Nasseri reforms in the political structure

One of the most attractive parts of intensive, and at the same time, relatively intrusive or distorted history of political behavior of Nasser Al-Din Shah is his structural actions. From 1271 BC, he observed inefficiency of individualistic structure of chancellor, so he started division of his responsibilities and in 1275 BC with the dismissal of Mirza Aqa Khan and his family, who he had authoritarian character and avoidance of collectivism according to the words of Nasser Al-Din Shah, adopted the method of consultation and at the same time, with the individual responsibility of individual ministers to the king and little by little, he increased the number of ministers "State Council" and even for the development of element of consulting, he entered some other non-ministers as well. In the year 1281 BC, responsibility of final approval of the affairs was appointed to Mushir al-Dawla, the head of advisors Cobra, the former Council and gave it more autonomy and organized collective responsibility of it in a way.
In 1276 BC, in addition to the "State Council" that was renamed to "advisors Cobra, which was in fact the executive institution, he also established a House called" the house of good "that can be a kind of legislature, of course, a matter of Senate and apparently he ordered establishing the same institution in other provinces.
Nasser Al-Din Shah to remove some of the weaknesses of ruling system, in 1293 BC, before the second trip to Europe in 1295 BC, issued the establishment of the "Council of State Search" that perhaps it had the observer status of legislature with a kind of dignity of the judiciary in modern states. In 1299 AD, Nasser Al-Din Shah tried to strengthen it.
After the interruption of advisors Cobra, in 1288 BC, once again, Nasser Al-Din Shah revived and strengthened it in the years 1292, 1296 and 1299 BC, and knew its aim providing "interests of the state and the interests of the people", but it did not work seriously. In 1289, the Council of Ministers was revived as the "Court of Justice". With the return of the King from the third trip he stressed on arranging laws and rules and assigned advisors council to it. According Amin Al-Dulleh, "Nasser Al-Din Shah always had excitement by thought of reform and adjustment of works in kingdom, and he paid much attention to this important assignment [advisors], but always his will became ineffective and sentences remained ineffective because the King habitually and nature addressed the details, and he gave up the principles and generalities, and weakness and doubt dominated his mind and capricious of tyranny and independence was dominant in his personality."
Usually reforms of Nasseri era are presented as efforts of some bureaucrats and intellectual leaders, as if Nasser Al-Din Shah did not think or have any idea of his own. Yes, they should have had such proposals to be king according to their task and demands, but a little study of political behavior, documents and statements of Nasser Al-Din Shah makes it clear that he was strongly reformist. In order to strengthen his monarchy, he was looking for reform of political organization of his state and he showed interest in modernization of the political system and political structure to the extent that central power and dignity of the reign were stable and he continued that for two or three decades seriously. Therefore, we cannot know political structure of his reign as absolute authoritarian, though a part of oppression in his government was observed and even some degree of government decision-making was autocratic, but anyway, structure of his government cannot be known full-autocratic in an exaggerated way in the decision-making, especially if we remember pressures and unofficial monitor of clergy and great scholars such as Mulla Ali Kani on his performance and other Qajar kings and other dignitaries court and the local rulers. Accordingly, it can be said: monarchy which he attempted to realize it, compared to the previous monarchs was mainly consultation and collective and it was largely apart from dictatorship and he had provided necessary institutions, except that the pillars of it were appointment and the mentioned system was not going to system of choice or public consultation; something that to some extent was provided by the constitutional system.
We can observe a part of relatively independent reformers of Nasser Al-Din Shah in his speech that expressed dissatisfaction about the work of advisors council: "components of the British Parliament are ordinary as you are; how are they improving Governmental Affairs of England state and you just eat and sleep (do nothing?)? But there is a difference that proportional to the populations of Britain is thirty five millions and they have seven hundred agents, you are twenty for whole the population of Iran."
