<html>
<b>Iranian Studies Group (ISG) at MIT Lecture Series<br><br>
TITLE: Iran at the Grassroots: The Fate of Local Democracy under the
Islamic Republic<br>
SPEAKER: Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh<br><br>
</b>DATE: Sunday, Dec. 7, 2003<br>
TIME: 4:00 p.m.- 5:30 p.m. (Lecture and Q&A
sessions)<br>
Location: MIT, Room 4-270<br>
MAP:
<a href="http://whereis.mit.edu/map-jpg?selection=4&Buildings=go" eudora="autourl">http://whereis.mit.edu/map-jpg?selection=4&Buildings=go</a><br>
<b>In English. Free and Open to the Public.<br><br>
Please feel free to forward to anyone you feel may be
interested.<br><br>
Abstract:<br><br>
</b>After the Islamic Revolution of 1979 three factors led the country
towards<br>
greater centralization. First, the disruption to the economy and
the<br>
flight of key investors and personnel led the new government to<br>
nationalize many industries and sectors of the economy. Second, the<br>
eight-year long war with Iraq and concerns about the possibility of<br>
regional separatism in ethnic minority regions forced the government
to<br>
centralize military and administrative functions to safeguard the
new<br>
state. Third, the desire to create a new state system along novel<br>
ideological lines accentuated the need for greater centralized
authority<br>
in all spheres of society.<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>However,
the end of the war with Iraq in 1988, the need for<br>
reconstruction and renewed economic growth to meet the needs of
rapidly<br>
growing population, brought to the fore several proposals for<br>
decentralization of economic, fiscal, administrative and political<br>
functions. The decade of the 1990s saw the beginnings of proposals
for<br>
privatizing economic sectors; the Third National Development Plan<br>
(2000-2004) calls for the administrative decentralization of the
central<br>
government's ministries and service delivery functions to provincial
and<br>
urban and rural levels; and in 1999, the country established an
extensive<br>
new system of elected local councils at the urban and village
levels<br>
(about 8,000 councilors in 900 cities and about 107,000 councilors
in<br>
about 33,000 villages).<br><br>
In addition as part of urban fiscal decentralization reform, in 1984
the<br>
government passed the "Municipal Fiscal Self-Sufficiency Act"
which aimed<br>
to phase out all central government assistance to urban
municipalities<br>
(shahrdarihah) within three years. (The reasons for this rather
draconian<br>
measure can be interpreted either cynically as the desire of the
central<br>
state to unburden itself at a time of high military expense or ideally,
as<br>
a way to encourage cities to pursue local economic development<br>
themselves.) However this program has had mixed results, leaving
many<br>
smaller urban areas struggling to make ends meet and leaving the
central<br>
government no choice but to maintain a high level of transfers to
the<br>
majority of municipalities. This is exacerbated by the rapid growth in
the<br>
number of newly established urban centers which are in practice
large<br>
villages rather than cities.<br><br>
However, in January 2003, The Tax Amalgamation Law -- one of the
most<br>
significant fiscal reforms of the last several decades -- was signed
into<br>
law by the reformist dominated Majlis and supercedes all previous laws
and<br>
Executive Decrees. The goal of this law is to streamline of the
hundreds<br>
of taxes through centralizing and concentrating tax collection<br>
responsibilities in the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs. Part
of<br>
this new tax system affects LGs. While promising to increase the volume
of<br>
municipal revenues, it has two negative features. First, it still
leaves<br>
important aspects of the relationship between definitions of national
and<br>
local taxes ambiguous. Second, it removes practically all authority of
LGs<br>
to determine and raise taxes, and restricts whatever authority it they
do<br>
have. In practice, it significantly reverses the move toward<br>
decentralization represented by the 1996 Councils Law which
established<br>
elected local councils. The concrete impacts of this major change in
the<br>
financial system will only become more apparent in the coming years.
In<br>
general however, it shifts the balance of power away from even the
limited<br>
autonomy gained by the localities, back towards the center.<br><br>
This lack of serious commitment in deepening the local democratic
reforms<br>
by even the reformist dominated Majlis was reflected in the less
than<br>
enthusiastic popular participation in the second round of local
elections<br>
in 2003. Especially in the large cities the very poor turnout signaled
the<br>
possibility of yet another missed opportunity by the current
reformist<br>
program in Iran. This presentation discusses the lessons of this<br>
experience, and will offer a look at the two future elections next
year<br>
for parliament (Majlis) and Presidency. <br><br>
<b>About the Speaker:<br><br>
</b>Kian Tajbakhsh (Ph.D. 1993, Columbia University) is based in Tehran,
Iran<br>
where he is a Research Fellow, Cultural Research Bureau. He teaches as
a<br>
visiting Professor at the School of Social Sciences, Tehran University.
He<br>
is a member of a network of researchers and practitioners on
development<br>
for the Middle East Region based in Beirut, Lebanon. He is also
Senior<br>
Research Fellow at the Milano Graduate School, New School University,
New<br>
York City, where from 1994 until 2001, he was Assistant Professor of
Urban<br>
Policy and Politics.<br><br>
For more information on the Iranian Studies Group at MIT refer to our
website:<br>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/isg" eudora="autourl">http://web.mit.edu/isg</a><br><br>
For more information contact:<br><br>
Ali Mostashari<br>
Iranian Studies Group at MIT<br>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/isg" eudora="autourl">http://web.mit.edu/isg</a><br>
amostash@mit.edu<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</html>