Most Helpful Customer Reviews
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Enlightening, December 7, 2008
This review is from: The Quest for Democracy in Iran: A Century of Struggle against Authoritarian Rule (Hardcover)
Iran is almost constantly in the news today.
One cannot but wonder about it, have opinions, and hear and have to respond to opinions. For an informed citizen today, Iran is firmly on the docket of current issues, whether one fears he-who-cannot-be-[properly]-named [President aeh-meh-dee-ne-jhaud, or, "I'm-in-need-(of)-a-job"], or chuckles when he shouts out, "Ya, well I won't meet with McCAIN without preconditions," Iran is there, and always will be - it was an old empire when Mohammed was born, and a great power went the ancient Greek city-states were just coming together. Azimi's book takes an incisive look at the most-currently-pertinent aspect of this great culture: its struggle towards democracy. 512 pages [really more like 450, when one subtracts the end-notes etc.] is concise for a serious addressal of a pivotal issue in a place as complex as Iran. Aside from being a society almost as old as China, Iran is one of the more nuanced and complicated places on earth. Contemporary Iran is hardcore-Islamic. But even within Islam, Iran is a bit of an pariah state - it is Shi'ite, rather than Sunni; even within its own religion, it has a long history of being a staunch minority, willing to oppose overwhelming force for what it thinks is right, including its rights - whether by it is cultural praising of Husayn's valiant martyrdom at Karbala, or a willingness to defy the world to exercise their right to sovereignty, security, and prosperity, whether by proceeding with a nuclear program today, or by resisting the Arab conquests [for centuries in some pockets] long ago. Just a few days ago, one of my Iranian friends was looking at another book of mine. He scoffed at the idea that there is "no compulsion in religion." I argued that although the Arab conquerors didn't always live up to this ideal perfectly, the Visigoths they opposed in al-Andalus axiomatically BELIEVED IN religious compulsion, and so, the Moors were a big improvement for medieval Spain, however imperfect they may have been. My Iranian friend, however, did not judge the Arab conquerors treatment of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia so kindly, however, and lamented the fall of that Persian Empire. After my Persian-Muslim friend's passionate lecture about Arab-Muslim oppression of Zoroastrian Persia, I told him, "Merci." In one of the more anti-western lands on Earth, the language has absorbed many French words, harkening back to a Persian-French entente, when Iran, and the heart of the West, were good friends. Iran never ceases to amaze. Full of the surprises his culture continues to bear, Azimi's book is full of enlightening - and often unexpected - evidence and arguments. Iran is too complex a civilization to be understood from a headline; a deeper investigation is necessary for anyone who likes to think of themselves as a globally-informed citizen. Azimi's book thoroughly addresses a pivotal issue in the contemporary Middle-East: democracy - what the American government has been trying so hard to create there. Today's Iran is a bit of a theocracy, but also has at least a shell of a working democracy - which is more than most of her neighbors can say. There already is some democracy in the Middle East, which not only arose independent of America but survived our meddling! This book would be fruitful reading for policy-makers in the region. For Middle-Easterners, it is an opportunity to learn from Iran's mistakes, and repeat her successes - lessons from a similar, neighboring country: a closer model than the West's experiences with democracy. For the Westerner concerned with Iran and her region, Azimi's book is full of lessons and critical nuance. A pivotal lesson might be not to derail Iran's own grappling towards democracy on a whim - last time we did, in a 1953 Cold War oil chess-match, the US overthrew an oil-nationalizing leader [oil-nationalizing - like Hugo Chaves, - as scary for an American as Iran's current president, at least]. By overthrowing Iran's democratically-elected (if bad for American oil interests) government, and saddling them with the puppet-shah, we have earned their bitter enmity, as the Shah's reign was better for Washington than for Iran itself. Eventually, the people overthrew the Shah - their anger boiled over, and the world got Khomeini, the Iranian Hostage situation, and other upheavels, which, to say nothing of the strife it as caused Iran, have been bad for America - and therefore this subject is pertinent to even the most isolationist American midlander. Excessive, uninformed meddling in Iran is simply bad for us, and certainly for them. Going in uninformed, policy-makers are shooting everyone in the foot. Unless they want to risk again making things go from slightly-bad to much-worse, say, by ignoring a people's sovereignty so that we can have 20+ years of stability and oil which eventually collapses and devolves into a people's bitter resentment of us, policy makers should read Azimi's book. ...Another like it might suffice, but Azimi's is as good as any, and probably better. His writing informs on a wide range of topics. I met him once, and walked away with my knowledge of German philosophy and comparative psychology, increased - as well as my knowledge of the real subject, Persian history. He has a wide range of ideas to offer. The book is good writing on an important, widely-relevant topic. Within the subject of the world today, Azimi's book should be near the top of anyone's reading-list.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A book for scholars, historians, political leaders and anyone interested in an original in-depth account of the Iranian socio-po, January 19, 2009
This review is from: The Quest for Democracy in Iran: A Century of Struggle against Authoritarian Rule (Hardcover)
I just finished reading Azimi's book cover-to-cover! I was forcibly struck by the forthrightness and its daredevil audacity in both style and substance. Seldom have I seen such a vast sum of hard facts packed in concise easy-to-follow parcels.
