نشریه پژوهش سیاست نظری
پیاپی 29 (بهار و تابستان 1400)

Due to the appearance of the virtual world in recent decades, human life encountered a deep transformation which has led to a new life-typology and hence an alternative human-life. In such a world, the new societies, with bonds other than the classical socio-geographical-political, connect people from all around the world in a new-established social order and even simultaneously in different societies. However, the point is due to the nature of the virtual world, such societies are not based on any human needs, but only the man’s desire which motivates him to subscribe to a new-established society in which solely the founders are the legitimate law-makers. So, unlike the real society, in such societies, due to the state of exception, the authority can issue any regulative rules and all the members are obliged to obey. Exploring the intellectual aspects of the human desire to voluntarily obey this kind of authority, the present study attempts to develop an alternative approach in which the members are allowed to actively participate in social ordering and restrict the exceptional attributions to the authority.

Throughout history, numerous movements have been formed in various societies, and after almost all of them, thinkers have emerged who have judged the failure of that movement and theorized it. Therefore, this question arises as to why, despite the influence of movements, the subject is persuaded to its failure? To find the answer, Jacques Lacan's psycho-socio-political theories, which have a post-structural background, have been used as a method. Also, the constitutional movement, as an example, has been chosen as a case study for applying Lacan theories. The possible answer to this question, based on Lacan theories, refers to the importance of the subject's desire and fantasy in human dynamism and movement. The research findings show that the subject's belief in failure is inevitable. But this belief is not related to reality but is rooted in the perpetual and ontological gap between the subject and the other.

One of the fundamental issues in contemporary political and economic thought concerns the relationship and consistency between one’s social duties and personal liberties, and different schools have suggested their views on the matter. From a normative point of view, arguments offered by modern reformist liberalism have attracted more attention in this respect. The positions of John Stuart Mill, as one of the pioneers and influential, and Amartya Kumar Sen as one of the most recent liberal reformists with respect to the idea of welfare, have been at the center of attention for several decades. Here we discuss and analyze the relationship of the concepts of individual liberty and social welfare as argued by them by employing a comparative approach, in order to provide a more elaborate picture of such a relationship. It is shown here that albeit using different methods and approaches, they share similar theoretical starting points and goals on the matter. For Mill, the liberty of the individual and society is viewed as a vital means for achieving happiness. While Mill employs a utilitarian approach to human happiness, offering a critique on utilitarianism and focusing rather on the capability approach, Sen holds that individual and social happiness would best be achieved through providing equal opportunities for free choice for the members of the society. A closer look at the arguments offered by Mill and Sen indicates that, based on the concept of the free and informed modern subject, they both believe that social and political development will improve an individual and social happiness will be better achieved by focusing on individual liberties.

Basically, the issue of democratization and consolidation of democracy has been the main concern of humanity, especially intellectuals and philosophers throughout history; because, firstly, democracy is the most effective system for achieving balance and only order involves the least evil, and secondly, in the words of Alfred Smith, all the failures of democracy can be cured with more democracy. However, the rate and percentage of failures and defects are not the same in all countries; For this reason, it is necessary to analyze the systems that have fulfilled all the conditions of democracy to a great extent, the systems that have fulfilled some of the conditions of democracy and the systems that sometimes even have the minimum conditions of democracy. Systems with the first feature are usually democratized, systems with the second feature are hybrid, and systems with the third feature are undemocratic. Each of these governance methods has a direct or indirect relationship with the process of democratization and the consolidation of democracy. In principle, the main problem and question in this research are to explain the relationship between "governmental method" and "the process of democratization and consolidation of democracy" (problem and question). Achieving this goal is pursued with the help of "descriptive-analytical" methods and using the library and digital resources (method). It seems that among the various models of democracy, "minimal democracy" is more closely related to the governing periods of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and "maximum democracy" has the most positive impact on the "process of democratization and consolidation”. (Findings)

The purpose of this article is to discuss the political ups and downs of the “Reform era” in Iran (1997-2005). To analyze the “Islamic Republic of Iran” as a political regime and its dynamics, “Hybrid Regimes” theories have been used in current work. Such theories reject the duality of Democracy-Authoritarianism and try to provide essential concepts for analyzing the regimes which are in the middle of the spectrum. Those regimes have unique features in comparison to Democratic or Authoritarian regimes. To analyze the Islamic Republic of Iran as a political regime and to explain the ups and downs of the “Reform era” in Iran, the studies of four researchers on “hybrid Regimes” have been used here. Some of the keynotes which have been applied to the current study to discuss the political ups and downs of that specific period are as follows: the importance of political competition, social and political backgrounds of creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a hybrid regime, and finally, the relation between such a regime and rentier economy in Iran. Finally, the article has concluded that the reformist’s earlier progress and their later withdraw and defeat could be considered as “inner dynamics of a hybrid regime” instead of the “the defeated transition to democracy”.

