نشریه اسناد بهارستان
پیاپی 2 (تابستان 1392)

The present paper was prepared based on the reports by Tehran's secret police for Abdul-Hossein Farmanfarma, the Minister of Interior in the cabinet of Eyn ud-Dowleh during the Third Parliament. The Third Parliament was inaugurated in December, 1941, a few months after the outbreak of World War I. The Parliament lasted only 11 months, during which it was affected by issues caused by the war.The war created discord between the politicians and the parliament members. Some were supporters of Russia and England, while some others, such as democrats and their allies, were supporters of Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The dissension practically divided the county. The issue of security was very important in this case. The secret police reported all kinds of rumors and news of the capital, especially those related to political and governmental affairs. It also reported the movements of dignitaries, the position of the press, and the activities of embassies. A significant point was the activity of the Ottoman embassy that criticized the Minister of Interior through the press. Farmanfarma was also criticized by the Democratic Party, which was a supporter of the Ottoman government in the war. He was eventually impeached in the parliament. In the midst of the war, a Turkish commander, Rauf Orbay, entered Qasr-i Shirin and advance to Sarpol-i Zahab on March 24. The situation in Kermanshah became completely chaotic. Before any measure by the new government of Eyn ud-Dowleh, the governor of Kermanshah resigned and worsened the situation. In June, the Democrats impeached Farmanfarma, and the cabinet and Eyn ud-Dowleh resigned.The Democrats were against Farmanfarma since the Constitutional Revolution. Farmanfarma had governed Azarbaijan, Kermanshah, and Kurdistan on several occasions and was familiar with the policy of the Ottomans and their objectives towards Iran, to which he was strongly opposed. Now, in support of the Ottomans and without reference to the movements of the Turks, the Democrats impeached the Minister of Interior on the pretext that he had demonstrated negligence. It was then that Eyn ud-Dowleh resigned. The history of the relationship between Farmanfarma, on the one hand, and the Democrats and the Ottoman government, on the other, led to this event, which is highly illustrated by the police reports.

The primary problem that guided this research was explaining the question of why internal and external political developments after August 1941, which were coincident with the opening of the thirteenth Parliament, did not lead to a fundamental change followed by an increasing role of the National Consultative Assembly in different fields. In the analysis of the problem, it is assumed that the development of the structure of the modern absolutist state, along with the aggravation of social fragmentation and the continuation of the traditional and patriarchal political culture as major obstacles to political development, had left the Parliament in an unstable and subservient position in the subsequent years, so that in the historical period of the 1950s, despite the internal critical situation caused by the weakening of the power of Shah as the top of the pyramid, strengthening of the political and military bureaucracy, and the foreign rule of the Allied Forces, the National Consultative Assembly lost its ability to monitor the affairs and make its ideal legislation. Consequently, despite the weakness of the monarchy and the young Shah’s lack of command over the affairs of the country, and with the struggle between the internal power groups and the weakening of territorial independence, we witnessed another interregnum in the legislative arena, and at this time, Domestic and foreign issues had a heavy shadow on the nature and functioning of the democratic institution of the National Consultative Assembly. Thus, achieving the ideals of Constitutionalism was given second priority, and attention and efforts remained focused on gaining or maintaining the democratic and political aspects of Constitutionalism, leading to a disregard for other constitutional organs. In this way, one of the most important aspects for the crystallization of Constitutionalism, that is, the development of the political culture in the new society based on participatory culture was postponed. Moreover, the sequence of events after the Constitutional Revolution was such that the efforts to “preserve the Constitution and the institution of legislative assembly” replaced any attempts to “develop the Constitution” and institutionalize its goals. Indeed, this is the key to the interpretation of all the events after the Constitution. By referring to historical sources and documents and studying the structure and function of the Parliaments in the 1950s, which encompasses the social and political life of thirteenth to sixteenth Parliaments, we can analyze the situation where, despite Reza Shah's departure from the political scene of the country and the subsequent political openness and in spite of the beginning of a new round of decentralization in the political and social structure of power, this temporary change did not mean progress in the path of development nor the dominance of new political-social institutions, such as the Parliament, parties, and social organizations, over the system of political power. The continuation of the structure and nature of the traditional political system and the rise of the political elite from the traditional sources of power, the most important of which was the traditional political culture, led to the reproduction of the absolutist domination in the Constitutional era, which was evident in the form of the confrontation between the structure and action of the Parliaments in the 1950s and the parallel centers of power.

The first Pahlavi era (1925-1941) is one of the most important eras of Iranian history, during which remarkable changes and developments were made in the landscape of politics, economy, culture, society, etc. in the country. One of the most important developments was the marginalization of nomads and tribes in the scene of political, social, military, and economic power. Using different methods and techniques, the Pahlavi regime set out to suppress, disarm, and then settle or sedentarize the nomads and tribes, who used to be powerful and effective in many scenes.Therefore, the problem of nomadic tribes in this era was one of the main issues in macro policy-making of Iranian society in political, military, cultural, and social fields. Due to the importance of the studied issue and its validity and value in the decisions of policy-making institutions during the said era, the present study attempts to describe and analyze the place of the institution of the Parliament in policy-making for nomadic tribes during the first Pahlavi era.According to the Constitution of Iran, in the legal structure of power, three institutions, namely the “Monarchy”, “National Consultative Assembly”, and the “Board of Ministers”, were authorized to make policies regarding the issues of nomadic tribes. The present paper analyzes the place of the National Consultative Assembly in the process of policy-making through general and specific legislation for nomads and tribes.

One of the most important issues about the Persian Gulf in the Pahlavi era was the problem of the triple Iranian islands. The islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb are three important arch-shaped strategic and defensive points in the water border between Iran and the Arabic tribes of the Persian Gulf near Strait of Hormuz. Throughout history, the islands have always been a part of Iran and have never had a separate fate from the history of this land. However, with the presence of England in the Persian Gulf and its support for the Arabic tribes in order to gain control over the region, the history of the islands was affected by the policies of this country. The issue was so important that it found its place again on the agenda of the then governments after the 1953 coup d'état in Iran and Iran’s resumed efforts to exercise power in the Persian Gulf. Attention to the measures by the Pahlavi regime and the then members of the National Consultative Assembly to advance their objectives in this regard is of significant importance. An attempt is therefore made to analyze the stance of the government and the NCA towards the issue after the 1953 coup d'état. The results show that the government adopted an active diplomacy, accompanied by the NCA’s policy of silence, to consolidate its authority in the islands and advance its objectives while waiving some of its interests in regions such as Bahrain.

Parliaments are considered the democratic face of governments. Parliaments are communication channels between governments and people, which can both strengthen political systems and force governments to respond to public demands of societies. Foreign policy consists of a series of pre-planned measures by government officials in order to achieve specific goals within the framework of national interests in the international environment. From a fundamental perspective, a question emerges about the role of parliaments in the making of foreign policy. Given that foreign policy, from its very beginning, has been an elite category, it is hypothesized that the legislature plays an insignificant role in determining behaviors in foreign policy and has given it over to the executive branch.