مقایسه جایگاه ملت و حدود حاکمیت در قانون اساسی مشروطه عثمانی، مشروطه ژاپن و مشروطه ایران (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
مشروطه ایران در اوایل سده بیستم میلادی، تحولی اساسی در منطق قدرت و زمامداری سیاسی ایجاد کرد. در این پژوهش، بر این مسئله درنگ می کنیم که جدا از خوانش مشروطه ایران از نظرگاه سیاسی، تاریخی، فرهنگی و حقوقی، می توان آن را با سایر خیزش های قانون خواهی و مشروطه طلبی در جهان شرق نیز مقایسه کرد. چنین سبک و سیاقی، این امکان را میسر می سازد تا درباره مشروطه ایران و به ویژه قانون اساسی آن، ژرف تر بیندیشیم. گذار ایران به مشروطه خواهی در دورانی اتفاق افتاد که در جهان شرق، پیش از ایران، دولت های عثمانی و ژاپن نیز مشروطه را تجربه کرده بودند. بدین سان، ضمن التفات به تشابهات تاریخی گذار سه دولت مهم در جهان شرق به نظام سیاسی مشروطه، بر این پرسش متمرکز می شویم که «مشروطه ایران، به ویژه قانون اساسی مشروطه ایران چه تمایزی با قانون اساسی مشروطه عثمانی و مشروطه ژاپن داشت؟». چنان تأملی، چنین فرضی را پیش روی 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 بهره گیری از رهیافت جامعه شناسی تاریخی وارسی می کنیم و درباره چرایی برتری مشروطه ایران نیز ملاحظاتی مطرح می شود. 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.Conclusions Numerous studies have been conducted on the ups and downs of Iran's constitutional revolution, each with its own perspective. However, this discourse argues that a deeper understanding of Iran's constitutionalism and particularly its constitution can be achieved by examining it within the broader context of the East's encounter with the modern world and by comparing it with the constitutions of other countries that underwent similar transitions to constitutionalism. Analyzing and explaining constitutionalism in the East becomes even more significant when, beyond merely describing historical developments, we examine their constitutions in terms of the relationship between the people, the monarch, and the law. The constitutionalist thought of that era expected that alongside goals such as a strong state, economic modernization, and territorial independence, the issue of national sovereignty or the primacy of the people's will in the constitution would also gain importance. This desire was one of the fundamental bases of the constitutional model of political governance in any state or nation around the world. However, the constitutions of the Ottoman Empire and Japan adopted a conservative and stingy approach regarding national sovereignty and popular rule. In fact, rather than interpreting the constitutions of these two states in terms of the place of the people's will and national sovereignty, the Ottoman and Japanese laws can be seen as a form of human rights or consideration of certain expedient rights for the subjects. In contrast, the Iranian Constitution explicitly insisted on national sovereignty and rule based on the will of the people. The Iranian Constitution was the first constitution in the Eastern world to describe governance as a trust granted by the people to the ruler. This was in stark contrast to the pre-constitutional Iran, where the Shah or Sultan was considered the shadow of God, the Qibla of the world, and the absolute owner of people and property. The distinction and virtue of the Iranian Constitution lay precisely in its termination of such a tradition.
تبلیغات
