Document Type : .

Authors

• Javad Jamali ¹
• Vahid Sinaee ²

¹ Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, Department of Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

² associate professor in political science, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad,

Abstract

Introduction
At the beginning of the 20th century, Iran and Afghanistan simultaneously started the process of modernization. But despite the civilizational-historical similarities (such as the common language, religion, cultural traditions, monarchy political systems and political culture (, the development achievements of the two countries were different from each other. In Iran, during Reza Shah Pahlavi's era, state-nation building, modernization of judicial system, creation of communication and industrial infrastructures, administrative-financial modernization, formation of a modern army, and educational and cultural modernization, were carried out in such a way that the face of Iran was completely changed at the end of his 16 - years rule.  In Afghanistan, Amanullah Khan (1919 to 1929) started modernization plans in important sections, including state building, drafting the constitution, organizing monetary-financial structures, establishing some industries and workshops, and creating new infrastructures such as schools, media and army. These plans, however, failed and stopped after a decade. Now the question is why, despite the efforts to advance the process of modernization, these two countries faced a different situation in the modernization process and results? Why did Iran achieve levels of modernization during the Pahlavi era, but Amanullah's government failed and collapsed? In Iran, the cooperation of social forces that supported modernization, and the adoption of a successful "survival strategy and survival politics" by the government seems to have restrained social forces that were against modernization. In Afghanistan, however, the lack of social forces supporting modernization and the government's inability to apply a successful survival strategy and politics, caused the failure of modernization process.
Materials & Methods
This research is based on the historical sociology method. Using comparative-historical sociology, this research tries to analyze the socio-historical contexts affecting the modernization process in Iran and Afghanistan, by examining the nature and relationship between the government and society. To compare countries, there are two methods: the method of “difference” (examining similar systems, and selecting their points of difference as the cause of a phenomenon), and the method of “agreement” (examining different systems, and choosing one or more common factors in them as the cause of a phenomenon). In this research, the difference method has been used to compare two countries. The societies of Iran and Afghanistan have been considered to have relatively similar nature and structures, except for the "type of relationship between the government and society"; This difference has been the reason for the success of modernization in Iran and its failure in Afghanistan. According to the historical nature of this research, its data has been collected using documents and books, and in general using library resources. These data have been analyzed using a documentary method, and with a critical attitude.
Discussion & Result
To realize modernization, three key elements play a fundamental role: the state, society (social forces and social classes), and the nature or type of relationship between the state and society. In a state-oriented view, Adrian Leftwich using the “developmental state” concept, considers development in a country to be a function of that country's politics, and emphasizes that economic development has a deeply political nature. According to him, the developmental state has the components of a relative independence from social forces, determined and developmental elites, bureaucratic power, and weak civil society. With a one-sided view of the government's role in the development process, Leftwich considers the civil society as a disturbing and passive element, and emphasizes its weakening. It seems that this part of Leftwich's conceptual structure has some kind of theoretical and experimental deficiency. In the approach of "two-way state-society relations", Joel Migdal in the theory of "state in society" (limited state theory) believes that state and social forces are always in competition, cooperation or conflict with each other. Sometimes one side overcomes or compromises, and sometimes they balance each other's power. This view requires changing the focus of analysis from the state as an independent bureaucratic organization (structural view), to a "process-oriented" view of state in society. This theory is operationalized with the help of social control components, survival strategy and survival policy. Accepting the impact of politics on development and the importance of the centrality of the developmental state, we focus here on the role of social forces supporting modernization and forces allied with the state in this process ـ Contrary to Leftwich, who emphasizes the weakness of civil society as one of the conditions of development.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this comparative study, it can be said that the will, desire and power of the developmental state alone (in a way that ignores or does not care about the cooperation or opposition of social forces) does not necessarily lead to the success of modernization and development process. In other words, from the perspective of the state-society relations, while the existence of a developmental state as well as the restrain of anti-developmental social forces is a "necessary condition" for advancing development programs, the existence of developmental social forces and their agreement and collaboration with the government is a "sufficient condition" for the realization of development.

Keywords

• modernization
• state
• society
• Iran
• Afghanistan
• Migdal