When observers view Iranian protests as sudden outbursts of anger, they miss the reality of a 120-year-old project. To understand the history of protests in Iran, you must look back at the unfinished construction of a “House of Justice.” This effort began long before the modern state even existed. It is not just a series of random riots, but a century-long negotiation over power, law, and the social contract.
Iran is not simply a country facing periodic unrest. It is a society trying to build a system that holds the state accountable. This struggle connects the past to the present in a single, continuous line. Each protest is a new chapter in the same book, written by people who want to move from being “subjects” to being “citizens.” To see where Iran is going, we must first see how it got here.
The Concept of the House of Justice in Iranian History
The core of this movement is the concept of the Adalat-khaneh, or the “House of Justice.” In the late 19th century, the Iranian people began to ask for a neutral space where the law applied to everyone. At the time, justice was a royal favor. The King granted or took it away whenever he pleased. This made life unpredictable and unfair for everyone from merchants to laborers.
This demand created a direct path from 1906 to today. When you see people in the streets now, they are asking for the same structural integrity their ancestors sought. They want a system where the rules are clear and the rulers are not above them. Modern dissent is just the latest stage of this legal struggle. The Iranian social contract has never been fully signed in a way that satisfies the people. Instead, the state has often ignored the public’s desire for a voice in how the country runs.
The “House of Justice” was never meant to be a literal building. It was a metaphor for a fair society. Early activists wanted a court system that didn’t take bribes and a government that followed a written code. Because the monarchy refused to change, the people eventually demanded a constitution. This shift transformed a few small protests into a national revolution that would change the Middle East forever.
The 1906 Constitutional Revolution and the Birth of Civil Dissent
The first major update to the Iranian system happened during the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. At the time, the Qajar dynasty was drowning in debt and foreign influence. This led to a rare alliance. Merchants, high-ranking clerics, and intellectuals all joined forces. They did not just want a new King; they wanted a new operating system for the entire country. Their goal was the first modern constitution in the region.
This period changed the history of protests in Iran by shifting the focus from “subjecthood” to “citizenship.” The people established the Majlis, or Parliament. This was an attempt to move power from the “divine right” of kings to the will of the people. While the revolution faced many setbacks, it planted a permanent seed. The idea that a written document should limit state power became a core part of the Iranian political mind.
The 1906 movement also introduced the “Bazaar” as a center of political power. When the merchants closed their shops, the economy stopped. This forced the King to listen. Even today, the threat of a general strike remains one of the most powerful tools for protestors. The revolution showed that when different groups work together, they can force the state to change its architecture. It proved that the “House of Justice” was possible, even if it was not yet finished.
Nationalism and the 1953 Coup as a Turning Point
By the mid-20th century, the struggle for justice became a struggle for sovereignty. Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically leaning Prime Minister, led a movement to nationalize the oil industry. At the time, the British controlled Iran’s oil. Mossadegh argued that a country could not be free if it did not own its own resources. He wanted to use oil money to build a self-sustaining state that served its people rather than foreign powers.
In 1953, British and American intelligence orchestrated a coup to remove Mossadegh. They reinstated the Shah with absolute power. This event was a massive trauma for the Iranian system. It taught many citizens that they could not build a “House of Justice” through gradual reform or international law. They saw that external interests would always prioritize oil and stability over Iranian democracy. For those interested in the declassified records of this era, the CIA archives show exactly how these interventions were planned.
This betrayal made future movements more radical. People stopped trusting Western-style liberal frameworks because they felt those frameworks were used against them. The Shah’s subsequent “White Revolution” attempted to modernize the country from the top down. While it improved infrastructure and literacy, it did not give people political rights. This lack of a “political valve” caused pressure to build until the entire system exploded in 1979.
How the 1979 Revolution Redefined the Social Contract
People often describe the 1979 Revolution as a simple religious takeover. In reality, it began as a massive, diverse coalition. Secular leftists, nationalists, and religious groups all shared one goal: removing the Pahlavi monarchy. They saw the Shah’s system as corrupt and repressive. Each group had a different vision of “justice,” but they were unified by what they hated. They wanted to fulfill the promises that the 1906 revolution had failed to deliver.
The transition to a clerical republic fundamentally changed the state’s design. The new system had elections and a parliament, but it also added the Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). This placed a religious leader above all elected officials. This created a dual-power system. On one side was the democratic will of the people; on the other was the ideological requirement of the state. This tension is the main source of friction in modern Iran.
