عنوان مقاله [English]
The management of village affairs, historically, until the path breaking plan of land reforms was affected by landholding and land ownership systems. This research aimed at studying the nature of village affairs management during landholding system, land ownership system, and the period after land reforms. The method used in this study is qualitative one, and the data is analyzed through thematic analysis technique and its validity is measured through validity-interpretive method. Identifying three major themes regarding the village affairs management, management-monopoly, and the centralization of management and the dispersion of management are among the significant Findings of this inquiry. During the reign of landholding system, a durable system for management of the villages' affairs didn’t take shape due to the transitory of rulers, temporal use of the lands, and the temporal ownership of land among the court chosen individuals. The management of the villages' affairs during this period was based on monopoly management: controlling the Income through verities of tax collections, controlling the sources of the wealth through the landholding monopoly, and controlling the power through ultra-economic relations among land owners and the peasants. During "the land ownership," the villages' management was under central management: Economic political and social procedures of the owner, administrative authority of the alderman, and the codification of government rules were among the major themes of central management over the villages. During the period after the land reforms and after the demise of the main pillar of villages' management (owner) and the decay the alderman's authority, the management began to find a multiple nature. The entry of the white revolution armies into the villages, the formation of the guild house, and also village co-ops and the formation of village council are among the major themes in this period. The finding of the research shows that the village's affairs management was under political coercion, economic-political coercion, and political-social coercion during landholding system, the land ownership, and the period after land reforms, respectively. Accordingly, the political coercion, the economic-political coercion, and political-social management led to the Monopoly of management, the centralization of management, and the dispersion of management of village's affairs, respectively.