern and western borders of that country. The sum of these discussions will show why the staple of crises has been talked about today's situation in Egypt.

The relation between tribal/ethnic identity and national identity has become a subject of recent studies in Iran. While many consider these identities as mutually conflictual ones, this paper focuses on the mutual operational relations among them and emphasizes that this pattern has been dominant in the post-Islamic period in Iran. The Iranian tribal groups have had remarkable role in many socio-political movements in Iran. Before collapsing in its entirety, Iran’s nomadic tribes were political agents with considerable impact on the country's social and political events. Just as the Iranian Constitutional Revolution divided the tribal forces into the pro- and anti-revolutionary factions, so too the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry witnessed the same political situation among the nomadic tribes. The movement for the nationalization of the oil industry and the 1953 Iranian coup d’état in addition to the political stance taken by the leaders of Iran’s nomadic tribes in reaction to these events are of considerable importance. In the present article, we focus on a case study of Qashqa’i tribal confederacy and investigate the reasons their leaders chose to support the nationalization movement of Mohammad Mosaddegh and fight against the 1953 coup d’état.The main research questions raised in the paper are as follows: 1. What were the political views and positions of Qashqa’i leaders on the nationalization of the oil industry in Iran? 2. What factors influenced the formation of the Qashqa’i leaders’ opinions on this issue and their attitudes towards the nationalization movement in Iran? The research hypothesis is that the Qashqa’i people’s support for Mosaddegh and the nationalization movement rests on three axes: i) a concern about the Pahlavi’s coming back into power and resuming their authoritarianism and the pattern of Reza Shah’s rule; ii) the friendly relations between the Qashqa’i leaders and Dr. Mosaddegh; iii) Qashqa’i leaders believe in the linkage between tribal identity and national identity which led the leaders to prioritize national interest over tribal interest. To answer the research questions and help understand the views of the Qashqa'i leaders towards the historical events culminating in the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry, this paper analyses archival evidence taken from the relevant documents in the National Library and Archives of Iran, specifically the records of communication between Prime Minister Mossadegh and the key Qashqa’i leaders. Furthermore, personal accounts and observations of these leaders as presented in their published autobiographies, memoirs and the interview transcripts in the Iranian Oral History Project are examined.Theoretically, the authors rely on the identity level of analysis and cooperation, rather than on conflict between social and national identities in Iran which had been promoted in the works of the first author. According to Ahmadi’s previous research on the types and degree of influence of the Tribes in Iran’s political activism and struggles, the tribal communities in Iran have been different from the tightly knit cultural or political groups which have habitually been in permanent conflict with the governments. On the contrary, the Iranian tribal groups have had much cultural and religious communality with other Iranians on the national level and have cooperated with different Iranian governments in the past. Iran’s tribal leaders and people have not considered their tribal identity (denoted as social identity in this study) to be in constant conflict with the Iranian national identity. The case of the Qashqa’i tribe and its involvement in the 1951 oil nationalization movement reflect such constructive relations.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and independence, the five countries of Central Asia have been able to endure their independent sovereignty without crisis, conflict, war, and instability. The main question of the present research states: which factor leads us to political and sovereign stability? And what has been the extent of the Soviet Union’s role and influence in this stability? The hypothesis and answer to this question is based on this foundation that the continuity of the former party leaders’ governance, traditions of political patriarchy, and the effective heritage of the Soviet Union in establishing political, civil, and social institutions in these countries have been the most important factors of this stability. Each of the leaders of these republics has tried to establish the foundations of legitimacy and acceptability on the basis of traditions and continue their authoritarian ruling on this basis. The heritage of Lenin and Stalin’s nation-building and Soviet Union’s developmental policies, as well as forty years of governing experience by indigenous people in these countries and its combination with traditional authoritarianism has led to political and social stability in Central Asian Republics after independence. The main purpose of the present research is to understand the political complexities in Central Asia and find the historical roots of contemporary trends and the effect of nation-building process in these countries and a delicate comparison with their neighbor, Afghanistan, which is faced with instability due to the absence of nation-building and the non-effective heritage of Britain. In this research, in addition to benefitting from personal and field experiences, library resources has been used on the basis of content analysis of historical events and sociological perspective.

