جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « modern state » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

In explicating the essence of a modern state, one must navigate a theoretical landscape defined by a set of characteristics, criteria, and requisites that differentiate the theory of the modern state from alternative paradigms, notably the absolute state. This theoretical realm, characterized by a prescriptive understanding of modern governance, serves as a guiding force, prompting governments worldwide to emulate its structural blueprint. This form of governance, intricately woven into the fabric of contemporary political landscapes, commands loyalty from its constituents. It wields influence both directly and indirectly, orchestrating societal affairs through a bureaucratic apparatus that intricately affects diverse aspects of citizens' lives.In stark contrast to premodern governance reliant on tribute and force, the modern government garners economic sustenance directly from its citizenry, levying taxes to fulfill its distinct responsibilities. At the core of the modern state lies the imperative of nation-building, an endeavor necessitating the homogenization of social identity. However, the crux of our inquiry lies in the intricate relationship between us Iranians and the modern state. Delving into the historical narrative of the modern state as an experiential journey and scrutinizing it as a malleable theoretical model emerge as imperative undertakings.The overarching purpose of this research is to meticulously examine the historical trajectory underpinning the formation and stabilization of the modern state in Iran. Anchored in the intellectual currents of Western thought, this scholarly pursuit aspires to enhance our understanding of the state's essence and its nuanced position within the Iranian milieu. A discerning analysis of the country's policies and orientations naturally unfolds as a byproduct of this historical exploration.Guiding our intellectual journey is a theoretical framework rooted in historical institutionalism. This approach, a beacon in the study of state building in Iran, focuses on unraveling the intricate tapestry of social, political, and economic behaviors, tracing their evolution over time. Institutions, elevated to the status of independent variables, emerge as architects shaping individual and collective actions alongside the broader panorama of social and political phenomena. Recognizing that institutions not only mold actors' strategies but also sculpt their objectives, historical institutionalism, with its attention to structural variables such as class position and mediating entities like political parties and unions, provides a nuanced lens through which to study the formation and construction of the government in Iran.The research methodology, a dual-pronged approach, employs the content analysis method to scrutinize definitions of the modern state put forth by Western thinkers. This analytical approach, eschewing the exploration of attitudes and beliefs in favor of dissecting produced messages, is complemented by the historical research method. This method involves a meticulous examination of specific past events within a defined temporal scope, integrating historical facts through a rigorous regimen of data collection, evaluation, and verification.Tracing the historical trajectory of government formation in the West, political scientists posit that the foundations of the modern state or nation-state were laid in the late Middle Ages, influenced by the Catholic cultural context. The formation of modern national states was shaped by factors such as religious reform movements and conflicts among European countries. The Treaty of Westphalia in the 16th to 18th centuries is considered a pivotal event in the emergence of the modern state. From the 19th century onward, the modern government model gradually supplanted other political systems globally.The indicators and criteria of modern governments encompass a legitimate monopoly on controlling the means of violence, a specific territorial territory, sovereignty, centralized power, a codified constitution, the use of impersonal power, nationalism, a public bureaucracy, authority/legitimacy, citizenship, and provincial tax.The historical exploration of government formation in Iran reveals nuanced epochs, beginning with the Safavid era's establishment of a robust central government to counter threats from the Sunni Ottoman Empire. Shah Abbas I marked a zenith, unifying the country politically, relocating the capital to Isfahan, fostering a unified religious identity based on Shiite Islam, and expanding diplomatic relations. Subsequent governments, such as the Afshariya and Zand, did not significantly alter national and state organizations. The Qajar dynasty witnessed an expansion of central government power, albeit rooted in the Illyrian system. The constitutional revolution of 1285 emerged as a historical turning point, ushering in constitutionalism and paving the way for a more structured political system in Iran. The subsequent Pahlavi absolute government, while characterized by economic nationalism and centralization of power, laid the foundations for absolute rule.In conclusion, this historical exploration, spanning from the Safavid era to the Pahlavi period, unveils Iran's trajectory of independent political thought and the evolution of a nation transitioning to citizenship. Constitutionalism emerges as the cornerstone of modern governance, establishing a balanced relationship between the government and the nation. The era of Reza Shah, marked by economic nationalism and the consolidation of government power, signifies a fundamental shift, laying the groundwork for absolute rule. This scholarly endeavor sheds light on the nuanced tapestry of Iran's political evolution.

