The Islamic Revolution Approach

The Islamic Revolution Approach

The Role of Political Elites in Political Development during the Governments of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Agency–Structure Constraints

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Seyyed Hadi Hosseini 1
Alireza Biabannavard Sarvestani 2
Karamatollah Rasekh 3
1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Political Science – Political Sociology, Fars Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Fars, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract
This article examines the role and performance of political elites in the governments of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the process of political development in Iran, with particular attention to agency–structure constraints. Using a descriptive–analytical approach and relying on documentary and library-based sources, the study seeks to explain how political elites contributed to or hindered political development during these two administrations. The main research question asks how the role and performance of political elites in the Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad governments can be explained in relation to political development. The study hypothesizes that the two administrations differed significantly in their development strategies, institutional approaches, and the behavioral and value-oriented dimensions of elite political culture. The findings indicate that while the Rafsanjani government prioritized economic reconstruction and institutional adjustment after the war, limited elite consensus and insufficient institutionalization of political participation constrained political development. In contrast, the Ahmadinejad government emphasized distributive justice and populist policies, which weakened institutional coherence and further restricted political development. Overall, persistent disagreements among political elites over core concepts such as democracy, participation, political competition, and elite circulation are identified as major obstacles to political development in Iran.
 
Introduction
Political development in Iran has long been a contested and unresolved issue, deeply embedded in the country’s historical experience, political thought, and patterns of elite behavior. From the Constitutional Revolution to the post-revolutionary period, successive political systems and dominant discourses have attempted to address the problem of development, yet the persistence of this debate indicates enduring structural and agential challenges. In contexts where civil society is weak and institutionalized participation is limited, political elites assume a decisive role in shaping development trajectories. Their decisions, values, and strategies can either facilitate institutional transformation or reinforce existing constraints. This article focuses on the role of political elites in two contrasting periods of the Islamic Republic of Iran: the governments of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (Fifth and Sixth Administrations) and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Ninth and Tenth Administrations). These two cases represent distinct political discourses and development strategies, offering a valuable comparative framework for analyzing elite agency and structural constraints in political development.
 
Materials and Methods
The study adopts a qualitative descriptive–analytical methodology grounded in documentary analysis. Primary sources include official speeches, policy documents, development programs, and public statements of political elites during the two administrations. Secondary sources consist of academic books, peer-reviewed articles, and theoretical works on political development, elite theory, and structuration theory. The analytical framework is informed by Anthony Giddens’ theory of structuration, which conceptualizes political development as the outcome of a dialectical interaction between agency and structure. This framework enables the analysis to move beyond deterministic explanations and to examine how elite actions both shape and are shaped by institutional and cultural structures over time.
 
Discussion
The analysis shows that in the Rafsanjani era, political elites prioritized economic reconstruction and post-war stabilization. Structural adjustment policies, privatization, and bureaucratic strengthening were central to the government’s agenda. These policies contributed to infrastructural development, the expansion of a new urban middle class, and certain institutional changes. However, political development remained secondary to economic goals. Limited attention to political participation, weak institutionalization of parties, and insufficient elite consensus on democratic norms constrained the development of political institutions. From a structuration perspective, while elites exercised agency to reform economic structures, they underestimated the unintended consequences of neglecting political and cultural dimensions, resulting in fragile institutionalization and limited societal internalization of political change. In contrast, the Ahmadinejad administration marked a significant shift in elite agency. The dominant discourse emphasized social justice, redistribution, and opposition to technocratic and reformist elites. Development was framed in populist and ideological terms rather than institutional or procedural ones. This approach led to policies such as cash subsidies, housing programs, and extensive state intervention in the economy. However, the marginalization of established institutions, the weakening of expert-driven policymaking, and persistent conflicts with other branches of government undermined institutional coherence. Elite circulation became increasingly restricted, and political competition was narrowed. From the perspective of elite theory, this period exhibited characteristics of elite closure and reduced institutional accountability, which further weakened political development. Comparatively, both administrations faced common structural constraints, including centralized power, rentier economic features, and limited autonomy of civil society. Yet the quality of elite agency differed significantly. The Rafsanjani government demonstrated a form of technocratic agency aimed at structural reform but lacked a comprehensive political development vision. The Ahmadinejad government, by contrast, displayed a voluntaristic and populist agency that disrupted institutional continuity and weakened elite consensus. In both cases, disagreements among elites over fundamental concepts such as democracy, participation, political competition, and the role of institutions emerged as key obstacles to political development.
 
Conclusion
The study concludes that political development in Iran cannot be achieved solely through economic reform or populist redistribution. It requires a balanced interaction between elite agency and institutional structures, supported by elite consensus, inclusive political institutions, and a participatory political culture. The comparative analysis of the Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad administrations demonstrates that both technocratic neglect of political development and populist erosion of institutions hinder sustainable political development. Without reforms that simultaneously address elite behavior, institutional design, and societal participation, political development in Iran will remain fragmented and vulnerable to recurring cycles of stagnation and conflict.
Keywords
Political elites
Political development
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Iran
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Leftwich, A. (2000). States of development: On the primacy of politics in development. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pareto, V. (1935). The mind and society. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Evans, P. (1995). Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail. New York: Crown.
Kertzer, J. D., & Renshon, J. (2022). Experiments and surveys on political elites. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 529-550.
 
