In recent years, what has separated our society from serious governance and has led to widespread despair from any political action, is the lack of response from the government to the demands of the majority of our society. During these years, these demands have been expressed in various ways, such as through participation in election boxes, criticism and writing in the media, shouting demands in the streets, presenting them on social networks and virtual spaces. However, the core of power in Iran has gradually refrained from implementing the demands of the general public in policymaking and sometimes behaves in a way that shows a desire to take a path contrary to the wishes of the general public.

Scientific research also supports the very low level of responsiveness of rulers in Iran in recent years. As reported by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 2018, the Islamic Republic of Iran has one of the lowest levels of responsiveness to society in the world. This report, based on survey data from 153 countries, ranks the Iranian government at 147 with a score of 19.5. This number reflects the very low level of responsiveness of the Iranian government to its society and indicates a mismatch between the opinions and desires of the people and the actions and decisions of the government.

It is a fact that non-democratic governments are less responsive compared to democratic governments, and this level of neglect cannot justify the public’s demands. This is because one of the foundations of any successful and legitimate government is its effectiveness and legitimacy in the eyes of society. Rulers who do not have the ability or willingness to meet the demands of the public have a lower chance of survival and must pay higher costs to maintain their control. Therefore, at first glance, neglecting the public’s demands is a mistake that leads to an increase in the costs of governance. For these reasons, in previous years, despite their insistence on their political ideology, governments have had a half-hearted approach to the demands raised by society. However, this attention has gradually been disregarded.

In addition, in Iran today, even compared to other non-democratic countries, the situation in this regard has become more unfavorable. For example, according to extensive research on the performance of the non-democratic government of China in relation to societal demands, this government monitors public demands through social networks and only responds to those that reach high levels of public demand. However, the behavior of the Chinese government is not the same for all demands; it is responsive to societal demands in the areas of economy, health, education, and corruption, but not in political, human rights, voting rights, and assembly rights. Researchers also believe that this intelligence of Chinese rulers in responding to societal demands has increased support for the system and reduced the risk of rebellion. However, even in terms of social, economic, and cultural demands, the current government shows no flexibility, which is a serious difference compared to its past performance and the behavior of other non-democratic governments.

The main issue here is why the government in Iran has adopted such behavior? To investigate this issue, we will look at the variables that affect the responsiveness of governments.

Weakening of civil society

One of the main components that, from the perspective of activist thinkers, is essential to democracy and will determine its strength in different societies, is civil society. In the thought of Oğul and Robinson, freedom is born where the power of society and government are in harmony. And society will only be powerful when it is organized. Therefore, according to this perspective, the more political, civil, and professional organizations in our country become widespread, cohesive, and effective, the more responsive the government will be. Because these organizations will be a threat and a challenge to the power of the government.

Two issues severely weakened civil society and prevented it from playing its previous role. The events of 88 in the post-reform era dealt a blow to Iranian civil society that could not be recovered. Despite efforts to open up the political, civil, and media space with the arrival of the moderate government, security institutions did not allow these conditions to return. For example, in universities, until 88, when student unions and Islamic associations of universities were connecting different universities, they had an active, official, and legal presence and played a role in the country’s political and social space. With the events of 88, not only were the Islamic associations of various universities closed, but their unions also disappeared. And with the arrival of the moderate government, despite the efforts of several student unions to obtain a license, none were successful and even failed to preserve their existence.

The next issue is a global phenomenon that has gradually engulfed all societies in the past two decades. With the expansion of the internet on a global scale, a noticeable difference in people’s behavior has emerged. As researchers suggest, people around the world are paying less attention to formal activism and are turning more towards informal activism. This means that participation in organizational and institutional activities, as well as involvement in elections, has decreased, while participation in street protests and virtual activism has increased. Reports from various countries show a decline in membership in political parties, unions, and professional associations.

Our country has also not been immune to this phenomenon. In the past ten years, with the strengthening of the virtual space in Iran, we have also witnessed the expansion of this phenomenon. As attention to official activism and strengthening of civil organizations has greatly decreased in recent years, and there is a growing tendency to turn a blind eye to political organizations, regardless of their ideologies, and focus more on corruption scandals. Activism on platforms like Twitter and Instagram is seen as sufficient to satisfy the general public, and they consider it enough.

Integration of governance

According to research, one of the factors that is effective in the responsiveness of a non-democratic government is the level of internal divisions. This means that if different blocs are formed within the ruling body that compete with each other, each of these blocs tries to increase their chances of gaining power by pursuing a portion of the demands of society. This same issue in the early decades of the Islamic Republic gave the opportunity to address and pursue the demands of the people within the country’s structure.

In recent years, due to the hard power decision to integrate authority, this opportunity has been lost and as a result, the level of government responsiveness has significantly decreased. Almost no part of the economic, social, cultural, human rights, and other demands are addressed and pursued by the actors within the structure.

Emphasis on preserving the ideological social foundation.

One of the other components that determines the potential for non-democratic governments to respond to the demands of the general public is the level of attention paid by the government to the ideological aspect of power and society. The more significant role this aspect plays within the government and society, the less flexible the ruling body becomes in reconsidering its ideological foundations to pursue the demands of the community.

In recent years, it seems that the government has become disappointed with gaining support from its critics and protesters. This is because today, critics and protesters are not satisfied with relative improvements in the economy, society, politics, etc. and will not give their approval until a democratic structure and respect for the rights of Iranian citizens is established. According to this understanding, the core of power has become disappointed with gaining their approval. On the other hand, with the crisis in the political space, it has seen its own survival in gaining the support of its ideological supporters. By strengthening the presence of this group in decision-making bodies, the potential for hearing the demands of the general public has completely disappeared.

But assuming political stability of the government, these conditions will not remain stable. With the increase of various crises in political, economic, social, environmental fields, two consequences are ahead; firstly, a serious decline in the ideological social base of the government, and secondly, the creation of a gap within the ruling body. These two changes will push the government towards being more responsive to society. However, more importantly, strengthening civil society is necessary, which depends more than anything on the performance of the general society and political elites.