Search published articles
Showing 3 results for Dabirnia
Volume 9, Issue 4 (winter 2021)
Abstract
The recent approaches in comparative literature are looking to do a more in-depth study of the encounter of the various discourses, compared to the past. One of the most essential aspects of the Postcolonial discourses is the dialectic of “self” and “other”, a contrast that can appear in various forms, in one of which the enlightened can reappear as the “other.” The plays Small a, Capital A, and No-Good Friday are emblems of the Postcolonial discourse that have been penned in order to expose the colonial discourse ruling over its society and era. The protagonists of the two plays (Willie and the man on the terrace) are some of the enlightened people who rise against the ruling colonialism, despite living in the margins of the discourse dominant on their society. This research aims to study these two Postcolonial discourses using the comparative approach and based on Edward Said’s definition of the enlightened, and considering the existing ideological discourse in order to shed light on the similarities and differences of these two discourses regarding the definition and function of the enlightened person and to introduce a more sensible definition and image of the enlightened, compared to other existing characters. The findings of this research show that although there are differences between the two protagonists of the plays, these two enlightened people accept the popularity of the anti-colonial discourse as an ethical matter. Resistance against oppression, resilience, and seeking the truth are a number of actions adopted by the two enlightened people.
Alireza Dabirnia,
Volume 20, Issue 3 (Fall 2016)
Abstract
Guarantee of the fundamental rights in a society requires democratical principles and structures. On the one hand, accepting the popular vote in multiple domains is considered to be as of fundamental rights that could protect the sovereignty of the people and promote representation system to a real and efficient structure. On the other hand, this right should not and can not be limited in the framework of formal structure or legal system. Sovereignty in the modern sense requires that, first, the capacity of reflection of the will of the people through multiple channels, and second, if a conflict happens between people and formal structures or legal system, it is necessary to resolve the conflict in favor of the people. In a democracy, the constitution should not be contrary to the will of the people in order in determining their common good and individual self-determination.
In a modern approach to governance, any form of political power should be adopted with the will of the people to be legitimate.
Alireza Dabirnia,
Volume 22, Issue 3 (Fall 2018)
Abstract
There are two main approaches in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran; In the first approach, equal value to the principles of the constitution has not been considered and some of the principles are in a higher position so that the hierarchy of constitutional principles is considered. In the second approach, the constitution is regarded as integrated collection and no one has superiority over another and in case of any ambiguity, all the principles should be interpreted according to the principle of popular sovereignty. As a result, two different conception of popular sovereignty is conceivable that sometimes argued as different sovereignties; dual and single. There is a meaningful relationship between the notion of sovereignty in the constitution and the people's right to self-determination. The main research question is that, which concept of the sovereignty to be recognized by the constitution; dual or single? What is the impact of the recognition of each approache on the people's right to self - determination?
