One of the chronic challenges in the realm of governance in contemporary Iran is the relationship between “native-Islamic identity” and the prevalent models of Western management. In this context, Martyr Ayatollah Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi, as the thirteenth president of Iran, embodied a practical effort to realize a managerial style based on the “Islamic-Iranian Model of Progress.” In contrast, certain intellectual-executive currents, relying on Western prescriptions, promote a model of management that not only fails to correspond to the specific needs of Iranian society, but also often contradicts the principles of justice, popular involvement, and the cultural identity of this land.
Analyzing and critically revisiting this duality in national governance—especially through a focus on the intellectual and practical legacy of Martyr Raisi—can offer solutions to many of the present challenges facing Iranian society. This article seeks, with a scientific-analytical approach, to examine the various dimensions of this managerial model and clarify its distinctions from imported frameworks.
1. Philosophical Foundation: The Model of the Islamic Human vs. the Consumerist Citizen
In Martyr Raisi’s managerial thought, the human being is seen as a responsible, justice-seeking entity, tasked with reforming societal affairs. In both his speech and action, he consistently emphasized human dignity, the role of the masses in governance, and the active participation of various social groups in solving national issues. This perspective stems from Islamic religious and civilizational foundations, wherein management is regarded as a form of “divine trust.”
In numerous speeches, Martyr Raisi placed the concept of the “responsible human” at the center and believed that Islamic management must cultivate individuals who see themselves as accountable to society and the future of the nation. He held that the management system must be designed in a way that moves citizens from passivity toward becoming active, demanding, and participatory agents. His emphasis on concepts such as “the jihad of clarification,” “religious democracy,” and “social justice” underscored the vital role of the people in his intellectual framework. From his perspective, any managerial model that views humans in a one-dimensional light is destined to fail.
Another key point in Raisi’s anthropological view of management was his focus on the “spiritual dimension of the human being.” Unlike materialist theories of management, he did not perceive humans as merely economic or political entities, but took into account their spiritual and moral dimensions. This view placed religious and ethical teachings in a special position within his managerial model. His decisions in cultural, economic, and political arenas were always influenced by this holistic view of the human being. In many of his speeches, he stressed that without attention to the spiritual dimension, other aspects of human life would also become disrupted.
In contrast, Western-oriented managerial models, often technocratic in nature, typically perceive the human as a consumer-driven, rationalist being devoid of spiritual obligations. In such models, management is reduced to a kind of behavioral engineering and social control—a goal frequently accompanied by public passivity, political indifference, and the erosion of social capital. In this approach, the primary objective becomes productivity and profitability—even at the cost of weakening cultural identity, moral values, and social capital. The result of this view is the prevalence of soulless technocracy in the management system, where statistics and figures are prioritized over human beings.
2. Justice-Centered Leadership Instead of Mere Efficiency
One of the most defining aspects of Martyr Raisi’s managerial approach was his focus on justice. Unlike development-oriented, capital-driven models that assess progress through quantitative indicators (such as GDP growth), Raisi concentrated on the fair distribution of opportunities, combating structural poverty, and focusing on the disadvantaged sectors of society. His provincial trips—including to extremely deprived areas—were a tangible manifestation of this approach.
Martyr Raisi viewed justice not merely as an ethical ideal but as a social and political necessity that must permeate all levels of national management. He repeatedly emphasized that true progress only occurs when its benefits are distributed justly across the country. This perspective was evident in his executive decisions, including reforming subsidy programs, allocating provincial budgets, and implementing policies to support low-income groups. One of his most notable actions in pursuit of justice was his effort to reform the banking and taxation systems in order to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. He believed that Islamic banking must serve to reduce class divides—not exacerbate them.
Furthermore, Raisi's vision of justice was comprehensive, encompassing economic, educational, judicial, and even environmental justice. He aimed for a distribution of resources and facilities such that all regions—especially underprivileged ones—could benefit. For this reason, during his presidency, numerous plans were implemented to develop deprived and border regions. His understanding of justice was structural, meaning he believed that unjust structures must be reformed for justice to be sustainably embedded in society. This stood in sharp contrast to superficial, palliative approaches to social problems.
