Omparisson of Kamal Attaturks movement and Reza Shahs policies (Social Revolutions class)

Although Turkey and Iran both underwent similar transitional periods with rulers trying to modernize their respective countries through westernization, the outcome of the attempts and the portrayal of the rulers is very different. Kamal Ataturk is seen as the father of modern Turkey and a national hero whereas both Reza Shah and his son Mohammed Reza Shah are portrayed as foreign puppets. This paper attempts to explore the reasons why Kamal Ataturk was ultimately successful in his modernization of Turkey, where as Reza Shahs attempts resulted in his sons exile and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

I. Intro
A. Modernity vs Westernization
B. Religion and social movements
C. Nationalism and social movements
II. Theories
A. Pareto
1. state capture
B. Weber
1. role of religionideas in social movements
2. role of authority  bureaucracy
3. legitimacy
C. Trimberger
1. in cases with no popular support-military needed unified ideology support of bureaucracy
2. Elite revolutions need 
a) strong international pressure
b) ruling elite not tied to feudal or capitalist system but bureaucrats/military
c) an ideology that stresses modernization-nationalism
D. Huntington
1. Revolution occurs in cases where political processes and economic development lag behind social changes
E. Tilly
1. contender
2. revolution is only possible when powerful groups press claims
F. Barrington Moore
1. certain groups immune from power of ruler
2. right to resistance
3. consent of contract
G. Skocpol
III. Ataturk
A. Nationalism
1. Military support
2. Included the elite
B. Religion to secularization
IV. White Revolution
A. Lack of nationalism
1. isolation of elite
2. isolation of the poor
3. forcing western ideals
B. Role of religion -> failure to secularize state
1. Isolation of Mullahs
2. no adaptation of modernity to suit cultural differences
V. Iranian Revolution

I will be using various theories to try to explain the differences between Iran and Turkey, why Ataturk was successful and the Shah ultimately failed. Pareto will be used to try to explain conditions in Iran during the White Revolution and in Turkey during the end of the Ottoman Empire and the beginning of Ataturks rule. According Weber, the question of legitimacy will be addressed. The Shah had a harder time explaining legitimacy to rule especially after overthrow of Mohammed Mossadaq, whereas Ataturk had an easier time as a general and a war hero. The Shah also had trouble with the military whereas Ataturk was from the military. Trimbergers theories on the social settings needed for a revolution will serve as a basis in order to differentiate between Turkey and Iran. In Iran, there was very little popular support for the Shah, so he needed military support and of the bureaucracy. Barrington Moore will also be used to explain the isolation of the elite as well as the people.

Sources needed:
Barrington Moore The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy”
Charles Tilly Does Modernization Breed Revolution”
Durkhem, Weber, Simmel and Coser Civil Violence as outcome of societal relations”
Kay Trimberger A Theory of Elite Revolution”
Theda Skocpol States and Social Revolutions”
states-and-social-revolutions.html
Said Amir Arjomand The Turban for the Crown”