The modern state is among the major political institutions that encompass all dimensions of human life. Despite its useful aspects, this institution, drawing from foundations that may diminish human freedom in its interaction with individuals, ultimately hinders the growth of human thought and the revelation of the true essence of humanity. The historical experience of Western countries and the subsequent spread of this thinking to other nations have led many thinkers to critically examine various aspects of the Modern State, aiming to reform and evolve it into a theoretical framework. One of the most important critics and theorists of the Modern State, adopting a humanistic approach, is Hannah Arendt.Some of the most important research on the critique of the Modern state includes:Steven E. Aschheim, in the book "Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem," examines Arendt's controversial views on the Eichmann trial and also discusses the nature of justice and the Modern State. The focus is primarily on the case study of Eichmann, without providing a comprehensive framework for Arendt's critical thinking on the existence of the Modern state.Richard King, in the book "Arendt and America," analyzes Arendt's interaction with American political thought and critiques of the Modern State. The emphasis is on the political and societal features of America, with limited philosophical discussions.Dana Villa, in "The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt" gathers articles from researchers addressing various aspects of Arendt's political philosophy, including her critique of the Modern state. However, direct critiques of Arendt on the Modern state are the focus of only one article, and the overall article leans more towards a review of Arendt's critiques without presenting a philosophical argument.While foreign research on Arendt's critique of the Modern state differs from the present study in several aspects, the most notable differences lie in the lack of explicit attention to existential aspects of criticism and the relatively limited exploration of the pragmatic aspect and establishing a conceptual relationship between these two aspects in the research. Additionally, the presuppositions of researchers in geography-based or ideologically-specific research have not been explicitly stated, and interested readers can refer to the following sources for examples of such research.Examining books and articles written about Arendt within the country also indicates limited research on government in her thought. One of these articles, titled "Politics and Existentialism" by Dr. Mostafa Younesi and Ali Tadayyon Rad, explores the connection between politics and existentialism through the discussion of "action" and considers the role of politics and government institutions in creating a space for human growth.Another article, titled "Political Order in the Thought of Aristotle and Hannah Arendt and Critique of Its Place in the Present Era" by Seyed Javad Emam Jom'ehzadeh and Ali Tadayyon Rad, argues that political order in the modern era has found a different definition and, contrary to the past, where political order aimed at the excellence and happiness of society, current affairs are mundane and lack a metaphysical position in modern thought. The author aims to challenge modern political order through a reevaluation of Arendt's ideas.Although foreign articles have extensively addressed Arendt's critiques of the Modern State, this study innovatively focuses on differentiating existential aspects from non-existential ones. The innovation lies in initially critiquing the political philosophy of the new West from Arendt's perspective and suggesting her alternative. This study, using a descriptive-analytical method, first refers to Arendt's most important texts and books to describe her intellectual method (with an emphasis on epistemological discussions). Subsequently, it highlights the main indicators of the Modern state and, as a research framework, compares them with Arendt's theoretical-political views. One of the most important indicators of the Modern state is the existence of a unified authority and power within a specific geographic area. Another important indicator is the control of violent instruments by the Modern State. This political structure implies that superior power is not in the hands of individuals but is entrusted to governance through the use of legal structures and norms. One of the significant indicators of the Modern state discussed in this research is the bureaucratic and administrative structure where individuals are placed at various administrative levels based on their interests and competence. Nevertheless, critics argue that in this space of Modern state and bureaucracy, the freedom of individuals is compromised.This article attempts to present Hannah Arendt's criticism of the Modern state based on her impartial perspective on government. Typically, the prevailing view of government tends to be biased. Using Arendt's impartial perspective, Pierre Bourdieu argues that the characteristic of this institution is the struggle for power among groups and different interests, often hidden behind a façade of impartiality and objectivity. The article aims to emphasize the importance of political action and the public sphere for human freedom from Arendt's perspective, demonstrating how the Modern state has weakened these values. Additionally, the article explores the conceptual frameworks of civic virtue and individuals' need for participation in public life based on Arendt's views.Another overlooked point in most domestic research is the examination of Arendt's critique of the Modern state at a macro level, i.e., the critique of the Modern state itself. Arendt's criticisms are often focused on a limited scale, examining actors within political systems such as totalitarianism. However, it is essential to recognize that these criticisms, even when specifically addressing certain types of political systems, are presented under a political system that exists in the modern context. Therefore, the present article innovatively addresses this aspect as well.This research aims to critique this extensive and significant institution using Arendt's perspective. Findings based on Arendt's principles indicate that modern philosophy has led to the separation of theology from nature, the expansion of positivism, and the excessive growth of a form of individualism. This has resulted in the Modern state becoming an extensive and harsh authoritarian regime, dominating economic aspects over political and cultural facets of human life. Arendt suggests that the only way to reform this extensive, inefficient, and dehumanizing institution is through gradual reform of people's interactions in the public sphere and the utilization of theories such as councils in political structures.

