Moderation theory describes the process through which radical political actors develop commitments to electoral competition, political pluralism, human rights, and rule of law and come to prefer negotiation, reconciliation, and electoral politics over provocation, confrontation, and contentious action. Revisiting this theory through an examination of two of the most prominent moderate Islamic political forces in recent history, Muslim Reformers in Iran and Turkey analyzes the gains made and methods implemented by the Reform Front in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Justice and Development Party in Turkey. Both of these groups represent Muslim reformers who came into continual conflict with unelected adversaries who attempted to block their reformist agendas. Based on extensive field research in both locales, Muslim Reformers in Iran and Turkey argues that behavioral moderation as practiced by these groups may actually inhibit democratic progress. Political scientist Güneş Murat Tezcür observes that the ability to implement conciliatory tactics, organize electoral parties, and make political compromises impeded democracy when pursued by the Reform Front and the Justice and Development Party. Challenging conventional wisdom, Tezcür's findings have broad implications for the dynamics of democratic progress.

The foreign policies of Turkey and Iran seem increasingly to dictate the course of events in the Middle East. More recently, and especially following the Syrian crisis, the spotlight has turned to these states' dynamic re-entry onto the political stage, revealing them as key players with an international role in efforts towards the balance of power across the region. This book traces the major determinants of Turkish and Iranian foreign policies and their influence on events in the Middle East. Based on an examination of these states' politics and policies since 1979, and using material gathered from interviews with leading political figures from Turkey, Iran and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Marianna Charountaki offers fresh insights into how we understand the contemporary global order. Of particular importance, this book shows, is the effect of both external and internal factors on foreign policy and how the interaction between state and non-state actors informs political decisions. In placing these issues in a theoretical framework, Marianna Charountaki pioneers a new conceptual map within International Relations. An interdisciplinary study that provides a fresh new perspective, this book will be of particular interest to scholars of International Relations, Politics, Foreign Policy, Kurdish and Middle East Studies.

In the 1920s and the 1930s, Turkey, Iran and Russia vehemently pursued state-secularizing reforms, but adopted different strategies in doing so. But why do states follow different secularizing strategies? The literature has already shattered the illusion that secularization of the state has been a unilinear, homogeneous and universal process, and has convincingly shown that secularization of the state has unfolded along different paths. Much, however, remains to be uncovered. This book provides an in-depth comparative historical analysis of state secularization in three major Eurasian countries: Turkey, Iran and Russia. To capture the aforementioned variation in state secularization across three countries that have been hitherto analyzed as separate studies, Birol Başkan adopts three modes of state secularization: accommodationism, separationism and eradicationism. Focusing thematically on the changing relations between the state and religious institutions, Başkan brings together a host of factors, historical, strategic and structural, to account for why Turkey adopted accommodationism, Iran separationism and Russia eradicationism. In doing so, he expertly demonstrates that each secularization strategy was a rational response to the strategic context the reformers found themselves in.

A comparative analysis of the political consolidation and popular contestation of regime guardianship in Turkey and the Islamic Republic of Iran Moves beyond the Secular vs. Islamic, Sunni vs. Shia dichotomies to highlight Turkey and Iran's understudied hybrid institutional architecture Compares and contrasts the foundations, consolidation, internal frictions and popular contestation of regime guardianship in two ideologically inimical republics Provides insights for the democratisation and hybrid regime scholarship into how tutelary institutions shape and constrain electoral institutions and processes Analyses the key actors, dynamics and turning points of the power struggles that shaped and transformed Iran and Turkey in the 21st century Critically assesses the causes and consequences of the fragility of democratic governance and the persistence of patriarchal power structures in both countries This book offers the first comparative study of the foundations, consolidation and contestation of regime guardianship in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Turkey. For decades, the military in Turkey and the clergy in Iran acted as the guardians of Atatürk and Khomeini’s ideological legacies. At the turn of the 21st century rising popular actors in both countries started challenging the tutelary control of the state and society. While in Turkey the clash between the Kemalist guardians and their Islamist-led rivals resulted in a victory for the latter, although not for democracy, in Iran, traditionalist guardians were able to thwart popular challenges to their authority at the expense of the regime’s democratic legitimacy. How was guardianship established, consolidated and contested in these republics with seemingly inimical founding ideologies? Why did it unravel in Turkey but survive in the Islamic Republic in the early 2010s? And what do these power struggles and their outcomes tell us about political contestation in tutelary hybrid regimes?

This book examines the unintended consequences of top-down reforms in Iran, analysing how the Iranian reformist governments (1997–2005) sought to utilise gradual reforms to control independent activism, and how citizens responded to such a disciplinary action. While the governments successfully ‘set the field’ of permitted political participation, part of the civil society that took shape was unexpectedly independent. Despite being a minority, independent activists were not marginal: without them, in fact, the Green Movement of 2009 would not have taken shape. Building on in-depth empirical analysis, the author explains how autonomous activism forms and survives in a semi-authoritarian country. The book contributes to the debate about the implications of elite-led reforms for social reproduction, offering an innovative interpretation and an original analysis of social movements from a political science perspective.

This book explores emotional-affective implications of partnership and rivalry in Turkey-Iran relations. The main proposition of this research underlines the theoretical need to reconnect psycho-social conceptualizations of “emotionality,” “affectivity,” “normativity,” and “relationality.” By combining key theoretical findings, the book offers a holistic conceptual framework to better analyze emotional-affective configuration of relational rules and roles in trans-governmental neighborhood interactions. The empirical chapters look at four consecutive periods extending from the end of First World War (November 1918) to the resuscitation of US sanctions against Iran (November 2018). In each episode, global-regional contours and dyadic dynamics of Ankara-Tehran relationship are examined critically. The century-long history of emotional entanglements and affective arrangements exposes complex patterning of “feeling rules.” Two countervailing constellations still reign over relational narratives. While the 1514 Çaldıran war myth reproduces sectarian resentment and confrontational climate, the 1639 Kasr-ı Şirin peace story reconstructs secular sympathy and collaborative atmosphere in Turkish-Iranian affairs.