The following is the full text of the speech delivered on April 29, 2006 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with members of central council in charge of organizing 100th Anniversary of Constitutional Movement Conference.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to the gentlemen in this meeting. Both issues really deserve to be discussed by researchers and experts.
I have certain points in mind about the issue of the Constitutional Movement which I would like to raise. Mr. Najafi was right in saying that if we correctly identify past outlooks and panoramas, this can be very effective for imagining future forms. Understanding different orientations is not possible expect with this. So, let us take a look and see what happened during the Constitutional Movement. Of course, we had certain discussions with a number of friends in a meeting that was held two years ago. I am aware of the thoughts and actions of the gentlemen on this issue and their orientations are completely correct. But I would like to express my viewpoints on this matter:
During the Constitutional Movement, the role of ulama was not one that could be compared with others' role. In the years before the Constitutional Movement - that is to say, during the time of Mozaffar ad-Din Shah's reign - there used to be some secret meetings between both ulama and other people and their influence was reflected in the Constitutional Movement. However, what helped the Constitutional Movement to succeed was not these meetings. Rather, it was the popular presence that helped it to succeed. Of course, this presence was not possible except with the activities and influence of ulama.
If it had not been for fatwas issued by Akhund [Khorasani], Sheikh Abdullah Mazandarani and other such personalities, it would not have been possible for the movement to develop among the people. Besides, it was ulama who played the leading role in collective tasks carried out by intellectuals - not ordinary people. Notice that when Constitutional councils - the councils which were formed after the decree - were established, the most influential people in the most important centers of the country were ulama. Take a look at Tabriz, Mashhad and Rasht councils. These were sensitive places in which the most influential elements were ulama. So, first the role of the clergy in the Constitutional movement is not one that can be denied and second, it cannot be compared with the role that other people - such as intellectuals and some powerful and influential personalities in the government - played.
When we take a look at ulama, we see that the activities that they undertook were much more than what they did during the Constitutional Movement. The characteristic of their former activities was opposition towards foreigners. Their anti-dictatorship dimension was covered and swathed in their anti-colonialism and anti-foreigner aspect. For example, the late Mirza Shirazi's fatwa, what the later Mulla Ali Kani did on the issue of Reuter and other such actions, the events that took place before that on the issue of fighting against the Russians, the movement of the late Akhund when the Russians had threatened to occupy Iran and the other actions that you are aware of are the main dimension of ulama's role. Of course, on the issue of the Constitutional Movement, the anti-dictatorship dimension of ulama became visible. Later on, I will say how this issue was developed.
What conclusion do we draw from this introduction? The conclusion is that if someone ignores the anti-imperialism aspect of the Constitutional Movement, they have ignored the essence of this movement. This view can explain to us the tensions that existed between ulama and others. Primarily, it was the late Sheikh Fazlollah and second, it was the late Sayyid Abdullah Behbahani, the late Sayyid Mohammad Tabatabai and other ulama who rejected the Constitutional Movement later on. Therefore, the anti-imperialism aspect of the movement should definitely be taken into consideration.
Now, I would like to take a look at how the movement started from the year 1285 to the year 1299 of the solar hijri calendar. It took 14 years. Of course, Mr. Haddad Adel said that it took 19 years if we consider Reza Shah's reign. But you should not consider that era because his reign did not begin from his coronation. Rather, it began from the coup d'état of the year 1299. It was then that dictatorship began. It was Reza Khan who managed to establish totalitarian and Reza Khani dictatorship - he was a commander in the army - and he put this ripe fruit his [the Shah's] lap. Otherwise, it would not have been possible for this dictatorship to grow. Therefore, you should consider the beginning of the second dictatorship to be the year 1299.
In which era of the history of the west and England does this English movement - the English were the ones who played a leading role on the issue of the Constitutional Movement and events thereafter - begin? It began when westerners and the Europeans were at the peak of civilization and scientific and political progress. At that time, they had launched a promising and dynamic aggressive movement in the entire world. At that time, colonialism had reached its peak. All wealthy areas in the world were under colonialism and one of the places which should have been under colonialism was this oil-rich country. At that time, the role of oil was just beginning to become clear to westerners. Of course, on those days, the more important issue for westerners was to provide a cover for India because India was very important for the English and Iran and Iraq were covers for England to prevent tsarist Russia from occupying India. This was why Iran was one of the definite targets of the English.