Imam Khomeini is one of the prominent and leading scholars who has made a special appearance in the field of political opinion and practice in the contemporary history of Iran. The victory of the Islamic Revolution in Bahman 1357 and the establishment of the Islamic Republic system is one of the characteristics of this crystallization. In relation to the modern era, Imam Khomeini's opinion and action can be seen as a combination of alignment and separation from it. With regard to the establishment of a new state in Iran, the ratio of Imam Khomeini's views and opinions with the principles and foundations of the modern era and state. It is an important discussion in designing, regulating and knowing the future direction of political thinking. Imam Khomeini, on the one hand, by designing and establishing a religious and of course a new political system in the form of "Islamic Republic", tried to meet the requirements of the new era, but on the other hand, with the plan of "Velayat Faqih" at the head of the state, the role of religion highlights and prevents secularism. The complexity is in the way of convergence between the new requirements and conditions with the religious tradition. In this article, with a descriptive-analytical method, the relationship of Imam Khomeini's views and opinions with the principles and foundations of the state and era is investigated.

The problem of the modern state has occupied the mind and conscience of many contemporary Iranian thinkers, including the seminary neo-thinkers. Meanwhile, due to the wide range and diversity of his works and the wide influence of his words, Davood Feirahi is the most famous seminarian thinker who has pondered in this field and has created valid and worthy works. With a glance at Feirahi's works, it can be seen that the modern state and its challenges in Iran are among his main concerns throughout his research life, and in a way, all the works of him were written in this direction. The main issue of this article is what kind of idea Feirahi had of the modern state and what model of it he considered feasible for Iran. In response to this question, the article comes to the conclusion that despite serious reflections on the concept of the modern state and the examination of its challenges in Iran, Feirahi lacked a coherent and independent theory in this matter and did not provide a detailed explanation of his desired model in Iran.

A history study of the modern state shows that such a system has led to some sort of political-social stability in Western societies. Nevertheless, some existentialist thinkers such as Karl Jaspers have criticized the foundations of modernism and hence the modern state. Jaspers believes that a state grounded in political modernity results in a mass politics and a deficiency in the genuine human autonomy and freedom because it is dominated by techniques, lacks realism, has biased conceptions of the human condition, and lacks the ability to establish proper relations between people. By criticizing this political system, Jaspers tries to pave the path for an increased human role in politics. The main question of the present research is: What are the main critiques of the foundations of modernism and the modern state in Jaspers’s work and what are his suggestions for alleviation of its negative repercussions? This research draws on the descriptive-analytic method to show that, in Jaspers’s political thought, there are two factors that facilitate individual and social growth: historical understanding and human self-conscious rationality. By deploying these tools, and a proper political training, the government will be able to minimize the threats of a modern mass society.

