Rejection of "constitutional monarchy" theory; Mirza Qomi and the political rule in absence era

• Main Authors: Jalal Dorakhshah, mahmood soori
• Format: Article
• Language: fas
• Published: Bagher al-Olum University 2019-08-01
• Series: علوم سیاسی
• Subjects: mirza qomi; ershadnameh; the legit monarchy; the absence era; the political sovereignty; shadow of the king; the divine will; the legislative will
• Online Access: http://psq.bou.ac.ir/article_67722_7fc77faa0a6e024a88b4990dfa8856f1.pdf

The aim of this study was to review the views of “Mirza Qomi” in “Ershadnameh” and to present some documentary evidence regarding to rejection of the legit monarchy by him. The method of the research was descriptive - analytic and sought to answer the question whether could we approach the theory of legitimacy of monarchy by using “Ershadnameh”? In this regard, it is considered the reasons for those who believe that Mirza Qomi had accepted legit monarchy, and ended by reviewing the era of Mirza Qomi and comparing his works to one another, analyzing his political theory regarding the legitimacy of the rule in the “absence era” in “Ershanameh”. The results showed that, in general, experts have cited two arguments of "shadow of king" and "sovereignty of the kingdom" in the Mirza’s Verdicts, but for both components in “Ershadnameh”, there is a violation. First, Mirza redefine “shadow of king” and get away the foundations of the concept from the definition the kings and their associates have considered. Second, in the discussion of fatalism it should be divided between the divine will and the legislative will; the principle of kingship is attributed to the divine will, but the results of the actions and behavior of kings is leaved to the legislative will; this separation does not contradict sovereignty of principle of monarchy. On the other hand, the time conditions of writing “Ershadnameh” and due to the modesty and humility of mirza over “Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar”, and comparison with other works indicate that the provisions of this letter do not differ from those Mirza’s works and legitimacy for kings is not provable.