After the revolution, the new government consolidated power quickly. It used the war with Iraq in the 1980s to silence internal critics and focus the nation on external threats. However, the promise of social justice remained. The state justified its rule by claiming to represent the “oppressed.” When the state failed to provide economic or social freedom, it lost the support of the very people it claimed to protect. This set the stage for the next century of dissent.
The Green Movement and the Demand for Internal Reform
The system faced its biggest internal challenge during the 2009 “Green Movement.” After a disputed election, millions of people marched under the slogan “Where is my vote?” This was a vital moment in the history of protests in Iran because the dissent came from within the system. These were not revolutionaries trying to burn everything down. They were citizens asking the state to follow its own rules and respect the ballots they had cast.
The Green Movement was also the first time the world saw the power of digital mobilization in Iran. Even though the state suppressed the protests, the event proved that the urban middle class was organized. It showed that the demand for a “House of Justice” was still a living requirement. Groups like Amnesty International documented the scale of the crackdown, which damaged the trust between the state and the youth.
The failure of the Green Movement led to a deep sense of disappointment. Many people realized that the “Reformist” path—trying to fix the system from the inside—might be impossible. The state’s violent response showed that it viewed even mild criticism as an existential threat. This shift pushed the public toward more radical demands in the years that followed. If the system would not bend, the people began to think it would have to break.
The Shift to Structural Critique
Between 2017 and 2019, the nature of dissent shifted from political reform to structural critique. Earlier protests were led by the urban middle class. These newer waves were led by the working class in provincial cities. They were triggered by economic collapse, rising fuel prices, and water shortages. These people felt the immediate weight of systemic mismanagement and corruption.
These grievances were no longer about “fixing” an election. They were about the viability of the state itself. In November 2019, the government responded to protests with a near-total internet blackout and a violent crackdown. This event, known as “Bloody November,” signaled a final break for many. Local complaints about bread prices quickly turned into direct attacks on the political structure. The “pressure valve” of the system had stopped functioning entirely.
The frequency of these protests also increased. Instead of once a decade, they began to happen every few years, and then every few months. The state’s inability to solve economic problems meant that the causes of the protests never went away. Each crackdown only added more fuel to the fire. By 2020, the gap between the government’s rhetoric and the reality of life in Iran had become an unbridgeable chasm.
The Woman Life Freedom Movement as a Modern Culmination
The 2022 protests represent the most sophisticated chapter in the history of protests in Iran. Sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody, the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement bridged gaps between classes, ethnic groups, and generations. It moved beyond economic or political demands. It addressed the core of personal autonomy and social liberty.
This movement is the modern heir to the 1906 revolution. If the 1906 movement tried to limit the power of the King, the 2022 movement tried to limit the power of the state over the individual body. Gender equality and social dignity became the new pillars of the “House of Justice.” Reports from Human Rights Watch show how this movement has maintained its agency despite intense pressure. It proves that the Iranian people will continue to challenge any system that fails to provide a fair legal framework.
The 2022 movement also showed a high level of global solidarity. For the first time, the Iranian diaspora and the international community were perfectly in sync with the protestors inside the country. This external support made it harder for the state to control the narrative. The movement proved that the desire for a “House of Justice” is not just a domestic issue; it is a fundamental human right that the whole world recognizes.
Why the Iranian Social Contract Remains Unresolved
The persistent cycle of unrest in Iran is not a sign of a “broken” people. It is a sign of a resilient one. For 120 years, the Iranian people have asked for the same things: legal accountability, economic dignity, and a say in their own lives. Friction occurs because the state—whether under a King or a Cleric—prioritizes its own survival over the needs of the people. The architecture of power remains rigid while the society beneath it is fluid and modern.
History shows that force alone cannot create stability in Iran. A populace with a century of experience in civil dissent will not revert to being passive subjects. Until the “House of Justice” is finally built, the cycle of protest will remain the primary way the social contract is negotiated. Force might clear the streets for a time, but it cannot kill the underlying demand for a system that reflects the will of its citizens.
As of 2026, the challenge remains the same as it was in 1906. The goal is to create a system where power is a mandate from below, not a gift from above. The history of protests in Iran is more than just a record of conflict. It is a blueprint for a version of Iran that is still waiting to be realized. Every generation adds a new stone to the foundation, and the project continues until the house is finally complete.