After the massive and sudden attack of ISIS on Iraq, the existence of the Iraqi state and nation and the sanctities of Muslims were under serious threat. While ISIS was approaching gates of Baghdad and the Iraqi army and security forces were not able to deal with it, with Ayatollah Sistani's fatwa regarding jihad to confront ISIS and ward off this real danger, a defense-security organization called Hashd al-Shaabi, consisting of volunteers People and militia groups, which are considered the military arm of Iraqi political parties and currents, were formed. The Iraqi state, which was in a state of emergency, supported the formation of this new defense-security organization and provided it with financial, logistical and weapons support. With the threat of ISISremoval and the end of state of emergency, the existence of such an organization, which is mainly controlled by militia groups, has become a significant challenge for Iraqi state, which seeks to obtain a monopoly on the use of legitimate force. Therefore, after 2014, all heads of the Iraqi government have tried to prevent the formation of a parallel defense-security institution outside the government's control by adopting different strategies. This article, in which the data has been collected by referring to library and online sources and explained and analyzed with a descriptive-analytical method, seeks to find an authentic answer to this question: "The relationship between the Iraqi government and Hashd al-Shaabi and its constituent militia groups. How has it been?" The findings of the article show that the relationship between the Iraqi government and the militia groups was subject to the requirements of the time in such a way that in emergency and threatening situations, the government used the capacity of these groups and in the absence of these conditions, these groups were considered by the government as a disturbing, undesirable and threatening element, a range of control policies and strategies have been applied to them by the Iraqi government. In the post-crisis era, the Iraqi government, as a system actor that considers itself committed and accountable to the existing rules, norms and order, cannot support the anti-systemic actions of the militia groups that it cooperated with and supported during the ISIS crisis in the form of Hashd al-Shaabi. to bear Therefore, since 2014, the governments of Haider al-Abadi, Adel Abdul Mahdi and Mostafa Al-Kazemi have tried to control these groups as much as possible through adopting a series of strategies and measures. Among the four strategies of repression, containment, collusion and integration, these governments have put two strategies of collusion and integration on their agenda. The reason for choosing these two strategies is that, firstly, Hashd al-Shaabi and its constituent groups are still considered strategic allies of the government, and the political currents of which these groups are considered as their military arm participate in the political process and in the formation of the government. Secondly, even if these groups strongly deviate from the government's criteria and the relationship between the militia groups turns from reconciliation to conflict, the Iraqi government does not have the ability to restrain or suppress these groups. In the collusion strategy, the Iraqi government tries to relatively control the actions of Hashd al-Shaabi groups by granting some concessions and through financial and logistical support tools. As well, in the integration strategy, the Iraqi government has put the recruitment of the Hashd al-Shaabi and its integration in the official Iraqi defense-security structures on its agenda, and the heads of the Iraqi government have issued orders and adopted measures in this regard. Collusion and integration strategies have not been able to be fully and effectively implemented due to the resistance and opposition of the commanders of the militia groups and their insistence on their organizational independence and ideological and identity foundations, and these two strategies have only been implemented superficially and formally.

The purpose of this article is to review and criticize the theories of government in Iran (first Pahlavi period). There have been extensive researches about the government in the first Pahlavi period. In these researches, traits such as; Modern state, modern absolutist, pseudo-patrimonialism, autocracy, dictatorship, pseudo-modernism, oriental tyranny, Iranian tyranny, dependent, neo-authoritarian, etc. have been used. The multiplicity and diversity of these concepts indicate the multiplicity and significant conceptual differences, which are debatable. The main question is, how can these views be proposed and criticized, and what is the alternative for the title of government in this period? The purpose of this article is to present and criticize these conceptual differences and contradictions, as well as to review the presented views that can strengthen the theoretical and experimental literature of this historical period. In this article, I have used the meta-study method to achieve this goal. The obtained results show a diversity of views and based on the criteria used in this article, few of the reviewed writings have a clear understanding of the concept of the state, its functions and special tasks in the new era, and the authors in many cases Due to the confusion of concepts, there is little difference between the words; Government, governance, and regime are not considered to be three different but related institutions. Based on the theoretical foundations of the government as well as the historical documents of the examined period, the government in Reza Shah's period from different aspects; including: historical background; economic, social, cultural fields; And the special tasks and actions have a significant affinity with the absolute government.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the characteristics of modern government by considering Iran as a study sample. Although it is difficult to name a perfect example of a modern state, but some of the salient features and components of the modern state can be explained as a criterion and indicator to distinguish it from other forms of government. Rule of law, representative government, oversight, separation of powers, responsibility and accountability, impersonal power, authority and legitimacy can be considered as the most important principles of public law governing the normative and structural framework of the governing system for the establishment of modern government. In other words, the principles and foundations of public law, the characteristics and components mentioned and analyzed, are the vital pillars of any theory about the construction and nature of the modern state. The method of this research is analytical and descriptive. The results show that the theory of sovereignty is closely related to the theory of the modern state, and in the modern state, sovereignty belongs to those people and belongs to them, and the government is guided by the public will in exercising its authority. Another feature of the modern state is the rule of law. Also, the rule of law is based on the supremacy of laws with the content of guaranteeing the fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms of citizens.

