WI:Reza Khan doing an "Ataturk" in Iran.

[Kishan]

In 1921 Reza Khan led his cossack Brigade into Tehran and forced a change of Government. First he became the Commander-in-Chief of Army and the Minister of War. After taking care of internal problems he became the Prime Minister in 1923. In 1925 he succeeded in ousting the Qajar King Ahmed Shah and sending him into exile. He became the Shah of Iran in December, 1925 and inaugurated the Pahlavi Dynasty.
After securing the absolute power, he had effected many changes in the Iranian society. Modern education was introduced and the University of Tehran was established.The number of industrial plants increased several times. The length of highways multiplied sevenfold. Public health was modernized." Women's Awakening" was a program aimed at the development of women. Islamic veil was discouraged. Reza Khan encouraged western dress in place of traditional dress.
In many ways the modernization programs were similar to those adopted by Kemal Ataturk in Turkey. Why did the attempts of Reza Khan fail to turn Iran into a secular progressive country like Turkey? Could Reza Khan achieve a total success like that of Kemal Ataturk, in Iran and where did he go wrong? In short, could Reza Khan do an "Ataturk" in Iran and what if he had succeeded?

 

[TxCoatl1970]

Iran and Turkey in 1920 are apples and honeydews.
Turkey had spent the last hundred years trying to modernize, the whole society knew it needed to and finally had the opportunity to do so with the Sublime Porte and its deadweight cultural baggage out of the way. Turks also see themselves as Europeans who happen to be Turkish and Muslim.

Persians OTOH could give a rat's fart about anyone else's opinion, European, Asian or otherwise.

Reza Khan tried pulling an Ataturk at the same time in a far more technically backward, insular society that hadn't seen the bitterness of defeat in WWI or had the experiences Turkey did which made for a vastly more accepting attitude toward progressive ideas.

The same thing happened later after the White Revolution with Shah Reza Pahlavi having learned nothing about why Reza Khan failed.
The Iranian public, especially the elder Islamic clerics and their audience (the much greater proportion of the population (outside the urban technocrats and bureaucrats getting a lot of the benefits), rejected Westernization
b/c it would completely alter the social fabric.
Frex, Western society values the individual's rights and choices first and foremost, whereas in Persian society AIUI, what you want individually doesn't matter a whole heck of a lot compared to the duties you owe to your family and ethnic and religious community.
Sure, people have individual ambitions and want the room to do their own thing, but in the framework of social obligations.

LSS the pace of progress the Rezas wanted to enforce didn't benefit enough people in ways they valued for them to buy in. Make a better sales pitch and get buy-in from the various communities so nobody wants to get left out over a couple of generations.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

Could Reza Khan also tried to modernize in the same manner as Chulalungkorn? Siam modernized while remained Asian, so can't Persia say the same thing?

 

[JacktheCat]

Could Reza Khan also tried to modernize in the same manner as Chulalungkorn? Siam modernized while remained Asian, so can't Persia say the same thing?

The impetus that started the Siam modernisation came not from the West, but from Burma. (and it was King Thaksin who started it, not the Chakris)

It was the Burmese destruction of Ayutthaya in 1767, and the discrediting of the old order that provided an opening for a new government system and a new social order.

It was because this modernisation was seen as needed to rebuild from the ashes of Ayutthaya and came from within and was not imposed by outsiders that it was accepted by the Thai populous.

Possibly ... you could have a disastrous Russian invasion, that while hugely distractive and that involved the raising of Tehran and the killing of much of the old order, was finally driven off without outside help. The people or movement that did that would have carte blanche to rebuild Persia in whatever way they wanted with the full support of the people.

 

[TxCoatl1970]

Bumping what Jack said

The convenient brooming of the old order by foreign invasion is one option-
but what might motivate a progressive movement is a homegrown religious movement- say the Baha'i faith becomes a movement Persian culture embraces more widely or Shi'a clergy gets a bit of the liberation theology bug vis-a-vis Persian society. Possibly a Zoroastrian revival?

What I'm hoping for is a grassroots movement Iranians embrace and feel worth maintaining they feel has roots in Persian culture. YMMDV but I thought I'd throw it out there for y'all's consideration to butterfly the religious-led resistance to modern ideas and Westernization.

 

[Incognito]

Question: is OP looking to "westernise" (make European customs, clothing, way of life, etc mainstream) Persia/Iran or "modernize" (make the nation more industrial and so forth) it?

Because if there is resistance to westernization, there are examples of societies modernizing while still maintaining the non-western "society before self" cultural attitude. Just look at most of East Asia.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The Shah encouraged western garb? The man was a commmunist after all.

 

[Kishan]

Modernization in all walks of life is required for all round development. The industrial and commercial development is essential for economic uplift. The improvements in the fields of education and public health is the foundation for the future progress. The emancipation of women from the fetters of religion and tradition and their empowerment is necessary for the social progress. Secularization of the society is also an important part of modernization. All these changes are required for the total modernization of the country, similar to the transformation in Turkey. The people also should be educated on the benefits of modernization.