On the meaning of the Iranian Revolution

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 represents one of the most unique events in all of modernity. It alone of all revolutions established a political order which was not only no more degenerate then what it overthrew but arguably based on a higher principle.

Unlike all other modern revolutions which saw the overthrow of monarchy and the establishment of either a democratic order, dictatorial order, or communist order, all of which represent a degeneration from the monarchical order, the Iranian Revolution saw the establishment of the rule of the Clerics, of the Brahmin caste. The Iranian Revolution certainly shares the commonality with other revolutions in that it involved the overthrow of the monarchy which essentially met the overthrow of the rule of the Kshatriya, or warrior caste, as embodied in the person of the monarch. This rule of the Kshatriya caste being representative of the second age of the Mahayuga, the name given in the Vedas to the overall cycle of existence in which every succeeding age sees man become more detached from the divine.

However what differentiates it, and makes it of interest to the Traditionalist minded man is that unlike a descent into democracy or communism or some other modernist form of government, which represent the preeminence of the Vashiya or Sudra castes even in some cases and thus the third and fourth ages of the Mahayuga and a degeneration which every other revolution resulted in, in Iran, what was seen was the establishment of the rule of the Brahmin caste, which is representative of the first age, and of the highest principle.

In the Iranian Revolution then, we alone see a major revolution of the modern era which resulted in an upward shift, not a downward shift. Although Iran does possess elements of the democratic order such as popular voting and a Parliament, it is important to note that the Supreme Leader has the ability to veto any decision taken by the Parliament, power then in Iran does not rest with the people, though they are certainly consulted and can give their opinions through the Parliament, it lies in one man, the Supreme Leader who has both spiritual and temporal power. The Supreme Leader claims  spiritual authority  through being the head of Shia Islam, and thus draws power from the Divine and being the individual whom interprets the will of God for Shia Islam.

This is similar in many ways to the authority which many kings exercised historically with one key difference, whereas the king was normally a member of the Kshatriya caste, and thus below the Brahmin caste in Traditional doctrines, the Supreme Leader is chosen solely from the Brahmin caste, and thus is first a spiritual leader who interprets the will of God, and  temporal leader only second. In this, the post of Supreme Leader which the Revolution established corresponds to the highest principle, namely that power comes from above and goes below, not as is often believed in the modern world that power comes from below and goes upward. In Iran therefore, as a direst result of the revolution, there was put in place a political order in which power comes from God, and is interpreted and realized in the material realm by the Supreme Leader who represents the link between the spiritual and the temporal.

This of course raises the question of what made the Iranian Revolution unique, what made it so that its outcome represented an upward shift and not a downward shift from a spiritual perspective. The key answer to this question arguably is the intense religiosity of the population prior to the revolution, it would not have been possible to establish an Islamic order if the populous were not overwhelmingly in favor of it, of course there were secularists prior to the revolution, communists et cetera. These were all disposed of after the revolution though once they came into conflict with the newly established government and it is this lack of  staying power that these movements exhibited which implies that they appealed to only a small section of the population and as such were not representative of the views of a large proportion of the population.

The current system in Iran is not perfect of course, nor is it fully Traditional, but compared to any other system which exists in any significant nation, it is the most Traditionalist in its organisation and operation and gives a view into how a Traditionalist system might operate in a nation. In essence, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the political order which arose as a result is one which is worthy of close study and analysis by the man who rejects modern political thought as it represents a radically different approach to the question of where power comes from and the basis from which it derives legitimacy.


A young traditionalist who is sick of the modern age and its pretensions of progress whilst at the same time having separated Man from the Divine and reduced him to a mere creature, possessed wholly by his most base desires.

2 thoughts on “On the meaning of the Iranian Revolution

  1. It seems the Iranians are *years* ahead of us in the field of Constitutional architecture and design.

  2. It would have been better if they had embraced a Zoroastrian republic, would have been more authentic. i think that if they did that liberalism would have somehow seeped in slowly. There is something about the hard, uncompromising nature of Islam that makes it relatively immune to liberalism. It is good that they have their own version of Islam, otherwise they probably ended up controlled by the Arabs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s