منازعه بر سر دلالت فرمان مشروطه

Conflicts on the Implication of Constitutional Command

اگرچه با صدور فرمان مظفرالدين شاه مبني بر تاسيس مجلس شوراي ملي، معترضان سياسي خشنود شدند و دست از تحصن كشيدند، اما موضوعي كه بر دامنه ي ابهام ها افزود، محتوا و دلالت اصلي اين فرمان بود. سرعت تحولات انقلاب موجب شد اين مساله حل نشده باقي بماند؛ زيرا در آن فضاي متلاطم تنها به يك تفاهم زودگذر بين شاه و مخالفان نياز بود تا بحران بست نشيني و مهاجرت هر چه سريع تر پايان يابد. بدين ترتيب منازعه ي اصلي بر سر فهم و تفسير دلالت فرمان شاه به مرحله ي نهادسازي منتقل شد و از فرداي پيروزي انقلاب خود را در شكل كشاكش هاي سياسي نماياند. اين اختلاف ها هم در تدوين نظامنامه انتخابات و هم در تدوين قانون اساسي و هم در تاجگذاري شاه بروز يافت. مساله اين بود كه فرمان مظفرالدين شاه ناظر بركدام نوع از نظام سياسي و چه سنخ از پارلمان بود، آيا يك مجلس مشروطه مدنظر بود و يا يك مجلس مشورتي؟ اين مقاله با روش توصيفي و تبييني مي كوشد تا نشان دهد كه چگونه تلقي هاي متفاوت از ماهيت و محتواي فرمان مشروطيت به پايان رسيد. مقاله سرانجام به اين نتيجه مي رسد كه گفتمان مشروطه خواهان و خوانش آن ها از فرمان مشروطه پس از يك رشته منارعات سياسي در فرايند گذار از نهضت مشروطه به نظام مشروطه، سرانجام بر خوانش دولت و دربار چيرگي يافت و فرمان شاه به مثابه مجلس مشروطه نگريسته شد نه يك مجلس دولتي يا مشورتي.

Although issuing the command for the foundation of national parliament resulted in the opponents’ satisfaction and the refuge had ended, the issue which had increased the ambiguities was the content and main implication of this command. Due to the speed of the evolution of revolution, this issue remained unsolved. In that agitated atmosphere, reaching a temporary understanding between the Shah and the opponents was a must for ending the ban and refuge crisis as soon as possible. Therefore, the main conflict on the understanding and interpretation of the implication of Constitutional Command was transferred to the period of institutionalization and it appeared in the form of political conflicts from the early days after the victory of the revolution. These disagreements out broke in the codification of election’s code of conduct, the constitution and the coronation of Shah. The question was that Mozaffar ad-Din Shah’s Constitutional Command was based on what political system and what kind of parliament? A constitutional assembly or a consultative assembly was meant? Implementing a descriptive and an explanatory method, this article tried to show how different perceptions regarding the modality and content of the Constitutional Command ended. The findings revealed that the discourse of the constitutionalists and their perceptions of this command, after a series of conflicts in the process of transition to a constitutional system from the constitutional Movement, eventually dominated the government and the court. The Shah’s command was regarded as the Constitutional assembly rather than a governmental or advisory assembly