Strategic Studies Quarterly

Abstract By the end of the twentieth century, it became evident that a highly centralized model of government was a source of crisis, and that centralization alone could not solve the problems at hand. Supporting local and regional governance through institutions such as local governments has come to be seen as a marker of both development and maturity in societies. Over time, evolving ideas about governance have led societies to pursue more democratic practices and to actively work toward speeding up the democratization process. Essentially, modern governance is about integrating the interests of the state and its people through collaboration and interaction. To facilitate this, governments need to establish mechanisms that create suitable, decentralized structures, enabling various bodies with broad authority and significant responsibility to play active roles in delivering public services. However, the assumption of certain responsibilities by local governments should not be interpreted as undermining or challenging the power of the central government—instead, the central government still holds its supervisory authority over local administration.
Throughout Iran’s history, governments have typically been characterized by individualized, absolutist, autocratic, and self-centered approaches. This led to the establishment of a highly centralized system. However, with the success of the Constitutional Revolution and the spread of ideas about the rule of people and citizens’ rights, Iran took its first steps toward breaking away from centralization. This revolution paved the way for the creation of democratic institutions such as the constitution, parliament, and various civic associations. Thereafter, public involvement in determining the country’s future and in forming local bodies—like provincial and municipal councils—became increasingly important, with certain local responsibilities being transferred to these new institutions. As a consequence, changes in leadership brought about shifts in the way national cohesion was understood within the context of local governance. Based on these developments, this paper aims to answer the question: “What impact have the different models of local governance throughout contemporary Iranian history had on national cohesion, considering its social, political, and cultural dimensions?”
Methodology
To address this question, the study first identifies various types of local governance. It then employs a mixed-methods approach that combines qualitative analysis of historical events and trends with quantitative survey research utilizing questionnaires. In this regard, 31 researchers and senior experts in contemporary Iranian history were purposefully selected and asked to complete a questionnaire designed to assess the relationship between local governance models and the elements of national cohesion.
Discussion and Results
The findings indicate that the impact of different local governance systems on national cohesion has varied significantly across four historical periods (according to the Iranian calendar, 1275–1400 [1896-2021]). Evidence, drawn from historical trends and expert opinions, suggests that the highest level of national cohesion was achieved during the fourth period—corresponding to the Islamic Republic—which received a score of 3.47 out of 5. The Constitutional period followed, while both the first and second Pahlavi periods reported lower cohesion scores.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, it is clear that local governance in Iran was traditionally characterized by appointed, undemocratic, and top-down practices until the Constitutional Revolution. Modern local governance began with that revolution and has evolved considerably over the past century. The study finds that before the Islamic Revolution, city councils served as the symbol of local governance in Iran, whereas afterward, Islamic city councils took on that role. An examination of the laws, institutions, associations, and urban local councils reveals that despite some common themes, there have been significant differences influenced by the pressures of the times, the power of the ruling government, and the ongoing struggle between centralization (dominated by the central government) and decentralization (promoted by local councils and associations). Ultimately, brief periods of decentralization have given way to a prevailing trend of centralization, primarily due to the absence of a deep democratic culture and the authoritarian nature of the central governments.

Abstract The paper intends to analyze the Iranian social capital in light of the JCPOA. Therefore, all events and trends observed in Iran after conclusion of the JCPOA are assumed as indicators for demonstrating the Iranian social capital. In this way, some implicit and explicit functions of the nuclear talks, the process of decision making in Iran, role of reference groups and citizens with respect to the talks that can strengthen or weaken the Iranian social capital are analyzed in this paper.    

Abstract Globalization has brought about significant positive and negative consequences for the human security including military, ecological, economic, cultural and psychological security. This article argues that the negative consequences mainly arise from the neo-liberal interpretations and accounts of the phenomenon rather than from the nature of globalization process.           Globalization on the one hand, has resulted in the reduction of wars and military hostilities, increased material advancements, heightened relative welfare and employment, and the growth of diverse convergences, and on the other has caused the proliferation of destructive military technology, growing depletion of the environment, financial instability, cultural degeneration, and diluted social cohesion.   In other words, as a result of the process in question, there has been an increase in the non-state supervision over and ensuring the protection of the environment, but the globalized economic mechanisms are highly polluting the environment. As the world capitalism has contributed to the more rapid improvement of welfare in the industrialized countries, but just a few countries enjoy a condition like that of the said countries, and world trade regimes have inflicted much harm on the poor countries. On the other side, worldwide companies and industries have created millions of job opportunities, but the mass transfer of workforce has led to the loss of jobs and fear of occupational insecurity. Therefore, it can be overall suggested that the neo-liberal and new right versions of the globalization phenomenon have affected its security-building aspects and have exacerbated the insecurities stemming from this process.