The Shi'i ulama and the state in Iran

Conclusion

In this article I attempted to explain the politics of the ulama in terms of class struggle. I indicated that ulama political orientations, and the emergence of politically divergent factions in their midst, were historically correlated with the interests of the traditional petty bourgeoisie, the merchants, and the landlords. In other words, from the political class struggle viewpoint, diverse factions among the ulama tended to represent these diverse social classes. The ulama, it is true, defended their divergent political positions through their interpretations of the Islamic laws. Therefore, the assertion that a particular group of the ulama were political representatives of a particular class, say, the petty bourgeoisie, is not to suggest that they consciously interpreted their religious texts so as to justify the petty bourgeoisie interests, or that they were the enthusiastic champions of the petty bourgeoisie. “What makes them representatives of the petty bourgeoisie,” says Marx, “is the fact that in their mind they do not get beyond the limits which the latter do not get beyond in life, that they are consequently driven, theoretically, to the same problems and solutions to which material interest and social position drive the latter practically. This is, in general, the relationship between the political and literary representatives of a class and the class they represent.”¹

I should stress that the relationship between class representatives and the class they represent is not unproblematic. Whenever the ulama have defended a particular issue, they have done so according to their own ideological mode of discourse. In their interpretations of the teachings of Shi'ism they all must follow, and submit to, the internal logic of the ideology of Shi'ism and its specific modes of discourse, which are considered proper and acceptable by all the ulama. In other words, all the ulama, conservative or radical, must base their argument on the same set of ideological premises. Thus the content of the (Usuli) teachings of Shi'ism, as well as its specific modes of discourse put limits on the range of ideologically defensible political actions. (Such limits might explain why the ulama never attempted to defend the interests of workers and peasants.) This factor combined with the ulama's conscious efforts to maintain an ideological uniformity and organizational unity may provide them with a certain degree of relative autonomy in the field of class struggle. How these factors affect the course and direction of class struggle is another aspect of ulama politics that needs an in-depth investigation.