اقدام علاءالدوله از منظرِ ساختارِ تشكيلات ادارة شهري پيشامدرن

ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla's Action from the Perspective of the Structure of the Pre-modern City Administration

منابع روايي انقلاب مشروطه چوب‌زدن تجّار قند از سوي حاكم تهران را اقدامي ناهنجار و ظالمانه تلقي كرده‌اند كه به دنبال بحران گراني قند كيفر شدند و اسباب شورش مردم فراهم گشت. نوشتار حاضر فارغ از اين پيش‌فرض در پي پاسخ به اين پرسش است چرا به‌رغم سابقۀ اين‌گونه اقدامات حكومتي، تا پيش از اين شاهد چنين واكنشي از سوي جامعۀ ايران نبوده‌ايم؟ آيا رفتار علاءالدوله مغاير با سنت پيشين بود؟ يا اين زمان تحولي در فهم ايرانيان از حكومت‌داري رخ نموده بود كه اقدامات معمولِ دولت خشم آنان را برانگيخت؟ اساساً اقدام علاءالدوله تا چه اندازه تخطي از روية نظام ‌كهنِ حاكم بوده و تا چه ميزان تحت تأثير نظام مشروطه داوري شده است؟ مقاله مي‌كوشد با دوري از رويكرد اراده‌گرايانة متكي به اشخاص از ديدگاه ساختار‌ي به اين واقعه توجه كند. به باور نگارنده، علاءالدوله در اين رخداد از محدودۀ اختيارات معينه در نظامات كهن عدول نكرد بلكه اقداماتش با سازوكار ديوان ‌حسبه و محكمۀ عدليه در ساخت تشكيلات اداره شهري پيشينه دارد، بنابراين بايد واكنش جامعه عليه اقدامات وي متوجه ناكارآمدي ساخت دولت در اين زمان باشد كه عمر آن به آخر رسيده بود.

The narrative sources of the Constitutional Revolution saw the crackdown on sugar business by the ruler of Tehran as an abusive and cruel act that was followed by a massive crisis of sugar culprits, and a riot of people was provided. Without prejudice to this premise, the present article seeks to answer the question why, despite the history of such government actions, we have not seen such a reaction by the Iranian community before? Was the behavior of ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla contrary to the previous tradition? or at this time a change had happened in the understanding of the Iranian people about governance? which routinely caused the government to anger them? In essence, how much did ʿAlāʾal-Dawla’s actions violate the rules of the regime and to what extent have they been judged by the constitutional system? The article tries to focus on the event from the structural point of view by rejecting the voluntaristic approach of individuals. According to the writer, ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla, in this event, he did not resign from the limits of authority in the old systems, but his actions had a background in the disciplinary office and the court of justice in the organization of the city administration; therefore, the community's response to his actions would be to toward the ineffectiveness of structure of the state at this time, which his life was over.