مقایسه جایگاه ملت و حدود حاکمیت در قانون اساسی مشروطه عثمانی، مشروطه ژاپن و مشروطه ایران

مشروطه ایران در اوایل سده بیستم میلادی، تحولی اساسی در منطق قدرت و زمامداری سیاسی ایجاد کرد. در این پژوهش، بر این مسئله درنگ می‌کنیم که جدا از خوانش مشروطه ایران از نظرگاه سیاسی، تاریخی، فرهنگی و حقوقی، می‌توان آن را با سایر خیزش‌های قانون‌خواهی و مشروطه‌طلبی در جهان شرق نیز مقایسه کرد. چنین سبک و سیاقی، این امکان را میسر می‌سازد تا درباره مشروطه ایران و به‌ویژه قانون اساسی آن، ژرف‌تر بیندیشیم. گذار ایران به مشروطه‌خواهی در دورانی اتفاق افتاد که در جهان شرق، پیش‌ از ایران، دولت‌های عثمانی و ژاپن نیز مشروطه را تجربه کرده بودند. بدین‌سان، ضمن التفات به تشابهات تاریخی گذار سه دولت مهم در جهان شرق به نظام سیاسی مشروطه، بر این پرسش متمرکز می‌شویم که «مشروطه ایران، به‌ویژه قانون اساسی مشروطه ایران چه تمایزی با قانون اساسی مشروطه عثمانی و مشروطه ژاپن داشت؟». چنان تاملی، چنین فرضی را پیش‌روی این گفتار قرار داده است که «قانون اساسی مشروطه ایران (1906) در قیاس با مشروطه عثمانی (1876) و مشروطه ژاپن (1889)، نسبت به نقش و جایگاه ملت در قانون اساسی نگرش متفاوتی داشت و بر خلاف دو مشروطه دیگر، نخستین قانون اساسی جهان شرق بود که از سنت حکمرانی اقتدارگرا گذر کرد». در این گفتار، چنان ادعایی را با روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی و بهره‌گیری از رهیافت جامعه‌شناسی تاریخی وارسی می‌کنیم و درباره چرایی برتری مشروطه ایران نیز ملاحظاتی مطرح می‌شود. آگاهی از چنین مسائل تاریخی، بر ژرفای بینش سیاسی ما ایرانیان درباره اهمیت مشروطه و مسئله زمامداری خواهد افزود.

comparing the position of the nation and the limits of sovereignty in the constitution of the ottoman constitution, the japanese constitution and the iranian constitution

introduction the encounter between eastern nations and the modern world, particularly in the 19th century, was a pivotal event in contemporary history. during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the east gradually distanced itself from the modern world, especially european powers. this gap was evident in the early military and intellectual confrontations between the east and the powerful states of the international system. the ottoman empire, japan, and iran were three significant eastern states whose political histories during this period are of particular interest. these nations experienced a crisis in the 18th and 19th centuries. aware of the similar challenges they faced—internal weakness and external threats—the intellectual and political elites of these states sought to save their countries from decline by adapting to the new global order. beyond their shared challenges, these elites also converged on a similar solution: reforming the political system. constitutionalism, as a product of the modern era, was seen as a means to achieve this reform and overcome governmental weakness. the constitutional movements in the east reflected the belief among the intellectual and political elites that establishing a constitutional order and drafting a constitution could transform governance.methodology this study argues that this historical experience merits further analysis and reinterpretation. by examining the spread of constitutional thought in eastern countries, we can ask the following question: how did the iranian constitution, particularly the constitutional law of iran, differ from the constitutions of the ottoman empire and japan? this question necessitates a historical analysis of the constitutional movements in these three eastern countries during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. the underlying hypothesis of this research is that the iranian constitution (1906), compared to the ottoman (1876) and japanese (1889) constitutions, had a different perspective on the role and status of the nation. unlike the other two constitutions, the iranian constitution was the first in the eastern world to move beyond the tradition of authoritarian rule.interpreting constitutionalism in the eastern world necessitates employing a historical content analysis approach. this involves a critical analysis of historical events, texts, and documents to examine constitutionalism in the east. the research aims to compare constitutionalism in the ottoman empire, japan, and iran and to identify distinctions between the iranian constitution and the other two case studies; a historical sociological approach can be adopted. according to dennis smith in the rise of historical sociology, several issues are crucial in a historical sociological perspective. the first is the role of elites and intellectual or political actors in events. second, it involves understanding events within a specific historical and temporal context, paying attention to the sequence of historical developments and the unique historical, cultural, traditional, and political context of that society. third, it emphasizes the importance of comparing and contrasting events.finding the theoretical framework of this research is based on john austin’s perspective. according to austin, beyond the existence of written law, one must also consider the law’s efficacy. by efficacy, austin means that written law must have a practical impact, and political order cannot simply rely on the existence or writing of a law. the efficacy of law becomes relevant when the rights of the people or nation and the limits of government are respected. a similar perspective is found in the interpretation of constitutionalism, where it is argued that a constitutional monarchy is truly founded when the ’rights of the nation’ and the ’limits of government’ are clearly defined.