The history of Iran is a history of various connections and discontinuities in the social, economic, and political spheres. One of the reasons for the continuity of democracies is not the existence of democratic governments, but the existence of civil society. To the extent that civil society and its affiliated institutions have more power, position, and continuity, there is more possibility for the development, deepening, and sustainability of democracy. Governments are not only defenders of democracy, but depending on the circumstances and nature of political power, they can also be obstacles to democracy. Therefore, what defines the face of a government in the social and international democratic arena is the existence of civil society and its affiliated institutions. If we want to consider one objective indicator as the most important among various indicators of democratic societies, we can point to the continuity and independence of civil institutions. Similarly, if we want to mention various indicators that define the Iranian society throughout history as a political and economic territory, we can provide interpretations and extensive reports

Violence and social systems.

In studies conducted on the economic history of countries around the world, two categories of countries have been distinguished based on the political structure of their governments and the access of societies to economic resources. One category consists of countries with limited access systems, and the second category consists of democratic governments with open access systems. Natural governments have a lifespan of thousands of years, and it was only in the 19th century that we witnessed a transition from limited access to open access systems. Douglas North and his colleagues define open access as “a wide range of organizations independent of the government” (1) that have open access to economic and political resources. According to North and his colleagues, one of the factors that leads countries from natural governments to open access systems is the presence of permanent laws and organizations. With the explanations provided in this introduction, this article aims to examine the challenges faced by civil society organizations in contemporary times after analyzing historical conditions and presenting analytical and critical reports.

Introduction to Civil Society and its Institutions.

Civil society is considered as the intermediary between society and the government, according to the definition of the middle circle. According to the principle, the government cannot and should not take on all social responsibilities; it cannot do so because the scope and extent of social responsibilities are limitless and the government is not capable of understanding all aspects of social life. Moreover, it is not correct for the government to extend its shadow of power to all aspects of social life.

Numerous definitions have been presented about civil society; so much so that Kazem Alamdari mentions a book titled “

Confused triangle.

There are seventy-six different definitions of civil society (2). Robert Putnam calls civil society a social capital (3). Yakov Slezkine writes in his article “The Political Character of Civil Society”: “Civil society is often defined as the self-governing plurality of private and public activities outside the control of the state, characterized by individual freedom, local and regional self-governance, citizen participation in public affairs and social movements, as well as cultural autonomy and free trade unions” (4). With these definitions, civil society takes on responsibilities that neither the government can take on nor should they be imposed on the government.

The government alone is not able to eliminate poverty and social inequalities.

The government alone cannot take responsibility for the health and education of the people of the country.

The government alone cannot take responsibility for the rights derived from the environment.

The government’s interference in matters of ethics and mental health of society is not a proper action.

It is not appropriate for the government to interfere in the leisure time of society.

It is not right for the government to interfere in cultural and religious affairs of society.

The government, due to its historical conflict with society, is unable and often unwilling to listen to the public movements that are in the best interest of everyone.

If the government interferes in these matters, in addition to the failure and negative consequences it brings, we will tie the government’s responsibilities to authoritarian and totalitarian characteristics. Today, these responsibilities have been entrusted to civil society organizations. If we look at the situation in advanced countries, many of the tasks that were once the responsibility of governments have been entrusted to civil society organizations. Civil society is an aware and responsible society that pursues common goals despite differences and even competition. Civil institutions divide different responsibilities in a way that ensures the common goal is achieved. Political parties pursue political responsibilities in balance with the government’s capabilities. Trade unions pursue economic responsibilities in the same balance. Civil society organizations pursue social responsibilities and ultimately, the media pursues cultural responsibilities. From a power perspective, the collective power of these institutions creates a balance with the government to achieve common social goals, but perhaps in a more accurate definition, the collective power of these institutions creates a balance with the government’s capabilities so that society can achieve its

Balanced distribution of capabilities and responsibilities from the government to institutions and organizations affiliated with civil society ideals leads to the stimulation of responsible motivations and trust in societies that, to a certain extent, suffer from weak collective motivations due to the conflicting relationship between the government and the nation. Governments, especially in societies lacking civil society, are considered enemies of trust-building. In Iran, the conflicting relationship between the government and the nation has a historical background; even governments that come to power through revolutions or social movements are not able to eliminate this conflict or build trust. Resolving the conflict between the government and the nation requires a permanent trust-building movement, which is entrusted to a self-governing civil society movement. The Iranian society, with its complex problems and cultural dilemmas, needs a “permanent self-governing civil society movement” more than any other society. Let me give an example here. Environmental pollution is one of the worst problems and challenges that the Iranian society is facing; to the extent that people

In a democratic society, the government is not all-powerful, but rather it is a self-governing society where everyone is involved in their own affairs. The government only appears as a facilitator of good and common interests. Old and authoritarian governments needed to control society in order to take control of all matters. This is why the inefficiency of these governments was considered inevitable. Civil society transfers a large part of the responsibilities of past governments to its own self-governing institutions. Civil society and its affiliated institutions present an image of a capable society; however, our society also faces many challenges in terms of forming a civil society. It is also faced with people’s organizations that do not have the minimum characteristics and features of civil society, despite the challenges they pose. In the following, we will discuss the most important of these challenges.