Iraq and Egypt are known as two important countries in the Arab world. With the formation of the developments in Iraq in 2003, which led to the overthrow of the Ba'ath party, as well as the developments in Egypt in 2011, which paved the way for the revolution in this country, the concept of authoritarianism became more and more important in these countries. The main question of the present study is that what are the most important aspects of authoritarianism in Iraq and Egypt after the change of political systems in these two countries? In response to this hypothesis, although, unlike Egypt, Iraq has had more relative success in reducing the role of the military in the structure of the new political system and strengthening public participation in its policy towards transition to democracy, Egypt after the change of political system There has been more political stability in that country. The results show that in the Egyptian political structure, the military has always been recognized as one of the main pillars. With the developments that led to the revolution in this country, the military continues to play an important role in managing affairs in this country. On the other hand, Iraq has been able to greatly reduce the role and influence of the military in the political structure of this country. Another important point is that the developments in the two countries show the importance of the fact that with the events of 2003 in Iraq,

Various scholars in universities and research centers have conducted studies on the nature of political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI);  and some political experts consider the IRI as an authoritarian regime. In this article, we use the theory of Juan Jose Linz to assess the authoritarianism of the Islamic Republic, given that Linz was perhaps the first scholar to offer a coherent theory of authoritarianism based on his field studies of the contemporary political regimes. He also had looked at  the case of Iranian regime. Using the method of qualitative conceptual content analysis, we examine and evaluate the degree of adaptation of authoritarian components in Iran from the perspective of Linz. The hypothesis of this research is that Jose Linz’s theory  on the ternary components of authoritarianism is unable to explain the political structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The main goals of this study are twofold: a. to assess the place of the Islamic Republic in the classification of types of political regime; and b) to give an unbiased and appropriate answer to those who classify Iran’s regime in the category of authoritarian political entities. Few studies have critically examined the relationship between the Islamic Republic and authoritarianism.The findings of this study show that the components of Linz's authoritarianism do not apply to the Islamic Republic. According to Linz, the components of authoritarianism are the concentration of power, limited political participation, and ideology. Political power in the Islamic Republic of Iran is distributed between the people and the Supreme Leader, who is able to exercise most of his powers with the help of natural or legal persons, or public entities. The leader must make decisions based on the interests of the people and in consultation with experts. The leader's decisions must be made in accordance with the law, but in case of an extraordinary situation (such as foreign invasion or other emergencies) he can have emergency but after the urgency has passed, he must act in accordance with the official provisions of law again. Limited participation in the Islamic Republic has been assessed on the basis of the strict supervision of the Guardian Council (GC) over elections by approving or disqualifying candidates, and claimed to be for the purpose of the allocation of sovereignty to a particular faction or group. This claim is incorrect, because sovereignty belongs to the people in the Constitution, and the GC and other bodies which oversee the elections have to work in accordance with the election law, and are not authorized to favor one faction or group over the others. The Guardian Council has been tasked with vetting of candidates through a qualification process to ensure that they have the requirement for qualification as enshrined in the Constitution (such as  loyalty to the Constitution and believe in Islam, and so on), and it has no veto power. The use of the indicator of ideological governance for the measurement of authoritarianism in the IRI also has two major drawbacks: the rejection of alternatives and the lack of a platform for individual talents to flourish. According to the second principle of the Constitution of the IRI, human dignity and freedom must be ensured through continuous ijtihad as well as the use of human knowledge and experience. Thus, the ground is prepared for the flourishing and diversity of individual talents. For example, in the preamble to the constitution, provisions are included to allow for the use of human experience to facilitate people's relationship to administrative obligations.  In the general policies of the Sixth Development Plan, the creation of e-government has been  prioritized to improve the quality of governance and cope with bureaucratic impediments. In the field of economic activities and fundamental freedoms, government officials and bureaucrats have been obliged to observe laws and regulations in various articles of the constitution, and other legal documents. The authors show the incompatibility of the Linz’s components of authoritarianism with the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and argue that the IRI has a mixed political system of government. They also claim that coordinated government has had a place in the history of political thought, and is philosophically justifiable. Co-governance (shared-governance) is the principle of collective authority and agency, and is a valuable counterpart to democracy.

The political development of the state is achieved by attaining different indicators. In the formulation of the political development of state in the eastern societies, it can be seen that although some of the most important factors of development may appear, but it can be expected that the society is still far from the political development indicators. In this research, an attempt has been made to investigate the trends in Vietnam to achieve political development by using the theories of the political development of state. The main question is that based on different features, how much the level of the political development of state in Vietnam is according to the factors mentioned in the classic theories of the political development raised by Deutsch and Moore including the rule of agents, the rate of urbanization, the rate of literacy, the economic situation, the rule of the social classes and the rule of international actors? According to the results of this research, it seems that the patterns and policies applied in the Western societies to achieve a democratic system could be an instrument in the hand of the politicians in the countries like Vietnam to shape a political development based on an authoritarian approach.

