In the modern paradigm of political philosophy, we are faced with a hypothetical position that called social contract. The mentioned paradigm is from Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau to draw the origins of the legitimacy of the political society and the various categories of More
In the modern paradigm of political philosophy, we are faced with a hypothetical position that called social contract. The mentioned paradigm is from Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau to draw the origins of the legitimacy of the political society and the various categories of political philosophy, such as security and property. John Rawls restored the social contract again in the late 20th century. It seems that the purpose of using this hypothetical position from political philosophers is to provide a way of "knowing" about politics. The present article seeks to comparatively assess the position of the hypothetical social contract in the political thought of Hobbes and Locke with the thought of John Rawls in the contemporary era. Findings of the research indicate that the use of the hypothetical position of the social contract from the modern thinkers has a deeper position, while this position is only a representation tool for John Rawls. Because Rawls did not try to use the position of Hobbes and Locke to explain forming political society and its legitimacy, and was only seeking justification justice. For this purpose, we have used a comparative method for matching the ideas and the library method is also a tool for collecting information.
Manuscript profile
The purpose of this article is to discuss the political ups and downs of the “Reform era” in Iran (1997-2005). To analyze the “Islamic Republic of Iran” as a political regime and its dynamics, “Hybrid Regimes” theories have been used in current work. Such theories rejec More
The purpose of this article is to discuss the political ups and downs of the “Reform era” in Iran (1997-2005). To analyze the “Islamic Republic of Iran” as a political regime and its dynamics, “Hybrid Regimes” theories have been used in current work. Such theories reject the duality of Democracy-Authoritarianism and try to provide essential concepts for analyzing the regimes which are in the middle of the spectrum. Those regimes have unique features in comparison to Democratic or Authoritarian regimes. To analyze the Islamic Republic of Iran as a political regime and to explain the ups and downs of the “Reform era” in Iran, the studies of four researchers on “hybrid Regimes” have been used here. Some of the keynotes which have been applied to the current study to discuss the political ups and downs of that specific period are as follows: the importance of political competition, social and political backgrounds of creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a hybrid regime, and finally, the relation between such a regime and rentier economy in Iran. Finally, the article has concluded that the reformist’s earlier progress and their later withdraw and defeat could be considered as “inner dynamics of a hybrid regime” instead of the “the defeated transition to democracy”.
Manuscript profile