The challenge of sustainability and continuity.

Previously, in the introduction, we mentioned the words of Douglas North and his colleagues that one of the characteristics of societies with an open access system is the existence of permanent laws and organizations. The history of some universities in democratic countries, such as Oxford University dating back to the 11th century and Cambridge University to the 13th century, while the two universities of Al-Azhar in Egypt and Jondishapur University in Iran, although they have longer histories, have disappeared and the universities that currently bear the names of Al-Azhar and Jondishapur were established in recent decades. The history of some people-centered organizations that work in charity dates back to three to four hundred years ago. The authors of the book.

International organizations.

Non-governmental organizations such as the educational association known as Rosicurian (Rosicrucian) refer to their activities that began in 1674. The authors of the mentioned book compare government organizations to a “global conscience” that “in addition to civil society, also influences the moral development of governments and intergovernmental organizations” (9).

Furthermore, in the introduction, we compared Iranian society to a short-term society. In a short-term society, there is no possibility for any long-term planning. According to Katozian, “In this society, the accumulation of long-term changes, including the accumulation of long-term wealth and capital, social and private institutions, and even educational institutions, has been very difficult. It is obvious that these institutions have existed or come into existence in every short-term period; in the next short-term periods, they have been rebuilt or undergone fundamental changes” (10). However, the problem is not only that, as Katozian says, social and private institutions undergo fundamental changes in the next short-term periods; the problem is that these institutions do not continue. In countries with reputable and permanent organizations and commitments, no government has the right to dissolve political parties and organizations, but in countries that support a natural government, the situation of parties is like the situation of the land ownership system, which

Iranian Modernity.

“Having spread, he has studied the history of political parties in Iran over the past two centuries and writes that the average lifespan of parties in Iran has been eight years (11). Abrahamian in his book…”

Iran between two revolutions.

He writes: “Reza Shah closed down independent newspapers to ensure his absolute power, stripped parliamentary immunity from representatives, and even eliminated political parties… The reformist party was also deprived of activity. The renewal party, which had honestly supported Reza Shah… became illegal… The socialist party was also dissolved and party clubs were set on fire by organized groups… The government also deprived all workers’ unions, especially the United Workers’ Council, of activity. From 1306 to 1314, one hundred and fifty-six organizers of labor forces were arrested.” (12).

For reasons of land and security conditions, instability, and the lack of a permanent government based on a valid contract and commitments, there is no permanent order in the country. If governments have a long life, it is not because of valid and permanent commitments, as Douglas North and his colleagues say, but because of the concentration and unity of political power, and their imposition on political and economic conditions. Governments do not even tolerate their own created parties and organizations, and in a short period of time, they come to an end. The possibility of long life, survival, and continuity is one of the fundamental challenges of civil institutions. Continuity and sustainability are not imaginable for any institution. Nader Razeghi and Behnam Lutfi Khachaki, in their research and field studies conducted through interviews with twenty-five activists of civil society organizations under the title “Sociological Analysis of Survival and Sustainability of Civil Society Organizations,” have referred to four types of interactions between NGOs and the government: “

The Challenge of Autonomy and Independence.

Regardless of the capitalist system and political system that exists in America and all the serious criticisms that can be made about the exploitative policies of the American capitalist system, we cannot ignore the fact that America is one of the most diverse countries in terms of culture. Civil society in America has been formed since its inception. America is one of the most enduring democracies and has one of the most enduring civil societies. When Jefferson, the third president of America, heard the news of the uprising of farmers in Massachusetts, he said, “Do not fear the rebellion of the people, fear the day when people remain silent for the deprivation of their rights” (14). As mentioned in the introduction, one of the main reasons for democracy in America is the existence of civil institutions and the activities of more than one and a half million civil institutions. Kazem Alamdari quotes Jeremy Rifkin as saying, “The budget of NGOs in America was reported to be equivalent to five hundred billion dollars in 1996

In this way, the concentration of political power and domination over all social affairs has left no empty space for independent expression. In the countries of the Middle East, especially in Iran, political power has played a dominant and pervasive role in social life. There is no territory that is immune from the influence and domination of the government and political power. This is evident in the book…

Owner and cultivator.