Explaining the dual paradox of anti-authoritarianism-authoritarianism in the opinion and practice of the MojahedinKhalq Organization is the main issue of this article. In this sense, the authors have focused on the mental concern of how individuals might challenge the patriarchal authority of the political order by renouncing worldly attachments and interests, and at the same time, to prove their unquestioning obedience and submission, they renounced the authority and majesty of the "organization" from its “emancipation" that they had achieved in exchange for the loss of everything. In response, this article is based on the claim that Patriarchy culture, by providing the conditions for the formation of political mentality and psychological temperament of members, is reflected in the ideology of the organization and formed its political practice and is trapped in the paradoxical dichotomy of anti-Authoritarianism- Authoritarianism. Hence, the method chosen by the authors to provide evidence and confirmation of the claim is not based on positivist monotheistic logic but based on the necessity of a multidimensional view of political and social phenomena. This article, with emphasis on the importance of interdisciplinary studies, tries to analyze through the lens of political psychoanalysis and using the views of Eric Fromm and Carl Gustav Jung, first the historical, political, cultural, ideological, and economic contexts that act as effective drivers in the formation of social temperament and psychological structure of the Mojahedin Organization and then the roots of the militant-surrender paradox of desire under the influence of centuries of patriarchal discourse over Iranian society in the psyche and actions of the MojahedinKhalq Organization are shown.

Identity Issue was a crucial issue in Post-Soviet Russia between the scholars. Some scholars see Russia as an existing entity tasked with testing different socio-political contexts because identity-building is complex to face serious and new challenges. Contrary to view as mentioned above and other scholars who believe that identity has changed in the post-Soviet era, we say that identity as a dynamic concept is the basis of socio-political actions. While the identity is based on the indicators of "authoritarianism and great power" in Russia in the three historical periods of the Tsars, the Soviet Union, the post-Soviet unions (modern Russia), it has continued and will continue in the future.Research question: How has the collapse of the USSR affected the Russian leaders and nation's perception of National Identity? Research hypothesis: This hypothesis suggests the collapse of the Soviet Union, and although it has changed borders and geopolitics, the perceptions of Russian leaders and nations based on authoritarianism and the concepts of great power have continued.The

Data collection method in this study is based on the library documentary. Analysis of the data will be performed in the format of the interpretative approach of the historic-comparative method, which Theda Skocpol emphasizes. As in this method, historical comparisons are made on the validity of keywords, throughout the article, keywords such as "authoritarianism", "nationalism", "great power", and "national identity" are analyzed in three historical periods. The hypothesis test is applied based on the concept of identity in constructive theory. The theory is based on an interpretive approach and finally the hypothesis is confirmed based on the method and theory.

Russian identity on the basis of authoritarianism factor on the national level rooted in the religious thinking in the Tsar era, which developed under the Byzantine. This thought made to parallel the "God & TSARS" idea. Although dissatisfaction was the main factor among people in the Soviet era, making the industrial economy & overcoming Nazi Germany-made to become Stalin popular more and more even today. Putin created public satisfaction in modern Russia by overcoming internal challenges such as corruption, making rules sovereignty, making security. In addition, Putin called himself a "patriot" increased his popularity among Russians till 2021. Great Power on the international level has been described based on Tsar's dominance over north to south and their expansionism idea as a whole. In Soviet era, the characteristics of power policy changed basically and the leaders introduced themselves as Communist revolution leading and leader of Communism World. Putin understood the “Great Power” concept as a historical & holy pillar of Russian identity. He believed that other powers, especially the West, had to accept Russia and respect him (as a great power) regardless of its economic and technological conditions Studying these facts about Russia on the national and international level from Tsar to the modern era showed that Russian Identity based on "authoritarianism" and "Great Power" has continuously affected the minds of Russian foreign policymakers and nations. So, we can get the result that the collapse of the Soviet Union did not follow independent national Identity.

Studying Russian Identity based on "authoritarianism" and "Great Power" has continuously affected the minds of Russian foreign policymakers and nations. So, the collapse of the Soviet Union did not make following independent national identity. Although borders have changed in the post-Soviet era and new republics have been created, Putin exercised authoritarianism within the (self) state and was accepted by the people within the (other) nation. Russia's position as a great power is a part of Russian Identity, which mainly lies in the Russian identity understanding in the Tsar and Soviet-Union eras and plays a crucial role in the post-Soviet period. In Tsarist Russia, the perception of great power belonged to the leader of the Orthodox world and sometimes its expansion to other regions. The role of Moscow in the Soviet Union is emphasized in the leader of the communist world and finally, Putin understood the "great power" concept as a historic pillar of Russian identity which other powers especially the west has to accept and respect regardless of his economic and technological position. Finally, we must return to the basic hypothesis of constructivists such as Alexander Went, who states: "Identity is a mental personality rooted in the actor's understanding of himself and others. It can be added that border and geopolitical changes have not affected this perception.

