In recent years, research has shown that the Chinese government is trying to have complete control over society through big data collected from the internet. This authoritarian government uses this control to maintain its existing dictatorship in all aspects of citizens’ lives. The purpose of this control is not just suppression; rather, big data informs the Chinese government of recurring demands within society, and they try to address these demands in order to prevent any public dissatisfaction and avoid creating a platform for protests. However, not all demands are subject to this type of response; usually, only demands that do not threaten the power of the authoritarian regime and only pertain to economic, social, cultural, and other issues are addressed.

These results have led some researchers to conclude that even in non-democratic governments, there is an effort to consider public demands – especially in the areas of economic well-being and cultural and social issues – as long as they do not threaten the rulers’ interests. This provision of welfare can be a factor in the stability and strength of authoritarian regimes; as seen in the 1990s when European Marxist governments were collapsing one after another, economic growth in China and Vietnam helped stabilize them. In support of this view, Agham Oghlu and Robinson attribute the stability of authoritarianism in countries like Singapore to high levels of welfare and equality.

With this description, the question arises as to why the rulers of the Islamic Republic do not take steps in this direction and every day the crises become more and deeper? At first glance, it is thought that the ideology of governance has caused a sinking in the swamp of crises and conflict with the West and extensive sanctions on one hand, and the implementation of cultural and social restrictions – such as compulsory hijab – on the other hand, to end in exacerbating social crises. However, in the roots of the dominant Islamic political thought, jurisprudence is of secondary importance.

Prominent figures of this movement, such as Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Beheshti, Ayatollah Motahhari, and others, have built their ideological foundations on mysticism and philosophy. A jurist like Ayatollah Khomeini, unlike traditional jurists, issues rare rulings such as the permissibility of playing chess. They have a positive view of music. They emphasize unity among Muslims rather than perpetuating the divide between Shia and Sunni. They have friendly relations with less traditional figures, such as Dr. Shariati, who adhere more to traditional jurisprudence. This movement has elevated the concept of “guardianship of the jurist” – which has its roots in mysticism and philosophy – to a position where it can even suspend the most important religious practices, such as prayer, fasting, and charity.

Traditional clergy, which existed before the revolution, opposed political clergy and saw all the problems of society as a result of neglecting religious laws, such as the issue of hijab, and in their sermons and speeches, they saw all the problems of the country in the education of girls and their lack of hijab, and portrayed a negative image of Iran. Unlike political clergy, they emphasized traditional rituals and had concerns about Shia identity. For example, if we compare the speeches of traditional clergy, such as Kafi, with the teachings of political clerics, we will see that hijab was the main issue for traditional clergy, while political clergy saw it as a secondary issue. Therefore, it can be said that political clergy had less concern for implementing religious laws and even the concept of guardianship of the jurist allowed them to invalidate more serious religious decrees.

On the other hand, the experience of ideological governments throughout the 20th century has shown us that governments easily abandon their ideologies and ideals in order to secure their own interests and survival. Ideologies and policies that were once heavily promoted and cost the lives and resources of nations, such as the Communist regime in China which experienced the Great Famine due to Mao’s economic policies and resulted in the loss of millions of Chinese lives, have now shown a preference for a free market economy. Similarly, Vietnam, which was at war with the United States for two decades and experienced a great tragedy, has now normalized its relationship with the country. In the Saudi government in Arabia, which was able to gain control through Wahhabi ideology, subsequent kings have attempted to modernize and move away from their traditional beliefs. Therefore, even if we assume that the government has gradually turned compulsory hijab into a part of its ideological components after the revolution, it can still easily abandon it in order to ensure its survival, just

With this description of the tendencies of non-democratic governments, the behavior of the Islamic Republic in recent years has become a puzzle. The core of governance has not only completely disregarded the limited level of electoral competition that existed before, but has also taken effective steps in the direction of solving foreign policy issues, improving the economic crisis, abandoning mandatory hijab laws, and resolving social conflicts. Despite a decade of economic recession, it has not solved the issue of foreign policy and the widespread protests in the fall of 1401 did not lead to the abandonment of the Basij and mandatory hijab. Some political activists in Iran have called this behavior of the government a form of self-restraint. Different analysts have put forth various speculations to understand the reasons behind the government’s behavior, from managing succession issues to the prominent role of foreign influence in policymaking.

One of the perspectives that justifies this action focuses on the desires of different sectors of social base of power. Therefore, this perspective has come to the conclusion over the years that in order to gain support, even a portion of the majority of critics and opponents of the current situation must accept a high level of changes. These massive changes, on one hand, harm the interests of the rulers fundamentally and on the other hand, limit their absolute power and also harm the traditional social base of power. With this description, the cost of making these changes for the government was so heavy that it preferred to completely ignore gaining the support of critics and opponents and focus on meeting the demands of its social base.

The hard core of power had come to this conclusion that even in Tehran, nearly nine percent of eligible voters cast their votes for the conservative list in the 1398 parliamentary elections, and this small but cohesive social base can guarantee their survival. Therefore, their political and social freedoms can be restricted and their tense foreign policy with the West can continue, so that they can be more satisfied with implementing their ideology in the social and political sphere. The demands of this segment of society have put the ruling government in power and the guidance patrol on the streets.

However, due to fate, the recent actions and increase in economic, social, cultural, foreign policy crises, etc. have had two consequences. Firstly, it has angered protesters and critics more than ever before, leading to widespread protests and completely securitized the country’s political atmosphere. Secondly, on the other side of society, it has had a serious impact on the increase in the collapse of the ruling social base. As we can see, the ceiling of votes for conservatives in the 1402 parliamentary elections has decreased from their votes in 1398. These changes have led to increased tension within the ruling establishment. For example, the Hijab and Chastity Bill in the parliament is facing difficulties in the Guardian Council, every day financial and economic corruption is becoming more apparent on one side, and even the “Noor Plan” is facing problems in its implementation.

As a result, the government has now lost support from both sides. The group that emphasizes more on personal interests and the efficiency of the system have become angry with the increase in crises and the continuation of inefficiencies. Another group, who have pledged allegiance to the government’s slogans, have also united in enforcing compulsory hijab and sending troops to Gaza, but they do not see the government’s efforts to implement ideologies as sufficient. On the other hand, the majority of critics and protesters are also angrier than before due to the ongoing confrontation.

Now the government is faced with the issue of awakening a dragon that is not easy to calm down, and has found a new appearance by creating gatherings to enforce stricter mandatory hijab. Now the government can either insist on its previous path and continue to suppress with a small minority, and pursue its self-sufficiency project, or decide to turn towards the majority of society and take a step towards democracy and development, considering their demands.