Introduction
Iran and France are two countries whose political regimes are regulated and legitimized by constitutions, and thus determined by the rule of law. The current French Constitution is the one of 1958 (the preamble of 1946 will however be also studied) while the Iranian one is more recent, since it dates back to 1979.
Few will dispute that France and Iran are very different politically, but are these differences and discrepancies obvious in the texts themselves, and above all, in the constitutions, which are basically aimed at revealing the very spirit of one nation?
To answer, an analysis of the preambles of these two constitutions will be done, so that the main differences and similarities can be put on display according to two central axis: the analysis will first focus on the frame and the basic purposes of the preambles, and will then pay more interest to the content of the texts, which namely means to study the values and the models of society defended by the two countries.
I : The global frame of the preambles
A : The structure of the preambles
The first thing to notice when comparing the two preambles is the huge difference between the lengths of the two texts. Indeed, the preamble of the Iranian constitution is five pages long, while the French one, if the preamble of 1946 is included, is only two pages.
Besides, the preambles are not constituted the same way. As a matter of fact, the French preamble, especially the one of 1946, is a list of short sentences, each of them tackling a specific principle. On the contrary, the Iranian preamble is made of different paragraphs, containing long sentences. Indeed, each new point in the French preambles of 1946 and 1958 are one to two sentences long, while each title of the Iranian preamble is on average five to six sentences long.
Further more, the Iranian preamble uses past tenses very much, like in a narration, whereas the present form, and perhaps more than that the imperative (the word “shall” is employed many times), are used in the French one.
However, there is a similarity since both preambles hint at other texts of reference. Yet, the selected texts are very different one to the others. As a result, the French constitution evokes the preamble of 1946, but also the Declaration of Human rights of 1789, and the Chart of the environment, which dates back to 2004: all of them are secular texts, only referring to law. On the other hand, the Iranian constitution mentions the Koran, which is the most important religious text for Muslims, since it is the main support of the Islamic fiqh.
Therefore, at first glance only, some differences but only a few similarities can be observed from the structure and the form of the two preambles.
B : The quest of legitimacy
Both Constitutions try to find legitimacy. Indeed, as it has just been observed, there is a use of some other texts such as the Declaration of Human rights or the Koran, but such a use is not enough to bring a strong legitimacy. Thus, it is better to base the legitimacy on the popular support and wills.
Therefore, it is interesting to pay some attention to the context corresponding to the writings of the texts: both were written during a particular context, after wars or revolutions. Concerning the French constitution, it can be noticed that the preamble of 1946 is historically very close to the end of the Second World War which opposed the French to the Germans, and which more than that, opposed the democracy to the totalitarianism. That is why the first line is about “the morrow of the victory achieved by the free peoples over the regimes that had sought to enslave and degrade humanity”. The new French constitution is thus the one of a victorious population which has defended democratic values to fight against Nazism, and which thus deserves a new constitution proclaiming these democratic values. Moreover, it might be interesting to know that the Constitution of 1958 has also been written in a special context of internal instability and international conflict with Algeria.
The situation for Iran is both different and similar. It is similar because the preamble also insists a lot about the Revolution led by the people of Iran to extract legitimacy from it, but it is also different, because of the manner of presenting things. Indeed, the Preamble of the Iranian constitution does not only hint at the revolution and the victory: it really tells the whole story of them, emphasizing on the role of the people, and also on the bloody aspects: the word “blood” itself is repeated several times. Dates are quoted (i.e Khordad 1342) to strengthen the historical aspect, the “people’s anger” and “the price the nation paid” are highlighted, and the regime of the Shah is defined as “despotism”. Indeed, the impression is given that before the Islamic revolution, the chaos was reigning everywhere, and that the Revolution managed to institute order and legitimacy, in conformity with the people’s deep desires. The history of the Islamic Revolution and the glorification of it are mainly told like a story, in the past tense, and constitute almost half of the preamble.
The quest of legitimacy by the historical context appears both in the French Constitution of 1946 and in the Iranian constitution but it is absolutely not developed the same way.
One other source of legitimacy might concern the form of the regime itself. Indeed, when writing a new Constitution, it is better to prove that the coming regime won’t be a form of despotism, totalitarianism or any sort of dictatorship. It is thus important to prove that the regime is the one which take into account the popular sovereignty. In this respect, the French preamble insists on the republican aspect of the regime: the expression “the French Republic”, or the word “Republic” appear both in the preamble of 1946 and in the one of 1958. The words “democracy”, “democratic”, “Nation”, “institutions’ are also particularly present in the texts.