Upcoming doubts and challenges of 'growth theory' for development, and its uncertain pathway over the recent decades, have led to the consideration of the theory of 'human development', with guarantees and provisions such as ' development ethics' and 'the right to development', for realizing the advancement that its object is 'humans' and people. Nevertheless, since these pre-mentioned provisions from Amartya Sen’s standpoint ultimately require an understanding and interpretation of the "human" identity, and in the theory of "human development" this argument does not have the necessary theoretical adequacy, this article has attempted to be an intellectual aide by "existential anthropology" and “the human existential right" in the theory of human development.

In the model of good governance, the three sectors of public, private, and civil society work together with separate boundaries and in an interactive relationship in order to achieve development goals. This model is inconsistent with the current approach of civil society based on the Hegelian conception, which is based on political economy and conflict. Now the question can be asked that in the absence or diminishing role of economics and politics in the definition and explanation of civil society, with what basis and approach can this concept be explained in the model of good governance? The present article argues that cultural approaches to civil society, including Jeffrey Alexander's approach, can further explain civil society in terms of good governance. In this article, the writers discuss some aspects of this explanation by a descriptive and analytical method. The method of data collection is documentary and library, and by referring to reliable sources and analyzing them, documents have been provided to test the hypothesis of the article.

Psycho-analysis has been concentrated on the unconscious dimensions of political subjects. Accordingly, the main political discourse of each society is considered as the “Other” in corresponding with Lacan’s psychoanalysis that is considered as the “Other” which can create hysteric subjects due to traumatic propositions. In the other words, in the case of the existence of any divergence between the metaphorical space of the discourse as the “Other” with the concrete realities of the society, it will lead to the activation of its symptomatic aspect. In fact, such crisis is taken into consideration as the significant security penetration in pluralist societies under the classification of passive defense by virtue of triggering dynamic energy of the mass and their canalization by the external and aggressive counter-discourses. This condition can jeopardize the “National Security” in each society. The current survey by recognizing the prominence of this subject has focused its duty to anatomize and find out the traumatic statements in the Neo-Reformist’s discourse, in the course of 6 years (2013-2019) to scrutinize the reason for the formation of hysteric subjects. To do so, this research has examined the Neo-reformist's discourse based on Lacanian psycho-analysis school and Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse analysis as its method. The results of this article demonstrated the conspicuous divergence between the metaphorical constellation of the Neo-reformist’s discourse in confrontation with the concrete realities of Iran’s society that terminated in transformation its statements into traumatic ones and hence, creation of hysteric subjects that displayed their protestation towards malfunction of this discourse within different reincarnating movements.

Political institutions in the light of the evolution of political thought and theories can show new possibilities and limitations. The President has an important and decisive position in the Iranian Constitution, which stems from the direct vote of the people, the ratification of the Supreme Leader, the representation of Iran's national sovereignty in relation to other countries, and its symbolic national face.Today, when the power of states and governments has diminished and, instead, human and individual responsibilities have been highlighted in various spheres of society, politics, and economy and in common human issues, the position of the President, according to new readings, acquires such capacities.Today, as the power of states and governments has diminished and, instead, human and individual responsibilities have been highlighted in various spheres of society, politics, and economics and in common human issues, the position of the President, according to new readings, acquires such capacities.The question of this research is what is the role and position of the president in the constitution according to the efficiency indicators and how can this position be promoted in practice to increase his efficiency? The position of the President is studied in this article with the aim of recognizing and explaining the new possibilities of political action.This effort is based on the components of efficiency within the normative institutional theory. The results show that all the human and cultural content of Constitution can show and reveal new functional aspects for president according to those components.

One of the common theories focused on politics, society, and state in Iran is the "theory of despotism". Many Iranian and non-Iranian thinkers have commented and even theorized about why and how the emergence, formation, and continuation of "despotism" in Iran. Mohammad Ali (Homayoun) Katozian is one of the Iranian scholars who have proposed the view of "despotism" on the history of Iran. In Katouzian's view, Iranian society and state have historically been in a cycle of "despotism, chaos, chaos, and despotism". In this view, Iranian society has always been either plagued by despotism or by chaos, conflict, and strife. Katozian's view emphasizes the comprehensive impact of authoritarian political power on other dimensions of society. The question is whether Katozian's view of Iranian despotism is a result of the whole of Iranian history? The findings indicate that Katozian's view is not relevant to the entire history of Iran and this article examines this discrepancy. The method of the article is descriptive-analytical.

Chantal Mouffe and Jürgen Habermas's thoughts, despite their very serious differences, are one of the most important sources of thought in the field of facing the other. This article tries to retrieve the ideas of these two thinkers about facing the other due to their weaknesses and shortcomings, and by their theoretical reconstruction, a more complete typology offers a variety of facing the other. Another purpose of this article is to show the strengths and weaknesses of each of these types to show which of them can be more justified and rational. Accordingly, the main question of the present article is what types of confrontation can there be with the other? And which type of confrontation is more rationally justified? The main hypothesis is that the types of encounters with the other can be summarized into 5 types: becoming another, another taboo, antagonism, agonism, and another reflective understanding. Another reflective understanding seems to be more rationally justified. The method of research will be a descriptive and critical analysis.