The main idea‏ ‏of this paper is to investigate the relationship of ‎conflicting forces, ‎each of which has looked at modernization ‎differently. During the first and second ‎Pahlavi periods, the idea of‏ ‏‏modernization was interpreted by the sovereignty as ‎establishing a ‎modern state and defining new tasks and structures for the state. ‎‎Interpreting modernization as such, in the years leading to the ‎revolution by the ‎Pahlavi, intellectuals criticized this approach. They ‎were looking for a different form of ‎state contrary to Pahlavi's state. ‎Thus, the question is, what type of state were they ‎looking for? To do ‎so, we used the historical-comparative sociological method to probe ‎‎the question. The conclusion is that the modern state raises the ‎modernization idea, and ‎this identification between the two, perhaps, ‎is from the results of the post-‎constitutional era. In the years ‎following September 1941 and 1960-70, intellectuals ‎criticized ‎Pahlavi's modernization and, consequently, annihilated the modern ‎state with ‎all its structures and mechanisms.‎

In the plethora of countries of the Middle East, the entity that nowadays is known as the modern state seriously is different from the primary pattern that has been shaped within more than three centuries in West Europe. One of the signs of the modern state is the exclusive use of physical force by the political authority; this point in the European pattern was formed by the process of bargaining between social forces and statesmen. While the active social forces in the modern Middle East had so little role in institutionalizing physical forces in the state’s hands. Now, the matter is that why the state-making process and consolidating procedure of state exclusive on the physical forces in the mentioned regions (West Europe and the Middle East) had a different history. It seems the role of international actors in shaping the Middle East modern state has caused that most part of the regional states is relied on despotic power rather than infrastructure power. The first is focused on social trends and the latter is based on coercion. This work intends alongside pointing to the rival perspectives on the emerging modern state within Historical Sociology as an analytical framework, to study the roots of the emerging modern state in the current Middle East behind the Historical Sociology of International Relations (HSIR) lenses.

Modernization of governance and the attainment of collective enthusiasm and participation in political decision-making began since the fundamental shift of sovereignty from the Sultan to people. The modern state, as a descendant of ancient forms of governance, defines its sovereignty based on human wisdom rather than spiritual sources. As a claimant to the divine and popular sovereignty, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)—within the Constitutional Law—has recognized its own political–legal framework based on revelation and jurisprudence. Yet as a political entity in international politics and relations, the IRI cannot remain indifferent to the necessities of the modern world, especially when it comes to political and legal systematization. As a result, the IRI has also used modern methods of governance to organize the country legally and politically as well as to manage public affairs. Since state and modernity are pluralistic phenomena in intellectual and political systems, there are differences in the way the components of the Modern are recognized. Taking this as its central topic, the present study used a descriptive–explanatory and prescriptive approach as well as the library data to analyze the constituting components of state. The main finding is the fact that the difference lies in the normative basis and genesis of the two legal systems.

Modern state in Iran does not have a long history, considering that it has been established in the mid-nineteenth century. Due to its domestic and external conditions, this state has acquired unique characteristics. For this reason, the combination of traditional and modern governance as well as the various discourses and mechanisms of the modern state have influenced the public image of the state in Iranian contemporary society. To understand the special nature of the modern state in Iran, there is a need to analyze the historical stages through which the state has been evolving as a vital element in the lives of Iranians today. A large group of scholars attribute the formation of the modern state in Iran to the enactment and enforcement of the 1906 constitution (Qānon-e asāsi-ye mashrotâh) in Qajar era, or the rise of the first Pahlavi ruler in 1925. However, the authors in this paper argue that the conditions for the establishment of a modern state in Iran go back to the Nasserite era (decades before the adoption of the 1906 Constitution). The study of the origin of the modern state must go beyond the official histories and be concentrated on careful consideration of the relevant events. The occurrence of some seemingly insignificant and marginal events in the mid-Nasserite era gave rise to a new concept of population— one of the important consequences of which was a change in structures and processes of governance to better manage the population. The rulers had previously considered Iranian population to be without originality, authenticity, and independence, but the attitude of the ruling elites toward the public had been changing. The population was becoming one of the major elements of state power with the potential to overshadow other factors of power.The main objective of this analysis is to find answers to the following research questions: 1. what conditions led to the emergence of modern government in nineteenth-century Iran, especially in the Nasserite era? 2. How did events such as epidemics and food shortages lead to the rise of the population and the emergence of the modern state in Iran? Inspired by Michel Foucault’s conceptualization of governmentality which includes the study of processes and approaches by which states oversee all aspects of citizens' lives, our research hypothesis has been formulated. It is  asserted that  the occurrence of certain events (epidemics and food scarcity) in Iran has given rise to a new concept of population which has in turn led  to the transition to a new  form of governmentality, initially based on two apparatuses of security and discipline. To find suitable answers to the research questions and test the hypothesis, we collect and analyze quantitative data in nineteenth-century treatises and documents, as well as in academic texts related to the formation of modern state in Iran. The conclusion is that the micro-events (smallpox epidemic and grain shortage) affected the various dimensions of the processes of the formation of Iran’s modern state with its unique characteristics. Although other factors such as the gradual development of cities, the growth of urbanization, and the delimitation of the country's borders in this period have also contributed to the emergence of the population and the evolution of Iran’s modern state, but the importance of these two events are undeniable. By understanding the origin and true nature of modern state in Iran, we will be able to deal with many pressing political and socio-economic problems. This is a useful endeavor, given the urgency of addressing challenges facing the country today through effective governance.