As for Iran, democratic aspects can also be found. To begin, the regime is the one of the “Islamic Republic of Iran”: the word Republic is thus very important since it proves that the new regime won’t be despotic or dictatorial. Besides, words such as “nation”, institutions”, constitutions” or “rule” are also present, exactly like in the French Preamble.
Therefore, both texts are possibly legitimate since they are both Republics presenting democratic characteristics.
However, a main difference can be observed between the two. Indeed, the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on the “religious guardianship” of the Velayat Faqiye, which gives a theocratic aspect to the regime, while such an aspect does not exist in France, which is strictly secular.
II: The content of the preambles
A: The values defended
Obviously, the two preambles aim at presenting some important values, so that the philosophical spirit of the whole philosophy of the regimes can be put on display.
The first striking element to pay attention to is that a certain number of identical values are defended by both countries.
To begin, freedom and liberty are concepts which appear in the two texts. In France, freedom is maybe one of the most important values that are evoked, and it is almost a sort of purpose to achieve. Indeed, the first sentence mentions the “free people” to qualify the French and after that, “the rights and freedoms of man and the citizen” are reaffirmed in reference to the Declaration of Human Rights. Next, “actions in favour of liberty” are evoked to justify the right of asylum for people fighting against persecution in other countries. Further more, the preamble insists on the protection of “the freedom of any people”, and therefore condemns conquest wars. Finally, the preamble of 1958, shorter, highlights this idea of freedom by expressing the concept of a “common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity”. Freedom and liberty are thus some sorts of obsession for the French, as they reaffirm their attachment to these values many times in the same text.
As for Iran, freedom appears as a protesting value, to oppose the “foreign domination” and the Shah’s “despotic system” and its tentative to “pressure and strangulat[e]” the movement. In this case, the concept of freedom has a Marxist tone, since the “struggle for freedom from the despotic system, and to entrust men’s destiny in their own hands” is aimed at freeing the oppressed people from the dominations: expressions such as the “rule of the world by the oppressed” or “the assurance of government for the oppressed on earth” illustrate this idea. Therefore, liberty is still a value, but it is not really a purpose, since it is mainly a means to get rid of all sorts of domination and to revenge against them.
In addition, solidarity between all classes of people is a value promoted by the two texts. In France, solidarity is intertwined with equality: “The Nation proclaims the solidarity and equality of all French people in bearing the burden resulting from national calamities”. Besides, the preamble of 1946 reaffirms the importance of “equal rights” in “all spheres”, “equal access for children and adults” to culture and instruction, while “equality and fraternity” are reaffirmed in 1958 as the main principles of the Republic. More than that, solidarity is presented as a value, since the weaker (“children, mothers and elderly workers”) receive protection and help by the society.
The Iranian preamble insists on the “cooperation of men and women of all class”, and on the cooperation of “religious and political groups” during the Revolution, which is also in conformity with the Marxist ideology. This gives indeed an impression of solidarity between all the people of Iran, no matter their social background. However, such an idea of solidarity is reinforced in the case of Iran since it is not only about a national solidarity, but also about a religious one. Namely, the revolution does not consider itself being the one of the Iranians only, but also “the struggle of Muslim people”, of “the committed Muslims combatants inside and outside the country”. The consequence of that will be analyzed later. Nevertheless, it can even though been observed that the Iranian sense of solidarity is larger than the French one, since it does not wish to reign in one country only.
More surprising is the fact that both the French preamble and the Iranian one share the value of traditions. In Iran, the tradition, combined to the Koran, is considered as a “central axis”. In the French preamble, namely the one of 1946, the word “tradition” appears two times: at first, it is said that the French Republic is “faithful to its traditions”, and then, it is reaffirmed that France is “faithful to its traditional mission”. Traditions are in both cases sources of legitimacy and maybe more than that, sources of authority.
If some identical values can be found in both text, there are still many differences that can be raised.
First of all, the French preamble defines as its main purpose to promote the “democratic development” and to preserve peace and other nations’ sovereignty. It insists on the right of other people to be free to “administer themselves and to manage their own affairs democratically”, and even explains that “limitations upon [France’s] sovereignty” could be necessary to experiment in order to preserve peace. Therefore, all “war aimed at conquest” are prohibited, since they threaten “the freedom” of other people. The French Constitution thus defends values of peace and democracy, and condemns any kind of expansionism, insisting on the capacity of any country to manage its own affairs.
