104 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 27:4

Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran
Stephanie Cronin, ed.

London and New York: Routledge, 2009. 316 pages.

One cannot think of politicized Islam in Iran without thinking of the Iranian
Left’s formation and overall history. The awkward yet symbiotic relation-
ship between them continues to impact how political decisions are made,
especially at the parliamentary level. Given the Left’s wide-ranging linkages
with surrounding regions, including the Causacus (early twentieth century)
and the Arab Middle East (particularly during the 1970s), experts dealing
with those regions’ politics would benefit from this work. As one of the
Middle East’s strongest leftist movements before the 1980s, any discussion
of neighboring revolutionary movements must at least consider it. Although
this book assumes familiarity with twentieth-century Iran’s secular politics
and might be considered too dense, its rather large bibliographic section is
meant to encourage individual intellectual pursuits.  

Many contemporary scholars of the Iranian Left agree on its adherents’
general lack of critical self-reflection throughout the twentieth century.
Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran offers a forum for critical
reassessments of organizational platforms along with constructive proposi-
tions meant to enhance the viability of left-leaning programs – especially
social-democratic initiatives. This latter point is crucial, because several
contributors deliberately state the importance of rejuvenating the Left
through social democratic reformism. Historical examples are used to prove
this option’s viability over the more “rigid” Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist
examples. 

Fred Halliday contextualizes the Iranian Left’s history within a broader
geopolitical scope, explaining how some unique manifestations within it
(e.g., its acquiescence to Allied belligerence during the Second World War)
can be rooted in a broader context.  His dismissal of Islamic approaches to
social change by calling its cognate thinking an “intellectual jail” (p. 33) is,
however, quite disheartening. Afshin Matin-asgari’s brief overview of the
movement’s trajectory as it developed during the twentieth century contains
the first sustained endorsement of the social democratic option. The article
asserts that we are currently witnessing a return to the social democratic
ideals once espoused by early twentieth-century social critics in the Cau-
casus. As mentioned earlier, there is an explicit bias in favor of this option
throughout much of the text.



As evinced in her “The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1906-11,”
Janet Afary’s keen insight into the role played by non-Muslim revolutionar-
ies during the constitutional era is brought out in her contribution. The gene-
alogy behind the all-important workers councils, their auxiliary militias, the
proliferation of printed periodicals, and the relations between prominent
Muslim politicians such as Hasan Taqizadah and non-Muslim supporters are
excellently detailed. 

While Afary delves deep into the archives of the constitutional move-
ment’s formation, Pezhmann Dailami goes a step further by describing the
alteration of socioeconomic circumstances that led to the creation of a nas-
cent socialist movement. The emigration of Iranian peasants and artisans to
Azerbaijan during the economic downturn of the late nineteenth century is a
relatively unexploited stage in Iranian history. It served a crucial role, how-
ever, in the Edalat Party’s transformation into the Iranian Communist Party
during the 1920s. The lethargy of Baku’s working class and the diligence of
full-time revolutionaries such as Haider Khan Amu-Ughly reflect a general
trend that would be repeated often throughout the twentieth century. 

Stephanie Cronin highlights Haider Khan’s collusion with Major Abul-
qasim Lahuti during the takeover of Iranian Azerbaijan in 1922. This event
was emblematic of Iran’s unruly state of affairs prior to Reza Khan’s auto-
cratic crackdown. One important juxtaposition here is that between the Gen-
darmes and the Soviet-backed Cossacks Brigade. The direction taken by the
provisional leadership in early 1922 reflects the cadres’ general sense of
autonomy, which echoes Halliday’s claim regarding the Left’s relative
autonomy during some crucial moments in its history. While there were
moments of relative autonomy, Touraj Atabaki details the tragic treatment of
Iranian communists in the USSR during the first half of the twentieth cen-
tury, with the Stalinist purges being the most devastating episode. Ehsan-
ollah Khan came to represent a stock of revolutionaries who needed to be
rehabilitated by Moscow years after being struck down by a storm of con-
flicting allegiances.

Homa Katouzian’s portrayal of Khalil Maleki as an inspirational “precur-
sor” (p. 165) to parliamentary socialism runs parallel with the book’s gen-
eral thrust. Maleki’s split from the rigidity of the dominant Communist Party
of the time and his theoretical formulations (especially his “third force in gen-
eral/particular” theory) represent a form of independence and originality that
is said to have been lacking among the movement’s more ultra-Leftist ele-
ments. During the 1970s, those guerrilla organizations that endorsed armed
struggle epitomized this latter tendency. Maziar Behrooz illustrates this stage

Book Reviews 105



106 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 27:4

of the Iranian Left’s history. As the only article dedicated to this unique per-
iod, however, it would have been interesting to read about this branch’s
redemptive qualities to supplement the overwhelming endorsement of
reformist strategies.

As one of the most prominent feminist scholars of the far Left, Haideh
Moghissi analyzes the Left’s catastrophic failure to properly handle the
grievances of Iranian women. This failure is related, in part, to the discon-
nect that exists between the base and the leadership of leftist organizations.
This disconnect is brought out more clearly in her other article, coauthored
by Saeed Rahnema, which reveals the sense of alienation between the work-
ing class and the leftist leadership. Both authors clearly outline the confusion
in organizational analyses of the composition of Iran’s working class and
ignorance of the nuances and particularities of the Iranian milieu even after
all these years of exile. Both this confusion and a general misunderstanding
of surrounding phenomena, including the Islamist movement’s precise char-
acter, serve as the basis for what Ali Mirsepassi calls “the tragedy of the
Iranian Left” (p. 229) and Saeed Rahnema’s turn toward a constructive and
deliberative path through social democratic theorization.

Beyond the discussion surrounding the Left’s failure, one of its collat-
eral successes is its continuing ability to radicalize the Islamic movement.
Ever since its formal inception in Iran, this effect has been unrelenting.
Even today, as many of the contributors pointed out, social democratic ele-
ments are infiltrating the leftist ranks of the Islamic Republic. Although, as
Ervand Abrahamian asserts, the reform movement’s most prominent mem-
bers are influenced by liberal discourse, the permanence of leftist influence
cannot easily be shaken off.

Arshavez Mozafari
Ph.D. Candidate (II), Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations

University of Toronto, Canada