Reza Shah's government was the first to focus on the dispersed sources of power by eliminating the dispersal of local powers. The persistence of ethnic divisions due to scarce resources, relative deprivation, disregard for indigenous capabilities, dispersion and alienation of ethnic groups has left the ethnic group of Lors still deprived. The main question of the research is what is the position of the Lorestan people in terms of development in the new order? Identification of Lorestan province only issues such as dispersion and lack of concentration of Lors in a specific geographical area has led to a weak formation in the use of population capacity and consequently the potential of natural resources or lack of it for the growth of residential areas of this people.

From the Sassanid period to the mid-Qajar period, a form of state in Iran emerged that not only did not hold itself accountable towards the people, but also demanded the citizens to obey the state under any condition as this earthly state was connected to the heavenly kingdom. This article aims at investigating the moment of dissociation from this state form, a dividing moment prior to which the state was considered a pre-modern state, and after which emerged the modern state in Iran. Intervention in the life and death of nationals, either in public or private spheres, is a prominent component of this state. Findings of the article suggest that the beginning of the emergence of modern state dates back to the seizures carried out by the state in the mid-Qajar period, and during the period of fatal cholera’s prevalence. Establishment of Dar ul-Funun University and focus on modern medicine and surgery disciplines, foundation of the first modern hospital in this period, formation of the Pasteur Institute for vaccine production, emphasis on water hygiene as the major cause of cholera were among the non-mythical acts by which the state interfered with the life and death of its citizens. In general, this study concludes that medicalization of Iranian society, and consequently state interference with the dignity of life and health of citizens were paradigms that triggered the impetus for certain movements in the state, and provided the factors required for transition from pre-modern to modern condition.

The subject of this article is the study of the process of government transformation in contemporary Iran from the Constitution to the first Pahlavi. The formation of the modern state in contemporary Iran began with the formation of the constitution and new institutions, but with the change in some of its foundations in the first Pahlavi government, it found its final form to a large extent, although not as consistent as its original concept, the Western text. This study, according to the nine characteristics of the modern government, namely 1. Monopoly control over the means of violence; 2. Being territorial; 3. Sovereignty; 4. Government based on the Constitution; 5. Impersonal power; 6. General bureaucracy; 7. authority / legitimacy; 8. Citizenship; 9. The tax collector has tried to answer the question of how "modern" the evolution of the government from the constitution to the first Pahlavi government has been? The hypothesis of the article is that in the evolution of the government from the constitution to the first Pahlavi, some elements of the modern government that existed before in the Qajar and constitutional governments continued, some were formed in the first Pahlavi era and some remained incomplete. The results of the research show that in the evolution of the government from the constitution, in which some of the most important institutions and structures of the modern government were formed to the modern Pahlavi government, this government monopolized the control of violence, sovereignty, public bureaucracy and taxation. It pursued the modern state, but in cases such as constitutional government, impersonal power, authority / legitimacy, and citizenship, it could not accurately represent the modern state. The research method in this article is qualitative descriptive-analytical and the data is collected in the form of a library and through phishing.