In Western models, “economic efficiency” often replaces justice. While this perspective has proven effective in some industrial systems, in the context of Iranian society, without an accompanying justice framework, it often leads to the reproduction of class divisions. Western models generally focus on quantitative indicators like economic growth rate, gross domestic product, and inflation rates—without addressing the equitable distribution of this growth. These models frequently prioritize “efficiency” while neglecting the human and social dimensions of development. The result of such an approach—especially in developing countries—has been social crises, deep class divides, and the spread of poverty in urban peripheries.
3. Identity-Centeredness versus Cultural Dependence
Martyr Raisi’s style of governance, in contrast to many Western-oriented administrators, was deeply rooted in the intellectual tradition of the Islamic Revolution. In his discourse, the "Islamic-Iranian identity" was not merely a slogan but a managerial principle. In selecting managers, he prioritized commitment, revolutionary spirit, and public-orientedness over pure technocracy.
Raisi believed that every society must design and implement a management model suited to its own cultural, historical, and social characteristics. He considered imitation of Western models a form of “managerial alienation” that would only lead to failure. Hence, he consistently strove to present a native model aligned with Islamic-Iranian values for governing the country. In numerous speeches, he emphasized the need to return to the authentic Islamic-Iranian identity in management and believed that this identity is replete with valuable managerial teachings and examples that could help address the country’s current challenges.
One of the clearest manifestations of Raisi’s identity-centered approach was his particular emphasis on “domestic production” and “self-sufficiency.” He believed that the “resistance economy,” as articulated by the Supreme Leader, is a strategic identity-based approach that could save the country from dependency on foreign powers. Therefore, during his presidency, supporting domestic producers, empowering knowledge-based companies, and reducing the import of non-essential goods were among the top priorities. He viewed the country’s economic management not merely as a technical issue but as one tied to national identity, believing that economic independence was a prerequisite for political and cultural independence.
Moreover, his attention to cultural and spiritual dimensions of management further exemplified his identity-based approach. Raisi considered culture the foundation of sustainable development and believed that without attention to the cultural and religious values of society, any form of progress would be unstable and rootless. As a result, his development programs always had cultural attachments, and he sought to ensure that economic and industrial initiatives were designed and implemented in harmony with the cultural values of the society. He repeatedly stressed that genuine progress is only achieved when it is accompanied by the preservation and promotion of cultural identity.
In contrast, in Westernized models, competence is often equated with alignment to international standards and technical benchmarks, with little regard for congruence with native culture or revolutionary concerns. While these models may appear orderly and efficient on the surface, they often lack the cultural-social synergy necessary for Iranian society. Western models are typically accompanied by a kind of “cultural homogenization” that disregards the cultural and identity-based diversity of societies. These models are shaped by Western historical and cultural experiences and assume that all societies must follow a similar path to development. The outcome of such an approach is the erosion of local cultural identities and the movement toward a singular global culture where indigenous values and ideals are marginalized.
4. Committed Management versus Value-Neutral Management
In the Islamic worldview, value-neutral management is meaningless; every manager inevitably serves either justice or oppression. Raisi, as a committed manager, never shirked his social and religious responsibilities. He was forthright, accountable, and took ownership—even during severe crises such as earthquakes, the COVID-19 pandemic, or economic difficulties.
Martyr Raisi viewed management as a “divine duty” and a “religious responsibility,” not merely a job or a position. He believed that in the Islamic system, a manager must be accountable to God, the people, and future generations. This perspective shaped him into a committed and responsible leader who did not abandon his duties even in the most challenging circumstances. A prominent example of this was his on-the-ground presence during crises such as floods, earthquakes, and the COVID-19 pandemic. In these situations, he personally appeared in the field and closely monitored relief efforts and problem-solving processes. This approach not only accelerated service delivery but also enhanced public trust.
Another key aspect of Raisi’s committed management was his serious fight against corruption and cronyism. With an extensive background in the judiciary, he considered corruption one of the main obstacles to the country’s progress and combated it with determination. During his presidency, numerous cases were pursued against economic corruptors, and many of them were brought to justice. He believed that fighting corruption was a prerequisite for implementing justice and that no reform initiative would succeed without it. This stance made him a well-known figure in the battle against economic corruption.