Various factors affect the realization or non-realization of citizenship rights, such as public culture. What was studied in this study by descriptive and analytical methods as well as sociological approach was the general culture of Iran and citizenship rights. In general, what are the obstacles to the realization of citizenship rights in Iran? In this study, it was concluded that elements such as mythology, individualism, emotionalism, distrust, secrecy, violence, expediency, superficiality, imitation, tribalism and self-centeredness as part of the general Iranian culture, are the most important factors of non-realization of citizenship is in Iran. The purpose of this study was to carefully examine the general culture in Iranian society, to explain the areas of its impact and obstacles to the realization of citizenship rights.

Between the coup in February 1921 and the occupation of Iran by the Allied Powers which ultimately put an end to Reza Shah Pahlavi’s reign (1925-1941), a series of political and social events occurred that led to the rise of the absolutist state in the country. The emerging form of governance was based on an image of government that influenced the discourse among various political groups and movements, including nationalists, leftists, Islamists and monarchists, and also reflected the people’s everyday life certainties. In this paper, the main research questions are as follows: 1. Was the specific image of government rooted in the worldview of the time and the everyday life certainties of the ordinary people? 2. What important factors in various fields had shaped the image of government? 3. To what extent was this image of government resonated in the fictional books in literature of this period?In the hypothesis, it is asserted that Iran’s modern government in the first Pahlavi period had been formed on the basis of an image which can be found in the most important Iranian novels of the period, and is rooted in the certainties of the daily lives of the Iranian people, and created dichotomies such as authoritarianism/ democracy in the various aspects of life. Using the method of explaining typical characters in György Lukács’ sociology of novel as well as the theoretical framework of Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge, the authors study and explain Iranian expectations and views of  government during 1921-1941 period as indicated in the social novels and stories. As in other fields of art, fiction books reflect the socio-political ideals of the authors and inevitably manifest the existing realities, and circumstances of the society, including each country and region to which they belong. As a consequence, the outstanding works of a certain era reflect the authors’ own ideas about the prevailing situation, criticism of the   disorder   and  malfunctions,  and  suggestions for change  and  reforms Furthermore, the authors’ description of imaginary events or re-narrating real events, characterization and typification, and even description of people's everyday lifestyles in a given time period, reveal their realistic views. According to György Lukács account of the decline of aristocracy in Balzac’s, despite Balzac's personal attachment to this class, he accurately and possibly   unintentionally revealed how  the  emerging   bourgeoisie   was   gradually seizing socio-economic and political power and marginalizing the aristocrats. Similarly, borrowing from Mannheim in Ideology and Utopia, we see two different aspects, the ideological aspect and the utopian aspect, in the top fiction books written between 1921-1941 during the reign of Reza Shah. The former refers to the realistic nature of the stories and the latter to their critical-idealistic feature which reflects the author's specific thoughts and worldview. We hypothesized that the fiction books in literature of this period in both ideological and utopian aspects, have specific worldviews in relation to the image of government in various domains such as domestic, foreign, economic and cultural policies. This was in part proposed by Davood Feirahi.     Among the authors whose works have been examined are Morteza Mushfeq Kazemi, Mohammad Ali Jamalzadeh, Mohammad Massoud, Sadegh Hedayat, Mohammad Hejazi and Bozorg Alavi. They are among the influential thinkers of their time and remain familiar names for Iranian readers. In addition, we studied the available critiques which evaluate the key ideas and interpret the authors’ intentions, and discuss the weaknesses of the works by providing supporting evidence. The interpretations of the authors’ specific narratives, especially the works of Abdul Ali Dastghib was examined in order to better understand these written accounts of the past. The content analysis of these fictions helps to analyze and decipher some hidden aspects of factors in various areas such as domestic politics, foreign policy, economic policy, cultural policy (worldview) which affected the formation and reformation of government. This will in turn help us to understand the advent of dichotomies such as authoritarianism/ democracy, independence/ dependence, public interest/ private ownership, and finally value-normative duality and friction in government and politics of the time. Although these dichotomies initially appeared in this time period, they remained a permanet fixture in the debates in the currents of thought in Iranian political circles. Consequently, the analysis of their roots is very important in better understanding the clashes of ideas and worldviews in Iranian society today and even predicting the probable future developments.