He states: “The kingdom was considered the property of the Sultan of the Qajar dynasty” (17). Not only in the fields of economy and politics, but also in the cultural sphere, absolute power in Iran did not allow for independence and activity of any institution outside of political power. The sustainability and survival of social institutions and even economic enterprises were dependent on the government, and any institution that wanted to operate independently could only do so in a small sphere with no significant social, political, or economic influence. Governments in Iran have a historical fear of any collective organization that operates outside of government institutions and power. In the political realm, they may not show much opposition to critical ideas, but as soon as these ideas try to become a collective thought and organization, they strongly oppose it. The authors of the article “Sociological Analysis of the Challenges of Survival and Sustainability of Civil Society Organizations” write, quoting one of their interviewees about the mutual distrust between civil society organizations and the government:

Influential challenge.

The answer to the question of why Americans are not very political and participation in presidential elections is low, goes back to the fact that in America, the scope of activity and responsibility of grassroots organizations covers a wide range of social and economic activities. Almost the least economic and social tasks are delegated to the government. Citizens, with any taste, mindset, idea, and morality, can pursue their goals by joining a grassroots organization. Many tasks do not require political influence. In Iran, political influence is necessary for the advancement of any task. In the current situation, many grassroots organizations try to select their managers or board members who have government influence. They even explicitly state that they need managers who can benefit from their position and influence in government agencies. Remember that when a sports community wants to choose someone as the head of the Football Federation, they openly talk about their intention to select individuals who can have government influence. An economic enterprise can only have independent and free activity as long as its sphere of influence is very

If we only rely on quantitative statistics and measures, the number of NGOs in Iran was around 7,000 until 2005 and this number has increased to 17,000 by 2014. All of these organizations are licensed by government agencies such as NAJA, the Ministry of Interior, and the Welfare Organization, and provide services in line with government institutions. Although it is too early to compare the quantitative measures between NGOs in the United States (with 1.5 million) and in India (with 2 million), in terms of quality and impact on social life and movements, they only carry the name of NGOs on their forehead. These organizations, without relying on government resources and support, cannot continue their existence and their impact on society is in line with the impact of any government agency. Government agencies and political power prefer this type of influence.

Neutrality has the effect of preventing people from being aware of the existence or non-existence of grassroots organizations. Secondly, it prevents individuals from having a positive desire, motivation, or excitement to join these organizations. Thirdly, it promotes competition instead of camaraderie and harmonious coexistence. Fourthly, in times of crisis when society needs collective action, grassroots organizations are unable to have any impact on alleviating the situation. For example, during times of inflation and hoarding, producers, following the rules of these grassroots organizations, try to control the buying and consumption of society through mobilizing the people for their own profit. In response, the government creates parallel organizations to support consumers and neutralize the role of grassroots organizations.

Social movements do not have a purely political nature, and it does not mean that social movements have subversive or political goals. The “society of social movements” that Mir and Taru refer to is not a society that constantly seeks a political uprising against the government, but rather a society in which civil organizations advocate for the interests and rights of the people. The work that was previously done to preserve the “clean air” and “green day” announced by the Khatami government and did not yield any results, must now be carried out by people’s organizations. A government that sees itself as responsible for the people’s world and the afterlife is seriously opposed to such influence. Such an approach, which wants to have one foot in the grave and one foot in the river, according to popular sayings, becomes a “loser in this world and the afterlife.” Authoritarian governments in the Eastern world prefer to lose the world and the afterlife, but this does not lead to

The challenge of responsibility.

We must admit to the unfortunate reality that most people in Iran lack collective and civic responsibilities. Their awareness and understanding of these responsibilities is very weak. Some of the sayings that have infiltrated literature and popular culture have turned into anti-awareness. Sayings like “one hand doesn’t make a sound” take away individual responsibility towards the fate of society and their fellow beings, and instead open the way for justifying and saying “don’t be embarrassed, just blend in with the crowd!” The saying “the red tongue gives away the green head” brings a critical perspective. When criticism is closed off in societies, the space for criticism is opened. Criticism is the sign of maturity and civility of an individual and a society, but anti-awareness is the sign of remaining in a childish state. According to psychological opinions, the formation of a person’s identity in childhood is the result of the authoritarianism of parents. When parents do not give children the opportunity to make decisions and direct choices