Furthermore, Raisi, as a committed manager, consistently emphasized national independence and resistance against the excessive demands of global powers. He viewed negotiation as a tool to secure national interests—not an end in itself. Thus, in international negotiations, he persistently upheld the country’s dignity and independence and was unwilling to compromise the principles and values of the Revolution for short-term gains. Though this approach may bring challenges in the short run, it ultimately strengthens the country’s independence and authority in the long term.
In imitative Western models, “managerial neutrality” is often considered a virtue—a misconception that, in a pluralistic and transitional society like Iran, leads to identity loss, irresponsibility, and sometimes structural corruption. In such models, management is regarded merely as a technical and operational activity, divorced from ethical and value-based considerations. Over time, this view gives rise to a “rootless technocracy” devoid of deep understanding of the society’s cultural and social issues. The result of such an approach is the disconnect between managers and the public, a decline in public trust, and inefficacy in solving complex social problems.
5. Field-Oriented Approach versus Desk-Bound Management
One of the most notable features of Martyr Raisi’s management style was his constant presence in the field and his close connection with the people. Unlike many administrators who prefer to make decisions from behind their desks relying on reports and statistics, he believed in the importance of direct observation and field understanding. His frequent provincial trips—during which he met and conversed with various social groups, especially the underprivileged—are clear examples of this approach.
Martyr Raisi believed that a manager must witness the realities of society firsthand and become acquainted with people’s problems not just through filtered and official reports. For this reason, his travels were not limited to provincial capitals and major cities; he also visited villages and underdeveloped areas and engaged in face-to-face dialogue with local communities. These visits helped him gain a more accurate understanding of people’s real challenges and enabled him to find more suitable solutions. Furthermore, his presence among the people increased public trust and hope, sending the message that the country’s officials had not forgotten them.
Raisi’s field-oriented approach was not confined to visits and inspections—it was also reflected in how he planned and made decisions. He sought to include the perspectives of various social groups, particularly field experts and specialists, in his policymaking. Consequently, he regularly held meetings with business owners, academics, entrepreneurs, and other societal groups to incorporate their insights into government planning. This participatory approach not only enriched decision-making but also increased public ownership and accountability.
Another vital aspect of Raisi’s field-based method was his reliance on the capacity of grassroots and volunteer forces in implementing government initiatives. He believed that many national challenges could be resolved through the power and potential of the people. Thus, during his presidency, grassroots and volunteer groups played a significant role in executing infrastructure, service, and cultural projects. This approach not only reduced costs and sped up implementation but also strengthened the spirit of participation and solidarity within society.
In contrast, Westernized managerial models often emphasize “remote management” and bureaucratic structures. In such frameworks, the manager assumes the role of a desk-bound decision-maker, basing their actions on reports, statistics, and charts. Although this method may appear orderly and scientific, in practice it often leads to a deep disconnect between managers and the public. Managers who lack firsthand understanding of issues tend to make decisions that are out of touch with societal realities—decisions that may not solve problems and, at times, may even worsen them.
6. Strategic Vision versus Day-to-Day Management
Another key characteristic of Martyr Raisi’s management style was his strategic and long-term outlook on national affairs. He believed that a successful manager should not only address immediate problems but also have a clear vision of the future and align their plans accordingly. As a result, long-term and strategic planning was a top priority during his presidency.
Martyr Raisi viewed “foresight” as one of the foundational principles of Islamic management. He held that a manager must not only solve present issues but also work to prevent future crises. This outlook made him a forward-thinking leader who evaluated the long-term impacts and consequences of decisions rather than focusing solely on short-term benefits. A prime example of this was his effort to reform the country's economic structures—reforms that, while potentially difficult in the short term, were aimed at long-term economic stability and public well-being. He believed that some decisions, though hard, are necessary and should not be avoided due to short-term costs.