Interestingly, after his third trip to Europe, he stresses adapting appropriate to the situation and the mood of the country and with the capture: "why is Iran known by insecurity and lawlessness. We shall be ashamed of the defect in front of foreigners and ourselves; this is your duty to search in every state and country's rules and laws and write what is agreeable by nature and mood of the country, and insist on executing them. Earlier, I told former ministers, and they answered just as pure pretext and excuse: with Islamic law, we do not need the law? While law of the State is not related and relevant to religious affairs; from now you go and provide scroll and translators and writers of books and information requirements. The service is prior to your government and country, and obligatory religious duties. "
Nasser Al-Din Shah's order to review economic proposals of Mirza Malcolm Khan, economic policy of Qajar era including Nasser Al-Din Shah did not have the desired efficacy and by the negative trade balance, downturn current of economy of Iran was absolute. Aside from the negative aspects of this policy, one of the interesting points in history of economic politicy of Nasser Al-Din Shah is that we sometimes see people like Mirza Malcolm Khan was not used without recommendations and consideration and consulting. there is an interesting economic treatise among the unpublished works of Mirza Malcolm Khan that is analyzed and criticized by order of Nasser Al-Din Shah by a court bureaucrats.
Malcolm Khan that claimed law-orienting and despite having certain beliefs on the economic progress and financial development of the country and he promoted a way of mercantilist beliefs and emphasized on increase of production and exports, exactly where he needed to emphasize validate of the votes of businessmen and support political pressure of them on the government, he received reverse outcome from the mercantilist economy principles and he said arguments against his guidelines. As some scholars have pointed out that according to his writings it can be concluded that his guidelines led to country's economic liquidationism, and by ignoring the nature of capitalism and in fact capitalism of Europe, removal or dissolution of the national economy of weak or undeveloped countries via giving reins of the domestic economy to foreign companies was as the main economic strategy, without limiting a reasonable level of participation of these companies with the Iranian government. In critique of independence-seeking thought of many Iranians he believes that Iranians' rational ones still believe that foreign companies will take Iran. He states the belief that "there is a world of ignorance. Description of the greatness of this ignorance will not be easy" and on the other hand, he mentions the shallow notion that" if all European companies are gathered, they can never be able to take out one dinar out of available property in Istanbul or China or the port of Bushehr in trade world "and" the Iranian government must be very pleased and thankful that foreign companies for too vague interests, bring their material and scientific resources to develop Iran ";" we shall grant Foreign companies valid points. We should not be envy of companies' interests. "He actually proposed to use foreign capital and letting foreign companies and banks to come to Iran, and partly his practical activities in this regard played the role of marketing to them, and in justifying to use external recourse, he says: "... governments and companies of Europe have managed several plants and money tank in each city that people confidently put their money into their tanks instead of putting them in their houses and various stamps will be used and they will do any practices that benefits for development of Iran ... the heads of these critical resources are ready to give the government of Iran any money that is needed to Tehran ministers, without intervention of any foreign government and without mortgaging of funds submitted to Iran, but under these two conditions: First, government authorities should prove it to me or to you or to anybody that the money will only be spent on Iranian development; secondly, they should make us understand well that Iran like European governments has the right to sign and signature of the government is truth of the Signatures. These two conditions are so simple and harmless that the chief of any European village can have executive in Iran. "
At the end of the paper, it should be noted that criticism of treatise of Malcolm, along with his plan based on the increasing civil richness and replacing exports, in criticizing the financial institutions and foreign banks, said: "If we say that the condition provided that we emerge the wealth and state that is latent in our country and add to our wealth and richness is that what are banks and companies, and many other things. As soon as we take one thing that is out of habit and tradition, we will need something else that is its condition, and so we should totally change everything, or we will be disappointed of the forms of these changes and feel embarrassed. What is essential for us to lose easy and possible things ...?”
Final words
In a macro evaluation we can know fifty-years-old rule of Nasser Al-Din Shah as a period by relative authority that diversion trends such as the Babbi sect, the intellectual flow and groups fighting against the Qajar dynasty did not have enough power to make political maneuver; a matter that led modernist historians in later periods to magical propaganda against Qajar autocracy and represented intellectual or economic and political dependence of many of them, the necessity of destroying and disturbing political figure of Qajar more than reality in their writings. What was mentioned here was as part of the challenge of the two faces of new authoritarian and old authoritarianism. Mentioned authoritarianism aside from common corruption associated with its past, is considered a symbol of resistance in contrast to the two North and South neighbors that by connection of religion, it demonstrates half a century attempts that was at the same time with Crusades and the Zionist global development and intentionally or unintentionally led Nasseri court to beneficial engage and contrast with its followers; an issue that with the murder of the Nasser Al-Din Shah and the formation of the Constitution leading to Pahlavi tyranny, made the Islamic revolution to be forgotten.