Countermobilization as a Revolutionary Form

Abstract

When viewed in light of other revolutions, the Iranian Revolution raises important analytical and conceptual questions. Overwhelmingly urban in nature, characterized by the conscious rejection of force by its leadership and following, premised on extraordinarily high levels of popular participation, and achieving success within a remarkably brief time period (one year transpired from the first major demonstrations to the expulsion of the Shah), the Iranian upheaval seems to elude explanation when viewed in terms of conventional theories of revolution. Conceivably, the Iranian case could be considered under the rubric of relative deprivation, as a state system under pressure from the international system, or in terms of stages of revolution, yet such notions do not directly address most of the features enumerated above.' And, although the construction of theory on the basis of one case would be foolhardy, it is still possible to conceptualize the events comprising the Iranian Revolution while modestly contributing to an expansion, not a rewriting, of our understanding of how revolutions come about. It has been noted that virtually all theories of revolution are concerned with exploring two sets of separate yet interrelated phenomena: (1) the social conditions that lead to revolution, and (2) the character of participation in such revolutions.2 Various scholars have considered the social and political antecedents to the Iranian upheaval, but few have analyzed the nature of participation in it.3 Indeed, one of the flaws in the conceptual literature on revolution is its lack of specificity in this regard. Participation in disintegrating polities can be studied just as it can be studied in healthy ones. And by decomposing the process of revolution into manageable components, an important incremental process should take hold. For can we understand the whole without taking measure of its parts? Thus, a useful and realistic breakdown of the revolutionary process is suggested. Given that the aspect of the Iranian case most difficult to fathom directly relates to the extraordinarily high levels of participation in it, such participation seems an appropriate starting point for our analysis. Investigation of revolutionary participation should both explain events in Iran and, in a more general sense, suggest an important conceptual variable for the formal study of revolution. Towards this end, this paper implicitly accepts the argument that revolutions are the products of the very societies they hope to change. Revolutionary participation is inextricably linked to and influenced by participation in the period preceding revolution. And the devastating effectiveness of Iran's oppositional sector can be best understood in terms of a particular type of revolutionary participation which may be termed countermobilization. First used by Walter Dean Burnham in reference to voter realignments in the United States, countermobilization may be simply understood as mass mobilization against a prevailing political order under the leadership of counterelites.4 Due to its