دولت و سیاست تنازعی در ایران معاصر، ضرورت گذار به «دولت مصالحه جو»

تداوم سیاست تنازعی در ایران معاصر، پرسش از سرچشمه‌ها و سازوکارهای بازتولید این منازعات را به‌پیش می کشد. در ادبیات موجود سرچشمه‌ این منازعات یا به دولت و یا به شکاف‌های اجتماعی نسبت داده شده است. در اثاری هم‌که به‌نقش دولت پرداخته شده یا بر وجوه ساختاری و یا ترتیبات نهادی آن تاکید شده‌است. این مقاله بر نقش کارکرد دولت تمرکز کرده و بر این اساس ظهور و عملکرد پنج نوع دولت را در برهه‌های مختلف تاریخ معاصر ایران شناسائی کرده که شامل دولت خود بازساز، دولت ملت‌ساز، دولت توسعه‌گرا، دولت بازتوزیع‌کننده و دولت توسعه‌طلب ‌است. مقاله نشان داد که هر یک از این دولت‌ها‌، گرچه به‌نوبه خود پیشرفت‌هائی داشته‌اند اما تاخر تاریخی و استراتژی‌ها و سیاست‌های گزینش شده آن‌ها ناکامی‌های بزرگی هم به‌بار آورده که باعث انباشت بحران‌ها و تشدید و تداوم منازعات سیاسی شده است. مقاله شرط برون رفت از این وضعیت را نیارمند استقرار «دولت مصالحه‌گرا» دانسته که می‌تواند از یک قرارداد اجتماعی فراگیر سربرآورد و براساس ترتیبات نهادی دموکراتیک و پذیرش تکثر و سازوکارهای رقابتی در عرصه‌های مختلف سیاسی، اقتصادی و اجتماعی کارکرد اصلی خود را حل‌منازعه قرار دهد و به جای مداخله اقتدارگرایانه در جامعه، پاسدار موجودیت و امنیت جامعه باشد و فقط انجا که سازوکارهای درونجوش و رقابتی با کسری یا تعارض منافع یا منازعه روبرو می‌شود به جبران نارسائی‌ها، رفع اختلافات و حل منازعات مبادرت ورزد و تعادل اجتماعی و ثبات سیاسی را بازتولید کند.

state and contention politics in cotemporary iran necessity of transition to conciliator state

problem: the continuation and increasing intensification of the contentious politics in contemporary iran, which is an endless revolutions chain, coups, movements, uprisings, and political rebellions, have shown questions about the grounds and roots of this type of politics. in existing studies, the roots of political conflicts in iran have been attributed either to the state or social cleavages. as far as the role of the state is concerned, it is usually focused on its structural aspects. this article omits the discussion about the structure of the state and focuses only on the functioning of the statequestion: the question of the article is: what is the relationship between the continuation and intensification of contentious politics in contemporary iran with the practical priorities and orientations of the state in different periods of the contemporary iranian history?hypothesis: the hypothesis of the article is that the continuation and intensification of the contentious politics has been caused by the imbalances and crises caused by the practical priorities and orientations of the state in different periods of contemporary iranian history.method: in this article, the method of secondary analysis of historical data is used. based on the data available in the historical sources, first, the process of the state's performance and priorities in different periods of contemporary history have been identified. second, the process of accumulation of conflicts and conflicts arising from these performance and priorities has been shown. third, the relationship between the two mentioned trends is shown. finally, by using the ideal type method, an attempt has been made to design and present a model of the state, which seems to be able to reverse the process of conflict politics in iran and lead to reconciliation politics.findings: the findings of the research indicate that over the last two centuries, five different models of state (in terms of orientation and performance) have been effective, which are: self-rebuilding state, nation-building state, developmental state, redistributor state and expansionist state. of course, this does not mean that the ruling states have only one of these functions at any time; rather, there has often been some kind of overlap in two or three functions, but at each point, one orientation and function has been the priority and focus of the state's attention. self-rebuilding state appeared in a defective and discrete form during the qajar era, but in a serious and effective way in the first decade of reza shah’s rule (1921-40). the nation-building state also emerged weakly in the years after the constitutional movement, but seriously and effectively in the last decade of the reza shah’s rule (1931-41). developmental state emerged faintly in the second decade of reza shah’s rule (1931-41), and seriously and effectively in the last fifteen years of mohammad reza shah’s rule (1962-78), and in the years after the islamic revolution also took place in some periods such as the presidency of rafsanjani (1989-96). the redistributive state appeared faintly in the last fifteen years of mohammad reza shah’s rule (1962-78) and more seriously and effectively in the first decade after the islamic revolution (1979-88). finally, the expansionist state appeared first in the last years of mohammad reza king’s rule (1973-78) and then more seriously and widely in the years after the revolution, especially in the last two decades (2001-2022).analysis and discussion: the analysis of the findings of the article showed that: in each of these five models of state, although they had some progress in realizing their main goals and priorities, but in addition to the historical delay in the desired orientation, there were failures in the same orientation. selecting of the orientations have resulted of disproportionate strategies