Suchergebnisse

I regard the arguments about nationalism or the lack of it, and about whether or not the Safavid state can be called a nation-state, as in many ways sterile. What I am much more interested in is the question whether or not the Safavids created a state at all, in any generally accepted sense of the word. I propose in a moment to look at some of the commonly accepted characteristics of the state, and see whether or not the Safavid system possessed these characteristics. It is because I do not want to place primary emphasis on the concept of the "nation-state" that I have entitled this paper "The Safavid state and polity"--the latter meaning, of course, an organized society of which they were a part, for to Plato and Aristotle the polis was more than just a natural organism such as a herd or a hive.

It is axiomatic that, if a language does not have a word for a given concept, that particular concept does not exist for the people who speak that language. We must therefore begin consideration of the evolution of the Ṣafavid state by making the negative statement that, for the Ṣafavids the concept of the state in any Western sense did not exist. As Minorsky has said: "it is a moot question how the idea of the State, if ever distinctly realized, was expressed in Ṣafavid terminology." The term dawlat, meaning "bliss, felicity", was sometimes used in an abstract way to denote the aura of beneficence which surrounded the just ruler and sheltered his subjects. Thus the principal officers of the Ṣafavid state were termed arkān-i dawlat. that is, the pillars which supported this regal canopy. So too, especially from the time of shāh ᶜAbba I onwards, the vazīr was entitled iᶜtimād al-dawla, that is, its trusty support or prop.

The dictionary definition of 'homeostasis' is: 'the tendency of an organism to maintain a uniform and beneficial physiological stability within and between its parts; organic equilibrium'. As applied to a political organism, it denotes the tendency of that organism to 'maintain as much of its former condition as is practically possible', however determined the attempts to alter its shape. In a paper presented to the meeting of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in 1967. I suggested that the principle of homeostasis was inherent in the Persian polity.Iran's ancient civilization has produced social attitudes and deeply ingrained characteristics which do not admit of rapid change,except by means of the disruptive force of violent revolution. The 2,500-year tradition of the Persian monarchy, a tradition fostered and preserved under a succession of alien rulers — Arab, Turk, Mongol, Tatar and Afghan - has given to the Persian polity, and to Persian society, an organic stability which places Iran in a category completely apart from most other countries in the Middle East, and from the majority of the so-called 'emerging' and 'underdeveloped'nations in general. As E. G. Browne noted at the time of the Persian Constitutional Revolution in 1906, the chief characteristics of the Persians are:
(i) the stability of the national type and (ii) the power of national recovery.