The subject of this article is "A Study about the function of Trust Political tolerance in Thomas Hobbes' Theory of Social Contract." So far, Hobbes' political views have been discussed in various sources, but the study about the function of "trust" and "tolerance" in his political thought can be new. Hobbes is one of the designers of the "social contract theory". The method of work is descriptive and analytical and based on what the meanings of these concepts are in Hobbes theory. Findings in this article indicate that according to the initial discussion of the "necessity" of the state which was the category of "security "but the discussion of the "function" of the state is more important in Hobbes' thought and in order for the state to function, it must have the necessary authority. The concepts of trust and tolerance also make sense in relation to the authority and function of state. The dimensions of Hobbes' theory of man, the types of social status, freedom and property, and the position of the state in relation to society in the form of the relation of the two concepts of "trust" and "tolerance" determine Hobbes's view.

The purpose of the present study is to review the role of Hobbes on the formation of the theoretical principles of the modern state. The method of study is descriptive-analytic and the results showed that by justifying the absolute state, Hobbes indeed justified some elements of the modern state too. In Hobbes' view, the absolute authority of a leader for establishing order and preventing chaos leads to an absolute state in which there is no competitive power in front of a king to limit his authority. Therefore, the theory of Hobbes for the rational justification of the absolute state, involves some elements of the modern state. The exclusive legitimacy of the government in using force, totalitarianism, the churches' obedience to the civil ruler, natural freedom and equality of people in society, and the state legitimacy over the satisfaction of citizens are among some important impacts of Hobbes on the modern state.

Islamic Republic of Iran is a state with unique features in the present time that the matching characteristics with the characteristics of the modern state, there are many opinions dispersed. The modern state, which has its roots in the history of the West, has 10 features that distinguish it from pre-modern states. Meanwhile, the Constitution is an essential characteristic of the modern state That means adherence to the constitution. Therefore, the theory of constitutional government emphasizes that the the government is basically guardian of order based on the constitution 's power structure and the structure of power in all its aspects should be based on the constitution. This article tries to comment on the constitutional criteria, in the characteristics of the modern state, and the state's political power structure in the Islamic Republic of Iran in this respect will be reviewed and concludes that although in cases such as: the structure of representation, separation of powers, rule of law and the judicial process of securing the Islamic Republic of Iran, there are roots of the development of a governance structure based on the constitution, but with a little reflection on some of the principles of the constitution and also delving into some practice, it is observed that in the context of community governance, constitutional ambiguities of criteria has occurred.

In the modern era, due to the demanding requirements of the modern states, all Islamic countries have come into existence and gained independence on the basis of nation-state structure and the modern state paradigm. However, the heritage of statemanship in the Islamic thought has been described as being based on the big theory of "ummah" or "community", opening up new horizons for Islamic sovereignty in Islamic societies. In fact, the two important elements required for understanding the constitutional law system and offering good prospects of sovereignty in contemporary Islamic society are: the concept of modernity and its related legal and political structure on the one hand and the legal and political structures of the Ummah or Muslim Community originating in Islamic thought on the other. The idea of Ummah and its formation process has received particular attention in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Given the fact that there is no possibility of ignoring these two concepts and their implications, the way in which the modern state interacts with the new structures of the Islamic Community constitutes the future state of the Islamic world in terms of law and politics. This is the issue which is the focus of attention in this article. The question raised in this article is this," Considering the requirements for forming a modern state, how can one obtain the Islamic Community?" To answer this question, the writers of the article make a careful analysis of the two concepts of "modern state" and "Islamic Community", as well as of the supposition that the modern state is incongruent with the requirements for establishing the Islamic Community, seeking to offer strategies for transition to the Islamic Community in view of the constitutional law system in the Islamic countries around the world.

The goal of this article is approaching to a touchable theoretical framework of modern state. The question is that by what kinds of approach the modern state could be studied and investigated. Besides, what are the bases and traits of modern state. In other words by which theoretical traits the modern state could be recognized better. The author, while giving a short introduction of macro views of modern state, knows the Organizational Approach as the most suitable view for defining the state; because it is free from the deficiencies of other approaches. The method used in this study is historical, descriptive, analytical and comparative. This study while referring to the historical development of modern state in the frame of absolutist state by laying on theoretical framework got from the ideas of Weber, Pierson and Morris, emphasis on the fact that modern state should be investigated as a political organization, so by defining its parts, the nature of modern state( basis, function, nature and traits) could be recognized, and the complexities and ambiguities on the way of defining the state could be reduced.