References [In Persian]
 
Ehteshami, A. (2020). Iran’s foreign policy during the reconstruction era (I. Motaghi & Z. Poostinchi, Trans.). Tehran: Center for Islamic Revolution Documents. (in Persian)
Azghandi, S. A. (2018). An introduction to the political sociology of Iran. Tehran: Ghoghnoos Publishing. (in Persian)
Afrough, E. (2021). Contemporary challenges of Iran. Tehran: Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Art. (in Persian)
Amirahmadi, H. (2012). Political society, civil society, and national development (A. Tayeb, Trans.). Tehran: Naghsh-o-Negar Publications. (in Persian)
Bashiriyeh, H. (2013). Obstacles to political development in Iran. Tehran: Gam-e No Publishing. (in Persian)
Tajik, M. R. (2018). Secure society in Rafsanjani’s discourse. Tehran: Ney Publishing. (in Persian)
Tajik, M. R. (2014). The third decade: Estimates and strategies (Vol. 1). Tehran: Farhang-e Gofteman Publications. (in Persian)
Tajik, M. R. (2017). The experience of political play among Iranians. Tehran: Ney Publishing (Fidibo edition). (in Persian)
Khalaji, A. (2018). Theoretical paradoxes and political failure of reformist discourse. Tehran: Boo-ye Kaghaz Publishing. (in Persian)
Rahimi, H. (2017). The role of political parties in political development and national security. (in Persian)
Rezaqoli, A. (2022). The sociology of elite elimination. Tehran: Ney Publishing. (in Persian)
Saee, A. (2021). Elite circulation of power in Iran (1979–2019). Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University Press. (in Persian)
Shokouhi, A. (2020). Political factions: Origins and current positions. In Confrontation of ideas (Vol. 1). Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance Publications. (in Persian)
Alam, A. (2012). History of political thought in the West. Tehran: Ghoghnoos Publishing. (in Persian)
Ghabbadzadeh, N. (2012). A pathological narrative of the rupture between the system and the people in the second decade of the Revolution. Tehran: Farhang-e Gofteman Publications. (in Persian)
Ghavam, A. (2020). Challenges of political development. Tehran: Ghoghnoos Publishing. (in Persian)
Keddie, N. (2014). The consequences of the Iranian Revolution (M. Haghighatkhah, Trans.). Tehran: Ghoghnoos Publishing. (in Persian)
Giddens, A. (2018). Politics, sociology and social theory (M. Sabouri, Trans., 6th ed.). Tehran: Ney Publishing. (in Persian)
Giddens, A. (2023). Sociology (21st ed.). Tehran: Ney Publishing. (in Persian)
Lakzaei, S. (2010). Foundations of Anthony Giddens’ thought: Structuration theory. Journal of Political and International Approaches, (24), 75–93. (in Persian)
Hashemi Rafsanjani, A. A. (2004). Speech at the closing ceremony of the Second Conference on Science and Technology. Rahbord Journal. (in Persian)
Huntington, S. (2021). Political order in changing societies. Tehran: Elm Publishing. (in Persian)
Bagheri Dowlatabadi, A., & Ebrahimi, H. (2016). Development-oriented policy in the Reconstruction Government and its implications for Iran’s foreign policy. Journal of Government Studies, 2(6), 133–173. (in Persian)
Jamshidi, M., & Mahboub, F. (2018). Obstacles to political development in the Islamic Republic of Iran during Hashemi Rafsanjani’s presidency (1989–1997). Strategic Studies of the Islamic Revolution, 3, 113–136. (in Persian)
Hatami, A., & Kalateh, F. (2014). The state in the periphery and the periphery in the state: Syndromes of intertwined economy, politics, and society. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 17(63), 7–36. (in Persian)
Khajehsarvi, G., & Souri, F. (2021). Political culture of elites and political development in Iran within the Iranian–Islamic model of progress. In Proceedings of the Second National Conference on the Representation of the Discourse of the Islamic Revolution Based on the Second Step Statement. Tehran. (in Persian)
Rahmani, K., Azghandi, A., Tavassoli Roknabadi, M., & Zibakalam, S. (2016). Consensus among political elites and political development (1997–2005). Journal of Political and International Studies, 7(29), 47–81. (in Persian)
Mousavi, S. G., & Mousavi, S. H. (2019). A discourse comparison of development in the Ahmadinejad and Rouhani governments. Afaq Human Sciences Monthly, (32), 121–138. (in Persian)
Nodari, H., & Karimi, A. (2012). An analysis of the meaning and concept of development after the Islamic Revolution of Iran from a discourse-analytic perspective. Journal of Sociological Studies, (40), 57–78. (in Persian)
Vazirian, A., & Tolouei, H. (2017). An analysis of the development model during Hashemi Rafsanjani’s presidency. Politics Quarterly, 14, 61–78. (in Persian)
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Leftwich, A. (2000). States of development: On the primacy of politics in development. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pareto, V. (1935). The mind and society. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Evans, P. (1995). Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail. New York: Crown.
Kertzer, J. D., & Renshon, J. (2022). Experiments and surveys on political elites. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 529-550.
Parry, G. (2021). Political elites. ECPR Press.