According to Samuel Huntington, the creator and discoverer of the theory of clash of civilizations, revolution is a phenomenon specific to societies on the path of economic modernization, which are unevenly interacting with the development of underdeveloped political institutions. In other words, the expectation of revolution only exists in societies that, despite experiencing economic and social development, are still trapped in the slow and stagnant state of underdeveloped politics. In such conditions, the attraction and control of emerging groups with new political demands by official and government-affiliated political institutions is impossible, and this in itself makes the possibility of revolution more likely in the end.

The term “uneven development” refers to the distribution of irregular economic activity and the level of access to it in a geographical region of a country, throughout a country, or at regional-subnational levels. This phenomenon occurs when wealth and economic opportunities are concentrated in certain areas, while other areas may experience slow economic development or be affected by economic downturns. The usual solution to this problem is to expand the control of economic opportunities in regions that suffer from such issues.

Uneven development can also refer to the imbalance between economic activities within the borders of each geographical unit. In other words, the imbalance between development and infrastructure provision or the imbalance between the progress of economic development and the provision of social services is also an example of unbalanced development.

Balanced development is one of the key factors for achieving satisfaction in a social system for developing countries. This term refers to the direct connection between reducing social welfare disparities and increasing similarities among different social layers within the political ecosystem of each region.

If we take a closer look at Samuel Huntington’s definition of the conditions of societies facing revolution, the reason for the necessity of limiting economic development and its relationship with the increasing dominance of security institutions over less developed areas within dictatorial systems becomes clearer. In other words, economic liberalization and subsequent social development inevitably provoke some form of political demands, the reflection of which on the political system will likely take the form of various revolutionary and democratic movements. To better explain this, it is helpful to take a look at this diagram:

Considering the fact that the wealthiest countries in the world are often the most democratic, it serves as a strong evidence to support this theory. However, in less developed countries like Iran, there has always been a potential relationship between economic development, especially in a homogeneous and balanced form, and political demands. This correlation may even be stronger than what we see in Western political history. Although it is an undeniable fact that among the current rooted democracies, high per capita income is a solid foundation for political stability, there are also many other examples where economic development alone cannot lead to political freedoms. But how?

Totalitarian governments such as the Islamic Republic have shown through experience that they have the ability to maintain control over their political dominance by controlling influential elements in the economic development process at the appropriate time. The Islamic Republic demonstrated this by taking control of the mechanisms for controlling and distributing all of the mythical oil wealth that had been in Iran’s possession during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s eight-year rule.

The overlapping between the ideals of balanced development and the increasing authority and scope of action of security institutions in Iran is a reality that has been clearly observed throughout the political life of the Islamic Republic. This means that the Islamic Republic has not only been able to effectively prevent the formation of democratic civil institutions in strategic areas of the country by creating obstacles in the path of economic development, but it has also been able to use the necessary elements for economic development, such as increasing liquidity, to further strengthen its security systems.

The Islamic Republic knows well that national sovereignty, the right to determine destiny, and democracy are not things that can forever remain in conflict with the religious ideology that forms the foundation and basis of the Islamic Republic. Therefore, it strives to somehow delay the process of democratization in society. But what is the factor that explains the long delay between the beginning of economic growth and the flourishing of democratic demands?

The answer must be sought within the functioning of totalitarian regimes. Many sociologists assume that an increase in per capita income will ultimately lead to an increase in political demands, but they do not consider influential factors such as the increase in the power of repressive political systems, and beyond that, the increase in the ability of such regimes to avoid the dangerous consequences of development in parallel with economic power.

One way to escape the trap that hinders economic growth against totalitarian systems is to use the financial resources resulting from economic growth to strengthen oneself, increase adaptability to social and political issues and problems, and stand against them, which will ultimately lead to imbalanced economic and social development.

This event happens for two reasons: one is that by taking control of the majority of financial resources, it will give politicians the opportunity to enter political games by monopolizing these resources, and the other is that it will result in an increase in the number of people who spend their time, energy, and even part of their assets to participate in the process of embezzlement of financial resources. Undoubtedly, this process will lead to a change in the density of wealth distribution in society.

Uneven economic development is, on the other hand, a hindrance to preventing the growth of the middle class in society. It is clear that autocratic regimes are not just impartial observers of political changes. It is a fact that these political regimes regulate the rules of the game in a way that allows them to maximize their economic profits. Ensuring permanent access to control mechanisms for existing economic potentials is achieved through the unequal distribution of wealth and economic opportunities at the societal level. The balanced distribution of wealth and subsequent development, especially in a large country like Iran, leads society towards a type of progress and reaching certain gates of urbanization from a technological and infrastructural perspective, which strengthens the foundations of democratic institutions and turns them into competitors for the ruling political structures. Therefore, this theory explains well why and how dictators tend to break the link between the process of democratization and economic-social development through controlling mechanisms of wealth distribution.

Another key issue that all authoritarian regimes are seeking to maintain their integrity is the disruption of cooperation and increasing its cost among different layers of the opposition. In such cases, imbalanced development can have an impact by diversifying demands in different geographical areas.

In conclusion, it can be inferred that the concentration of wealth in geographical centers, as well as in political and social layers close to power, will increase the chances of survival for oppressive systems by reducing the likelihood of democratic movements. Although it is difficult to determine the long-term effectiveness of such policies, there is ample evidence that the implementation of such distribution policies, especially with short-term and purely political and security approaches, will bring the political system closer to stability, particularly during periods of economic growth. This model is not only currently being successfully employed by the Islamic Republic, but variations of it have also been tested and proven successful in China and Venezuela for many years.

Sources:

1- The reasons for the effectiveness of the reformist government based on Samuel Huntington’s theory of uneven development; Sadegh Zibakalam/ Davood Afshari/ Abdullah Asalnazadeh, Quarterly Journal of Political and International Research, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch, No. 3, Summer 1389, pp. 51-7.

2- کلید عبارت: توسعه متعادل، پتسی هیلی دانشگاه نیوکاسل، انگلستان

2- KEY PHRASE: Balanced Development, Patsy Healey, University of Newcastle, UK