The book carries you effortlessly through a century of upheavals as if on a magic carpet. Yet, it is an undeniable documentary in condemnation of the "Great Men of Power," foreign and domestic, tragically in denial and betrayal of the very principles they purportedly espouse--freedom, democracy, free enterprise and all! Above all though it's the harbinger of the simple truth that these noble aspirations and struggles, although kept in check for some time, may not perish.
Nothing seems to have escaped Azimi's reticle in his account and analysis of the contemporary Iranian politics. You'll experience several "aha's" on each page and by the time you're finished reading the book you'll find yourself nodding "amen!" If none happens though, I assure you by the time you're done you'll have vastly improved your vocabulary! Azimi has an arsenal of bullet-sharp words at his disposal and he keeps them well-oiled and shiny. When he uses them he hits the bull's eye with a marksman's precision saving the reader pages of explanations. Without this knack the book could have amounted to thousands of pages.
Azimi's book is a precious gift to Iranians and those interested in the Iranian recent history. I know my mind could not possibly go back to its original dimensions after having read it. I expect The Quest for Democracy in Iran to soon be translated into major languages. It is a text for those at the helm.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
More Useful for Specialists and Informed Iranians, November 24, 2009
This review is from: The Quest for Democracy in Iran: A Century of Struggle against Authoritarian Rule (Hardcover)
At the Fall 2009 edition of the Middle East Quarterly, P. Clawson ruminated that the Western picture of Iran is of authoritarianism with clerical rule following centuries of shahs--punctuated by Mohammed Mossadegh, an eccentric, 1950s prime minister supported by pro-Soviet forces. Azimi, a history professor at the University of Connecticut, provides a useful corrective, illustrating how the desire for modernity runs deep among Iran's intellectuals, businessmen, and ordinary people. Few in the West realize how much Iran's political culture continues to be shaped by the 1905-11 Constitutional Revolution, a violent struggle to impose constitutional democracy on Mozzafar al-Din Shah and to maintain it under his successor Mohammad 'Ali Shah.
The constitution, which relegated the shah to a largely ceremonial role, was ignored by successive shahs who reestablished absolutist rule: first, Mohammad 'Ali (r. 1907-09), his son Ahmad Shah (r. 1909-21), Reza Khan from the 1920s, and then his son Mohammed Reza, especially through the 1960s and 1970s. What Azimi brings to life is how broadly the absolutism was resented and seen as illegitimate by both elites and the population at large, which saw democratic consultation as an inseparable part of the modernization those shahs claimed to be advancing. Further, Azimi brings out the striking similarities between the shahs and the Islamic Republic's clerical leaders: Both groups bend to popular democratic demands when weak but, when strong, promptly install authoritarian rule, which is broadly resented as illegitimate and a force that stifles modernity.
The strength of Azimi's account lies in how he captures the burning desire that some Iranians have for democracy. He is frank in attributing the failures to the democrats as much as to the autocrats. His evaluation of Mossadegh could apply to Iranian liberals across the last century: "In the specific circumstances of Iran, liberal democratic constitutionalism was more congruent with political opposition than with governance. It was far easier to oppose violations of the Constitution and denounce election rigging than to govern constitutionally or conduct free elections."
The weakness of The Quest for Democracy is that Azimi presupposes considerable knowledge about Iranian history over the last century. He presents broad interpretations that make sense only if one is already well versed about the twists and turns, of which there were many, in Iran's complicated political evolution. Azimi does little to guide the reader interested in democracy but with only a passing acquaintance with Iran. As a result, his account is more useful to the specialist or to informed Iranians than to Westerners in general, even to those with considerable interest in foreign affairs.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
