نشریه علوم سیاسی
سال هشتم شماره 1 (پیاپی 29، بهار 1384)

Culture and philosophy in the West is founded on humanism after the renaissance, on the basis of which human is criterion for all values and virtues including right and rightness. Humanism has undergone serious changes through the past centuries in which it was circulating in the veins of Western societies. In addition to including principles such as free-will, freedom, and individualism, humanism can match any religions and creeds because of the admitting religious toleration. From a humanistic point of view, value concepts gain a specific meaning, for instance, right and rightness are interpreted with respect to man, a point which is briefly dealt with in this paper.

The question of the identity of people and nations has always been man’s concern throughout history. Scholars approached the question from different perspectives and provided different answers. National identity is a fundamental issue in social sciences and, more than other types of identities, creates integrity and socio-political assimilation.

Studying the Western identity discourses or identity theories reveals that, so far, there have been two identity discourses in modernism: (1) The national identity discourse, whose formation can be traced back to the decline of the Christian identity discourse at the end of the Middle Ages and from the beginning of renaissance to early 20th century. This discourse is best embodied in the nationalism discourse; (2) The identity discourse, in reaction to the national identity discourse, another discourse has gradually formed since late 19th century, simultaneous with modernism crisis, which is fully represented in postmodern era and the postmodern theory. This discourse is the discourse of identity, or the discourse of difference and pluralism, which, as opposed to the first discourse, is to destroy the national identity discourse and its components such as nation, nationality, and even nation-state. In this paper, in addition to presenting a brief history of these two discourses, their characteristics will be mentioned.

The vast application of the word “justice” and our moral judgment about just or unjust affairs calls for the necessity of a general classification of justice. One of these general classifications is distinguishing superficial justice from substantial justice. The present paper, after clarifying on the rationale behind this classification, evaluates the manner and the amount of the effects of the superficial and substantial indices of justice on our moral judgment about just or unjust affairs and actions in public and private spheres.Keywords: superficial justice, substantial justice, comparative justice, non-comparative justice, moral judgment criteria.

The present paper considers justice as one of the principal reasons of the formation of the Constitutional Movement. To substantiate the claim, on the basis of a realistic methodology, we elaborate on the internal causes and external roots of the movement and on the causes of people’s inclination toward justice. Shiism and the anti-oppression trends of the Iranian people are among the most important internal causes and the malfunctioning political, cultural, and economic structures are among the external causes of the movement. On the basis of the views of two leading figures of the movement, i.e. Sheikh Fazlollah Noori and Mohammad Hossein Na’eeni, a conceptual explanation of justice is provided. A single interpretation of justice was always dominant in the movement. In fact, it has always been the most important want of the Iranian people.

Politics is the most controversial and complex key concept in political sciences over which there is no consensus among political science scholars. The most important reason is the existence of ambiguity in its content, features, and presuppositions. Politics is one of the subclasses of human sciences, which has always had specific presuppositions and thus any discussion over the basics and principles of politics requires a specific theory and viewpoint. Therefore, distinguishing politics from values and beliefs seems to be impossible. The purpose behind this paper is the recognition of politics from different viewpoints.

Islamic Republic is system different from dictatorship, totalitarianism, and sultanate, on the one hand, and inclined, not exactly similar, to western and eastern democratic system, on the other hand. It is an independent and specific system emphasizes on individual rights and dignity from an intrinsic, natural, divine law. This system contains a very profound concept which is in accordance with the nature and needs of modern man and includes all the existential dimensions of man, his soul and body, and this world and the hereafter. Being completely aware of the nature and particular needs of the Iranian society, Imam Khomeini proposed this system.

An important aspect of Imam Khomeini’s method of government is the type of his control and authority. Most sociologists and political science researchers use Max Weber’s sociological model to analyze the subject. According to the model, political control or authority is divided into the three type of traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. Many researchers have assumed Imam Khomeini’s political authority to be of the charismatic control type. The main concern of this paper is the criticism and evaluation of this conception of Imam Khomeini’s method of government. Having accepted Weber’s model, the writer of this paper follows up the issue with respect to two problems. Firstly, assuming that such a conception is correct, why was the process of naturalization and routinalization of charismatic control in Iran after Imam Khomeini so slow? Secondly, assuming that such a conception is incorrect, the fact is that Imam Khomeini, being aware of his intrinsic capabilities and his influence on the Iranian people, did not attempt to base his method of government on charismatic control. This basic point is our reason why the process of routinalization in Iran was very slow.