Political rationality of the Islamic Republic of Iran in comparison with contemporary fundamentalism

Morteza Bahrani


Conflict is a violent form of unjust human material. Most conflicts throughout history have resulted from a lack of an inclusive concept of justice among peoples. In the absence of such a concept, a nation will become hostile and in the most optimistic case interaction will give way to rivalry and even hostility. Although, in the past, geographical distance led to mental and theoretical distance, now that the world has become a smaller place due to revolutionary changes in industries and communications, the way is paved to give some thought to this issue.

Yet most theories related to interaction among governments have been based on traditional realism and rationality. They considered states as rational entities which would do everything possible to secure the interests of their nations (even resorting to war and deceit). Most recent approaches have attached more importance to peoples than states and have laid more stress on reason than rationality.

Considering the above points, great efforts have been made to that effect, especially through adopting a political philosophical approach, the prominent examples of which are the works of John Rawls and Thomas Pangle. We follow two goals in this chapter. The first goal is (A) to confirm Rawls’ belief that decent countries can be a partner to peace and justice, and (B) that the Islamic Republic of Iran can be considered a decent nation. The second goal is (A) in order to take part in a theoretical plan on international peace and justice, the Islamic Republic of Iran should first formulate a domestic theory of justice, and (B) Iran can formulate such a theory on the basis of Islamic and Iranian theoretical teachings. Theoretical and practical efforts made in recent years and after the Islamic Revolution (1979) attest to this fact.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >