حکمرانی، دولت و توزیع قدرت در گفتمان «ترقیِ» ایران عصر ناصری

حکمرانیِ ایرانی در سده‌ی نوزده میلادی، سرآغاز شکل‌گیری گونه‌ای دیگر از حکمرانی، متفاوت با دوره‌های پیشین بود. نوعی تغییر در سبک حکومت‌گری، که در نیمه‌ی دوم قرن و در عصر پنجاه‌ ساله‌ی ناصری، با به‌کارگیریِ مفهوم نظری و عملیِ «ترقی» برای توصیف آن از سوی نیروهای چندگانه‌ای که خواهان «ترقی» بودند، در یک گفتمان مفصل‌بندی شد؛ گفتمان «ترقی» و تغییر در حکمرانی، به کانون نوشتارها و کردارهای آن دوره مبدل شده بود. در این مقاله، قصد ما آشکار ساختن نقش (آگاهانه و ناآگانه‌ی) حکومت در انطباق خود با شرایط و تحولات جدید و میزان انبساط آن در پذیرش انطباق با تحولات است. تغییرات نوخواهانه در طول سده‌ی نوزده در ایران، حکمرانیِ ایرانی را به سمت‌وسویی کشاند که به‌ میزانی از توزیعِ قدرت مطلقه‌ی سیاسی تن در دهد؛ شکلی از واگذاریِ حداقلیِ بخشی از اختیارات سنتی نهاد پادشاهی در سطوح جدید بوروکراتیک. این تغییرات که هم‌چون افزونه‌ای بیرونی بر اقتدار مطلق و دیرینه‌ی آن حادث و اضافه شده بود فراتر از ظرفیت و امکان‌های نهاد سنتیِ پادشاهی بود؛ از این‌رو، برای تحقق آنها ناگزیر به چشم‌پوشی از بخش‌هایی از اختیارات سنتی خود گشت.

Genealogy of the Power Distribution at Naseri Age;Governance, Changing and Progression

Abstract The progressive changes in nineteenth century led Iranian governance to the distribution of absolute political power. It meaningfully was a minimal cession of the traditional authority of the king institution and its power that could be accomplished either conscientiously and non conscientiously. This article has been based on this assumption: seeking for and pursuing improvement of the undesirable conditions, and generally,  looking for progression, need to accompaniment of two agent, both the political system (government) and scientific (intellectual) efforts. Basing on that assumption, in this article, we are going to show and demonstrate the government's roles and practices, to achieve the progression. Undoubtedly, we can’t pursuit our goal with a mere glance on, and a superficial research about the nineteenth century evolutions. In another hand, no government likes to divide its unification  and has no tendency to reduce its traditional capacities. Any changing, and any movement to modern progressing, especially at the first stages, can’t be a continuous and permanent process without the government's supports and interferences. But, whereas in the primitive stage to modernization, the old administrative system (bureaucracy) is one of the original and elementary  obstacles, every prosecution to modernization of the society and state is depended on the proportional changes in the government by itself. Problematically, in traditional Iranian state, the King was the Zhellollah (the God's shadow) it means that, the King had the topmost place in the hierarchical pyramid of power in fact, the Kingdom as a traditional, legal and accepted institution in Iran was the comprehensive and fully qualified status of power. Thus, wherever this powerful institution is the most important bearer for modern progress, its unified, centered and integrated authority has been effected by the uncharitable and serious element of modernity. We are looking to confirm and verify this claim in this article. To access such goal, we need an approach which can be explanatory so, we need the Genealogy method of Michel Foucault. Genealogy approach can nicely and deliberately explain the coalition of the government's unconscious operation and conscious function in studious unit. We will show that such combination has been done within a complete coalition of awareness and non awareness. It was full of awareness, because the general will of the government was going to accept emblems of western modern changing, to adapt and perform it in the traditional society of Iran. So the government attempts to do it by itself. But it was higher than traditional King’s efforts and capacities. The government made decision to distribute and cession parts of its power just for ongoing social changing. The non conscientious or undesired conclusion of power dispersion in the politics area was the genesis of a will to establish a constitutional government. In fact, the extensive portion of this matter was not only the consequence of intellectual or thinking pioneers efforts but also was a production of the government progressive actions.