Power and Urban Life: Reading the Historical Changes of Tehran Before and After the 1979 Revolution From the Perspective of Ibn Khaldun's Theory*

How to explain the decline of cities? In response to this question, Ibn Khaldun has presented a broad theory that seems to be still functional after several centuries. In this paper, we aim to explain the history of Tehran before and after of 1979 Islamic Revolution with Ibn Khaldun's theory the history. The method of article is historical study and historical documents (newspapers, newsletters and other authentic historical sources) and books related to the city of Tehran have been cited as the main sources in this regard. The result of this study shows that if, based on the division of Ibn Khaldun, we consider five main courses for Tehran, in both historical periods (before and after the 1979 revolution), the city witnessed the passage of these stages. In the pre-revolutionary period, Tehran, with the presence of the Allies, and the coronation of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi began their new era. With the coup d'état of 1954, the autocracy began in this city. the flourishing of intellectuals , the oil revenues in the 50s , the invasion of the labors to suburban and the Islamic revolution are the four phases in the fall of city ,respectively. With the victory of the Islamic Revolution and the burning of nightclubs, the era of victory began. Expansion of Islamic values and post-war reconstruction can be considered as the peak of power but Environmental crises and the problems caused by the immense growth of the urban population are greatest issues that the city faces during its decline. So these changes are explained using Khaldunian ideas in the area of government, city and power.


Introduction
How do cities survive growth and decline cycles? This question has occupied many minds for years and many have sought to answer the question so that they can explain the relation between power and city life. Ibn Khaldun is one of the thinkers who have done theoretical work in this field .In order to explain the growth and decline cycles, he has presented a kind of linear evolutionary theory that, although it has been criticized, appears to have proper capabilities for explaining some of the characteristics of the Third World countries, especially the Middle East. According to Ibn Khaldun, all human societies have common ground in spite of the cultural, social and historical differences and diversities, so that the principles and components can be generalized to all human beings and communities. Though Ibn Khaldun's Cyclical Theory has been variously applied to the study of some Muslim Empires and cities especially of the Middle East origin; Umayyad, Abassid, Saffavid, Seljuk, and those of Central and Southeast Asia like, Mughal, Aurangzeb, Qutub Shahi, Aceh and Malaka (Hitti 1970;Itzkowit 1972;Lipidus1991;Ishak 2000;Lindholm 2002;Oloruntimehin 1972;Ahmad 2003) it has not been done (not to the knowledge of these scholars) to the Tehran , the capital of Iran. In this article we will try to study the history of Tehran before and after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, in light of Ibn Khaldun's theory of Transformation and political governance, to determine the extent to which this theory can explain these changes.