What did they do during those 14 years? First of all, they seized the opportunity and they cunningly dominated the Constitutional Movement as soon as they felt the significance of this justice-based movement with the help of their agents. One of the first tasks that they carried out was to eliminate the other aspect of this movement which was the religious and nationalistic aspect. Then, they prepared the ground for an absolute and tyrannical government - the same thing that the Constitutional Movement was opposed to - by using the tumultuous situation that had been created. Of course, it is highly probable that many instances of this tumultuous situation - such as the events in Azerbaijan, northwestern areas of the country and Urumia - had been stimulated by the English. There is certain evidence for this. Kasravi illustrates the northwestern events of the country in a very artistic way and through his works, one can see what was happening there. In any case, they brought this dictator to power in 1299. It took them 14 years to turn a dictatorial society - which was being destroyed by the nationalistic and Islamic movement - into a dictatorial society which was indestructible.
Meanwhile, World War I had just broken out. With the victory of the camp in which the English were present, they gained a new power with which they did whatever they wanted. As you know, during the same years - the years from 1914 to 1920 -from 1333 to 1338 of Islamic lunar calendar - they occupied Iraq. They began a series of actions in Iraq with the encouragement that they had received from their victory in Iraq and their domination over Iran. In 1920, they managed to occupy Iraq during which "Thawrat al-Ashreen" - the Iraqi revolution carried out in 1920 - was completely destroyed. Then, the English formed the government in this country. It was in the same year - that is to say, in the course of one year - that Reza Khan came to power. Of course, the Christian date may be a little different. In 1299 of the solar hijri calendar (the year 1920 or 1921 of the Christian calendar), Faisal I of Iraq came to power in Iraq and therefore, the government was completely in the hands of the English. Actually, the government was formed by the English themselves. They made a good and calculated move on this matter.
Of course, I do not want to play down the significance of the Constitutional Movement in the history of our country. It was a very important and undeniable movement like many of the movements that the enemies of a people started but that they changed into something that was to the advantage of the people. Of course, the Constitutional Movement was launched by our people and used by the enemy. However, there are other instances such as the Indian National Congress. This congress was formed by the English but the Indian independence was achieved by the same congress. That is to say, this congress gradually turned into a base against the English themselves. Such things are possible and there is nothing wrong with it.
You should be proud of the Constitutional Movement and you should consider it to be one of the turning points in the history of Iran, but this is the reality behind the scene. Now, we should see what the movement of ulama was. In my opinion, this has not been worked on properly and one of the areas that should definitely receive attention is this: what was the ulama's movement?
The first point is that the ulama's slogan was justice. Clearly, what they wanted was a house of justice. Am I right? This was not a moral expectation and demand because seeking justice was not something that required all this noise. If it had been a moral request and piece of advice, this was something that always existed. Ulama and great personalities always encouraged the people and rulers to administer justice. But the uproar that emerged, all those rallies, protests and fights against the regime and all those sacrifices were not for the sake of a mere moral request. Rather, they wanted something that was beyond a moral request.
The second point is that the kind of justice that they wanted was exactly and directly related to governmental issues because it was the government that the ulama addressed. As you know, events began as a result of what Tehran's governor did which led to the riot in Sayyid Azizullah Mosque and - apparently - Jameh Mosque.
Of course, the reason why these events occurred dates back to years before that, but it was then that this complex gushed out. Therefore, this pursuit of justice was addressed to the government, not to the masses of the people, businessmen and those who behaved in an oppressive way in society. So, the pivot and the main center was the government.
The third point is that what they wanted was a foundation for administering justice which they used to call "house of justice". Now how this "house of justice" was interpreted by them might not have been clear to them. We do not claim that what they wanted was like the version of the constitutional movement that the Europeans and westerners had launched. The western version was a clear and practical one. We do not claim that the house of justice that ulama and religious personalities wanted was as clear as the western version. This is not what we claim. In summary, what they wanted was a legal organization which could control and supervise the king and all governmental activities so that they could not oppress people and so that justice could be administered. They wanted such an organization.
Now, this organization could be interpreted as a national parliament, an Islamic parliament or another organization. What they wanted was a pragmatic foundation and a legal entity which had the power to stop the Shah. The Shah had weapons and soldiers and if they wanted to stop him, this organization should naturally have had a power beyond soldiers and weapons. These issues should be thought about. If they wanted to pursue such an organization, they should have thought about it. Naturally, such an organization should have had access to financial and military resources so that it could administer justice and impose it on the government and the king himself.
The last point is that the criterion for this justice was Islamic laws. That is to say, they wanted Islamic justice. There is no doubt about this and they expressed it many times. What the people wanted was this as well and its main substance was Islamic rules and laws. As you are completely aware of the foreign version of this movement, the English came and rode on this wave in an opportunistic way and they guided the movement from Shah Abdul Azim to the British embassy. Then, they said, "This is the Constitutional Movement". And it was clear what the Constitutional Movement meant to its inspirers.