The situation in Iran is completely opposite. The Iranian constitution “is based on Islamic principles and rules”, and these are thus the main values that Iran wants to extend. Indeed, the Iranian preamble does not defend peace, but more some sort of holy war aimed at the extension of the Islamic values in all Muslim countries, and maybe even in the whole world. According to the preamble, the previous regimes always failed because “they were not religious ones”. The “militant clergy” , the role of mosques, and the “Exalted Authority of Khomeini” are seen as the conditions to reach a sacred and ordered state of values. Western countries are excoriated and considered as Imperialists, and the whole idea is to fight against them to collapse their power and their values, in order to promote the Islamic ones. The idea of extension is central, since the preamble insists on expressing that the Iranian Revolution has to pave the way for “popular revolutions in the world”. In this respect, the religious army is particularly important, since it does not only have the duty to save the frontiers, but also the one of extending Islam in the world. The public media are also mobilized to “serve the propagation of Islamic culture” and to “refrain the propagation encouragement of destruction of Anti Islamic cultures”. The aim is thus to clean Iran from “foreign and ideological influence” to spread the “worldwide values of Islam”. Thus, peace and democracy are not the main values defended by the Islamic Republic of Iran: the expansion of Islam is instead.
Such an opposition between the French constitution and the Iranian one reveals a discrepancy between the main values defended by the two countries, even if certain values are common.
B: The model of society
More than having a jurisdictional influence, the two preambles display specific models of society.
Both Iranian and French preambles defend, as we saw, solidarity and a certain sense of equality. The result of that is to promote a unite nation, whose members should be treated the same way, without any sort of discrimination. The model of society defended by both constitutions is thus the one of a unite society, without any kind of discrepancy. However, one thing to notice about that is the status of women. Indeed, the French preamble of 1946 insists very much on the strict equality between men and women, in every sphere of the society: “the law guarantees women equal right to those of men in all spheres” and the first article of the preamble of 1958 reaffirms that “statutes shall promote equal access by women and men to elective offices and posts as well as to position of professional and social responsibility”. Such a notion of strict equality does not appear in the Iranian preamble. If there is a big focus on the central role of women during the revolution, the paragraph about “Women in the constitution” expresses a precise idea of what women should do. This passage criticizes the figure of the working woman, which would correspond to a “tool for work”, and promotes the concept of “motherhood” instead. The role of women should thus be to “bring up religiously minded men and women”, which means that the place the women should be is the family sphere only. This very passage therefore puts on display the deficiency of strict equality between men and women, since they do not seem to be dedicated to play similar roles in the society. Here is thus a contrast with the French conception of gender equalities. This state does not mean that the French constitution shuns the family as an important element in the society, since the preamble of 1946 evokes the fact that “the Nation shall provide the individual and the family with the conditions necessary to their development”: there are just different conceptions and interpretations of what families should be like.
Finally, it is obvious that two different types of society are presented by these two preambles since one type is about secularism, and the second type is about religious ruling. As a matter of fact, the first article of the French constitution of 1958 explains that “France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic”, while the Iranian preamble of 1979 tackles that the Constitution is the one of “the Islamic Republic of Iran”, based, as we studied before, “on Islamic principles and rules”. As a result, two different types of society are defended: one is secular, one is religious.
Conclusion
To conclude, two different models of what the nation and what the societies should be are displayed by the two preambles, which appear as well on the preambles’ frame and structure, as in the very content of the texts, according to the values and to the social ideals which are defended. Nevertheless, similarities are also numerous, and may testify of the influence that the French model used to exert since the first revolution of 1906. Both regimes pretend to be democratic and supported by the majority of the population, therefore representative of the spirits of their nations. Yet, the analysis shows that the Iranian regime tends to become a sort of theocracy, because of the place Islam and religion occupy in the philosophy of the regime, and that Iran is perhaps more turned to expansion and international hostility since it is mainly based on the hatred of Western countries, and willing to export the Islamic model abroad.
It is even though important to be careful not to establish any hierarchy between the two constitutions and thus between the two regimes, since France and Iran have had very different histories and experiments, different places and roles in international relations, and have suffered from very different things. Therefore, it can be understood that, after two world wars, France was more willing to preserve the peace and the frontiers, while Iran, which had suffered from the domination of Russia, the United Kingdom and after that, of the United States, was more likely to affirm its nation as a new superpower, able to compete the Western nations by inventing a new conception of ruling, with other values and principles.
Comparing the law of two nations which are so different than France and Iran corresponds then, in a way, to understand better their respective history, and their respective goals on some precise periods.
By S.Azmayesh