Cyclical Evolutionary Theory of Ibn Khaldun
Ibn Khaldun adopted a systematic approach to the study of society which he called Ilm Al Imran, the "science of culture and society". The work has several aspects to its expositions. However, the concern of this research work is the area that espouses on the span of governance and city life.
To Ibn Khaldun political administration lasts for four generations before it is overthrown or supplanted and replaced by a new one, which replenish and then, follow the same process to apogee and then, collapse. At rise and growth, rulership is held together and united by what he called asabiyyah broadly translated as "groupfeeling/solidarity" which is the fundamental building block which provides strength to the successful origins and development of a fledgling empire or polity. "'Asabiyyah" is a rich term which encompasses a range of meanings -authors have generally translated it through particular expressions of universal sociological notions such as "public spirit", "social solidarity", "group cohesion", "espirit de corps'". ( Lacoste, 1984: 110). Erwin Rosenthal describes it as "the motor development of the state (Ibid, 109), whilst Toynbee posits 'Asabiyyah as the "basic protoplasm all bodies politic and bodies social are built up".(Ibid, 110).
The central thesis of Ibn Khaldun then is that a ruler unites his virile Bedouin people with a common feeling of 'Asabiyyah and often comes to power by overturning an existing established civilization which has reached the end of its life-cycle, reveling in decadence and luxury. The whole conception of historical development is based upon these two dichotomous groups: the nomadic and sedentary (Lacoste, 1984: 94).This was witnessed with the rise of the first Islamic Caliphate, from its humble desert origins, defeating the Roman and Persian Empires.
Due to solidarity and cultural togetherness, the group takes control of governance; administer justice and as time went by, the controlling group living a luxury and opulence of urbanization and sedentalization are also overthrown by fresher tribesmen, who soon became urbanized and are also overthrown by fresher tribesmen (Ibn Khaldun 1981:313). To Ibn Khaldun, the cyclical pattern marks the Islamic political history. In essence, social group came together to organize themselves and take over governance through violence. In power, the rulership group institute good leadership, organized egalitarian economic system, fortified themselves by social reorientation, variables and functional political activities. Soon afterwards, the social cohesion began to drift, dwindle and visibly decay as individualism, greed, avarice, corruption and sleazebag cropped in the system of government. This is so because, the rulers due to foundational derailment, after several generations began to seek, according to Ibn Khaldun "the help of clients and followers against men of his people" in order to sustain themselves in governance.
The gradual disenfranchisement of his kinsmen occurs because the ruler fears that they, as co-equals and tribal brothers, can and will make claims on his sovereignty.
In response, he slowly replaces them with slaves, clients and hired employees who are directly reliant on him for their positions. The ruler's aim is to increase his authority by exchanging his potential rivals for a convoy of dependants. Despite its advantages to the rulers, Ibn Khaldun, argues that the eventual effect of the systematic downgrading of one's kin and close tribal allies in favour of dependant clients is negative. The ruler does gain more leeway, in Charles Lindholm's words, for exercising his own autocratic authority dispensing with those who had helped his ancestors' to victory (Lindholm: 51). But according to Ibn Khaldun, without these kinsmen and allies to his own to support him, he is instead surrounded with flatterers and sycophants, and can be easily ousted by more aggressive and unified tribal opponents invading his realm from the periphery. This is understandable because clients, hangers-on and slaves lack the essential ingredient that promotes social solidarity and self sacrifice; this ingredient is to Ibn Khaldun, the asabiyyah, group feelings. Leadership becomes authoritarian and viciously tyrannical. They employ coercion and threat to extract the people's loyalty. The consequences of this are many. Qualities of administration begin to erode until the regime meets its waterloo and subsequently eased out by another group of rulership. These processes of rise, growth and fall to Ibn Khaldun continue in a cyclical manner. Before, during and after Ibn Khaldun's theory, empires, kingdom, caliphates, sultanates, etc, have risen and fallen following the pattern enunciated by Ibn Khaldun. This was the story of Abbasid and Umayyad caliphates, Seljuk, Saffavid and Mughal kingdoms in one way or the other.Scholars who criticized Ibn Khaldun can be classified in to three groups. The first are made up of those who think Ibn Khaldun was too simplistic in looking at the history of Muslim states within small span of just four generations.
Many polities like Ottoman, Saffavid and Mughal according to this school survived beyond four generations specified by Ibn Khaldun. Indeed, the Ottoman lived between 13th and 20th Centuries. The defense here is that Ibn Khaldun's mentioning of four generations is allegorical and not categorical. In this vein therefore, the import of Ibn Khaldun's theory to this study is that whatever the extent of growth and span of an empire or a political authority, it shall decline and collapse. The second category charged that Ibn Khaldun did not apply enough moral and adequate faith-based gauges in his theory. To this group, what should be upper most in the rise and fall of any Islamic polity is that the "fresher" coming from the periphery are motivated by the zeal to return Islam and Society to the Caliphate style as witnessed during the era of the rightly guided Caliphs who succeeded the Prophet(SAW). However it should not be lost here that whatever the reason for a fresh overthrown, the fact of social feelings as expounded by Ibn Khaldun cannot be discountenanced. It also meant that whatever the social order that motivated the takeover depend entirely on the inspiring ideology, philosophy and social form. Except in few cases, most "fresher" are motivated by group interest and solidarity feeling to seek power and wealth (Lapidus 1991:207;Lindholm 2002:59). The third group contains those who felt that the cyclical theory is no longer applicable to the modern highly developed and organized world. To this category of Thinkers, there are no longer Bedouins with uncivilized characteristics uncouthness and insubordination. Even if they exist, they no longer have access to the cities which are now developed, fortified and transformed by technology. In addition, complex nation states, civic responsibilities and nationhood system have been evolved which render constant rise, fall and collapse mechanisms in nullity. Nations are now defined by inviolable borders and national institutions, organs and imperatives. In essence, to this group, Ibn Khaldun never foresaw that development in government, security, military and structuralized economy will erode tribal feelings and thereby eliminate cyclical theory (Ahmad2003:71). In as much as all these are obvious developments that have questioned the veracity of Ibn Khaldun theory, they do not in themselves repudiate the complete correctness of the theory. A modern re interpretation of the cyclical theory would construe the phrase "rise" and "fall" from dynamic perspectives.
Rise may not necessarily continuously mean the physical creation or evolvement and growth of a particular state. In the contemporary sense, rise should mean, playing the centre-stage role; dominating the global scenes, and directing international thinking and actions. In the same vein, decline, fall or collapse mean inability to play a frontline role in the global equation of power (Okene & Ahmad, 2011: 82-84). If these re interpretations are latent, it means therefore that the Ibn Khaldun theory is still valid.
Indeed, this is the position of this work.

Method
The method of article is historical study and historical documents (newspapers, newsletters and other authentic historical sources) and books related to the city of Tehran have been cited as the main sources in this regard. The data collection tool was problems. This is a sign of confirmation of Ibn Khaldun's cyclical theory. Tehran, as an example of a third-world metropolis, seems to have been plunged into a circle from peak to downfall, as Ibn Khaldun's foresight predicted. In terms of Ibn Khaldun's theory, Tehran is a city which its Assabiyah has reduced and is in danger of collapse.
The city faces many problems, and participation of citizens is a way to solve problems but the lack of social solidarity and inefficient management has delayed the resolution of these issues. The lack of social solidarity and inefficient management are two of the concepts that Ibn Khaldun referred to in his ideas centuries ago, and attached the social bias of cities to these two concepts.