Those who were influenced by foreigners were primarily westernized intellectuals who had some motive for gaining power. It was not the case that we think the intellectuals of those days - such as the individuals whom you mentioned, who wrote histories and who participated in councils - merely wanted to achieve a western version of the Constitutional Movement without having a position in the government. This is not what they wanted at all. They wanted to be in the government and they made efforts for it. Those who joined them - such as Taqizadeh and others - wanted to be in the government as well. So, intellectual activists were like this. Besides, a number of governmental and influential personalities entered the arena gradually. This is the reality behind the scene.
A point which is important to me in this regard is how westerners - particularly the English - managed to succeed on this matter. What method did they use to succeed? The people - who were the main population and force - could remain by the ulama's side and prevent Sheikh Fazlollah from being hanged in front of their eyes. This is how things should have naturally developed. In my opinion, the problem began when the English managed to deceive some members of the justice front - that is to say, religious personalities and ulama - and to conceal the truth for them. This way, they managed to create discord between them. When we take a look at the statements made by the late Sayyid Abdullah Behbahani and the late Sayyid Mohammad Tatabai in response to the statements that Sheikh Fazlollah and his party made, we see that this was the reason. These statements were reflected in Najaf as well.
You can see that they believed these statements - this can be seen in the late Agha Najafi Quchani's work and in the negotiations which were conducted in Najaf - and the things that intellectuals and government agents used to say. These intellectuals and government agents used to say, "You are acting hastily. You have suspicions, but they do not mean to do something bad. They too want to promote religion".
These things have been reflected in different letters such as the letters which were written by the chancellor and others and the letters which were addressed to the late Akhund. In these letters, one can see that such agents and intellectuals decreased the ulama's sensitivity towards deviation. But some personalities - such as the late Sheikh Fazlollah - remained sensitive. Such personalities remained sensitive and they stood by their claims.
In the addendum to the Constitution, they included the issue of "Five Jami ul-Sharayet [well-qualified] mujtahids". A group of personalities from the same front lost their sensitivity and they became too optimistic and perhaps too negligent. Of course, one can guess that some of them had character flaws and weaknesses and some of them had ulterior motives. Of course, this does not include the late Sayyid Abdullah or Sayyid Mohammad, but those at lower levels were undoubtedly influenced by these flaws. A clear example of this is people like Sheikh Ibrahim Zanjani. They were among the ulama. Sheikh Ibrahim had studied in Najaf and he was a knowledgeable man, but he was influenced by what the government said. Such personalities were also deceived by their desires to some extent. This was how differences began.
When I look at our own Revolution, I see that Imam's (r.a.) great feat was that he did not show this negligence. This was the basis of Imam's (r.a.) work. Imam (r.a.) did not make this mistake by losing and abandoning his claim and goal in the shade of others' hollow slogans. This was the basis of his success. He went directly towards the goal. He put it in front of his eyes in an open way and he moved towards it. Unfortunately, this was not done by ulama of the Constitutional era and they showed negligence. This was why a deep split emerged between them. When this split emerged, the enemies managed to take over. When they gained power, there was nothing that could be done. I witnessed the same things on the issue of Iraq. In the events of Iraq too, first ulama entered the arena in a serious way and then they began to interpret events: "Perhaps, they are right. Maybe, they do not have a bad intention". The English promoted some slogans among the people of Iraq: "We have come as saviors, not as colonialists" [speaking in Arabic]. They said, "We have not come to colonize you. We have come to save you from the Ottomans".
This is what the Americans used to say to Iraqis recently: "We have come to save you from Saddam. We have not come to dominate you". This was while they crushed Iraq - from 1920 to 1957, 1958 - in a way that when one takes a look at these long years, one cries because of what they did to Iraq with the help of Iraqi elements. Some of their crimes include killing and humiliating the people, looting their resources and the resources of the country and keeping the country backward.
The same is true of our country. Here too, they chanted flashy slogans and deceived some people. If we want to benefit from the experience of the Constitutional Movement, we should not allow the same mistake to be repeated. We should pursue the goal that the Islamic Republic has delineated in an outspoken way and without any consideration. Of course, paying attention to the requirements of the time is different from this. It is different from losing and abandoning the goal and relying on others' slogans.
What I want to stress is the issue of the historiography of the Constitution. Many years ago, I discussed this matter with different friends. We really need a rich, clear and well-documented history of the Constitutional Movement. We should illustrate it in a correct and proper way. When this history is written and prepared at different levels - whether at a school and academic level or at a research level - it can be published and promoted. The truth is that we do not have a complete and comprehensive history of the Constitutional Movement. This is while writings about the Constitutional Movement - such as Nazim al-Islam's work or other such writings written at that time - are available to the people. They are reading such works and they are making some interpretations about the Constitutional Movement which are mostly wrong.
I hope that by Allah's favor, you will be successful.