Another aspect of Raisi’s strategic vision was his commitment to aligning government plans with overarching policies and national development documents. He worked to ensure that the government’s programs were consistent with high-level frameworks such as the National Vision Document, the General Policies of the Resistance Economy, and the Islamic-Iranian Model of Progress. This alignment brought coherence and coordination to the administration's efforts and prevented fragmented or duplicative initiatives. Raisi also emphasized the importance of “spatial planning” in development efforts, insisting that progress should be tailored to the needs and capacities of each region.
On a broader scale, Raisi’s strategic perspective encompassed a special focus on “building a new Islamic civilization.” He saw national governance not just through the lens of state borders, but from a civilizational standpoint—believing that Iran, as the heart of the Islamic world, should lead the revival of Islamic civilization and serve as a successful model of Islamic governance. This civilizational vision informed his decisions across various domains and enabled him to maintain a broader perspective when facing challenges. He repeatedly emphasized the need to avoid the trap of “routine management” and “crisis control,” advocating instead for a strategic trajectory aligned with the lofty goals of the Islamic Revolution.
In contrast, imported managerial models are often entangled in “short-termism” and “reactivity.” In these systems, the manager primarily addresses immediate problems and short-term crises, without having a vision for the future. While this “firefighting” approach may yield short-term fixes, it leads to the accumulation and complication of issues over time. Additionally, these models tend to prioritize “quantitative metrics” and “quick results” over “qualitative goals” and “long-term planning,” which results in a form of shallow management disconnected from deeper societal needs.
7. Islamic Management: The Enduring Legacy of Martyr Raisi
The management model introduced and implemented by Martyr Raisi stands as an enduring legacy for the country's administrative system, transcending the span of his life. This model—rooted in justice, identity-centeredness, popular orientation, and commitment—can serve as an ideal blueprint for future leaders seeking to guide the country toward progress and excellence based on Islamic teachings and revolutionary values.
Martyr Raisi’s managerial legacy is particularly valuable because he demonstrated in practice that Islamic management is not merely an idealistic or unattainable concept, but a feasible and effective model under real-world conditions. Through his actions, he dispelled many doubts and questions about the viability of Islamic governance in the modern era and proved that it is indeed possible to lead a nation— even under the most challenging circumstances—by drawing on religious principles and revolutionary ideals. This successful experience provides a rich foundation for theorizing about Islamic management and can inform the development of indigenous management models in the country.
One of the most important lessons from Raisi’s legacy is the “viability of value-based management” in today’s world. At a time when many theorists consider secularism and the separation of values from management as the only paths to success, he demonstrated that it is possible to achieve efficient and effective leadership grounded in religious and revolutionary values. This experience inspires devout and revolutionary youth to enter the field of leadership with confidence in their authentic identity, and not shy away from promoting indigenous and Islamic management paradigms. Moreover, this legacy provides a foundation for critiquing imported and non-native management models, illustrating that imitation of Western frameworks is not the sole route to success.
On the theoretical level, Raisi’s managerial legacy offers valuable raw material for the development of a theory of “Islamic management.” Researchers and thinkers can study and analyze his leadership style to extract the principles and rules of Islamic governance and present them in coherent and applicable frameworks. These theories can form the foundation of indigenous management knowledge and be taught in universities and educational centers. In this way, Raisi’s legacy goes beyond personal experience and becomes part of the scientific and intellectual capital of society.
By contrast, imported managerial models often lack such depth and are usually limited to techniques and methods. These models—transplanted without due regard for the cultural and social context of Iranian society—lack a solid epistemological and value-based foundation, and therefore fail to meet the deeper needs of the society. While they may be effective in certain technical aspects, their disconnect from the cultural identity of the people renders them incapable of bringing about profound and lasting transformation. This underscores the necessity of focusing on Martyr Raisi’s legacy as a practical and native model, and using it to develop management theories tailored to the Iranian context.
In short, Martyr Raisi was not merely a president—he was the teacher of a management school; a school that bound leadership to identity, justice, commitment, and a people-centered approach. This school of thought is a legacy that must be preserved and passed on to future generations. By learning from this valuable heritage and applying it across various spheres of governance, we can take a major step toward realizing the New Islamic Civilization and offer the world a successful model of Islamic governance.
By: Mohammad Haeri Shirazi
Your Comment