In order for society to accept civil responsibility, the individual members of society must first develop their individual identities. Civil society is a society in which individuals attain their individual identity, or in philosophical terms, become subjects. In pre-civil societies, individuals exist, but they lack the element of individuality. Individuality is the unique and distinct element of human personality. It is a state of being lifted from a partial position to a complete and comprehensive position. Being lifted from a part of a group to a complete awareness and decision-making is a form of individuality. The awareness and decision-making that an individual acquires in their state of individuality becomes their own architect. The element of individuality or the subject of action is the real and legal position of the lifted individual. It is real because it has its own existence and is independent, and it is legal because their personality is defined by a set of rights. In pre-civil societies, every individual is subject to their social status, and is

The government is built on a centralized structure and the historical tradition of Iranian governance and political power, which has been formed by the independence and continuity of people’s organizations and institutions. However, not all the blame should be placed on the government. Part of the blame lies in the cultural and educational construction of society. If individuals are not raised in families to accept civic responsibility, if the culture of authoritarianism and patrimonialism has its roots in family upbringing, if we see citizens on the streets not following traffic rules or throwing trash on the ground, or families turning forests into garbage dumps during recreational gatherings, then such individuals and societies are not capable of participating and taking responsibility in non-profit organizations. In addition, people’s reactions to mental and empty values of the ruling system have led to materialism and consumerism, and in response to economic insecurity and fear of the future, they have resorted to rationality and invested in liquid assets. These attitudes and behaviors are in conflict with the spirit of

Conclusion.

People’s organizations only take shape in civil society. In Western nations, democracy is the result of the capabilities of civil society and the role of people’s organizations. We should not only criticize the governments of underdeveloped nations. These governments are the product of the historical and geographical context of these countries. Social and cultural backgrounds and legal structures that guarantee the survival and sustainability of people’s organizations do not exist in these countries. People’s organizations face many challenges and we have made an effort in this article to address the most fundamental ones. Although the articles titled “Sociological Analysis of the Challenges of Survival and Sustainability of People’s Organizations” have provided good reports and we have used some parts of it in this article, no serious discussion has been made about the survival and sustainability of people’s organizations. From this perspective, this article attempts to discuss the issue of sustainability and continuity of people’s organizations in terms of historical origins and the historical power dynamics, and also shed light on the fact that why governments

Notes:

1- North, Douglas, Joseph Wallace, John, Wingast, Barry, Violence and Social Systems, translated by Behnam Zoghi Roodsari, 1397, Shirazeh Publications, page 212.

2- Leadership, Kazem, Civil Society, Speeches, Contexts and Experiences, 1394, Tavana Publications, page 71.

3- The same source, page 71.

4- “Beautigin, Yakoslav, a Comprehensive Article on the Political Structure of Civil Society, translated by Abdulaziz Moulavi, Iranian Sociological Journal, Volume 4, Issue 4, 1381, page 191.”

5- Janestoon, Honk, What are Social Movements?, translated by Saeed Kashavarz and Maryam Karimi, 1398, Salis Publishing, page 221.

6- The same source, page 128.

7- Razzaghi, Nader, and Lotfi Khachaki, Behnam, “A Sociological Analysis of Survival and Sustainability of Civil Society Organizations”, Journal of Social Institutions, Mazandaran University, Issue 11, 1397, p. 106.

8- The same source, page 223.

9- Kate S. Pease, Klee, International Organizations, translated by Hossein Sharifi Taraz Kooi, 1392, Mizan Publications, page 81.

10- Katozian, Homayoun, Short-Term Society, translated by Abdullah Kowsari, 1390, Ney Publishing, page 11.

11- Kashani, Salar, Political Modernity in Iran (Birth of the First Government – Iranian Nation), 1399, Tarh-e Now Publishing.

12- The Abrahams, Yerevan, Iran Between Two Revolutions, translated by Ahmad Golmohammadi and Mohammad Ebrahim Fattahi, 1377, Nashr-e-Ni Publishing, pages 4-173.

13- Sociological analysis of survival and sustainability of civil society organizations, Journal of Sociology, page 99.

14- Arnet, Hannah, Revolution, translated by Azizollah Fouladvand, 1361, Khwarizmi Publications, page 334.

15- Leadership, page 83.

16- The same source, page 84.

17- Lamton, An, Owner and Cultivator, translated by Manouchehr Amiri, 1362, Scientific and Cultural Publications Institute, page 123.

18- Sociological analysis of survival and sustainability of social movements, page 107.

19- What are social movements? Page 42.

20- Comprehensive Sociological Analysis of Survival and Sustainability of People’s Organizations, page 115.