Identifying the Cognitive Patterns of Political Elites on the Influence of Federal Political-Territorial Management on Enhancing Security and Sustainable Development in Iran

Introduction

Recent studies in federalism reveal that this structure functions not only as an institutional framework for power distribution but also as a platform to guarantee minority rights, enhance political participation, and improve governmental efficiency. The tri-dimensional federalism model, which introduces a third institutional pillar to federal structures, aims to comprehensively explain the complexities of interactions between central governments and federal units. This model gains particular importance in contexts of high cultural and political diversity, offering solutions to conflicts and reducing regional tensions.

Interdisciplinary approaches, leveraging cognitive sciences and factor analysis, have enabled a more precise examination of elites’ mental frameworks. These approaches allow researchers to move beyond institutional analyses and delve into the beliefs, attitudes, and cognitive patterns related to federalism, assessing their impact on macro-level policymaking. The significance of this approach intensifies in political decisions influenced by cognitive and cultural factors.

The present study aims to identify and analyze the cognitive patterns of elites regarding federal governance at the national level. Using Principal Component Analysis and the Kaiser-Guttman criterion, three primary cognitive patterns were extracted, explaining over 79% of variance. This research fills existing gaps in federalism literature, providing new perspectives for future studies on multi-level governance and local administration policies, and offers practical guidance for policymakers in designing balanced and efficient governance systems.

Materials and Methods

This applied research employs a descriptive-analytical approach to investigate the impact of federal governance on Iran’s geopolitical capacity, utilizing the Q-methodology. Chosen for its ability to systematically identify and analyze the mentalities and viewpoints of individuals-especially elites and experts related to the Topic-Q-methodology bridges quantitative and qualitative methods. Unlike conventional approaches that analyze variables, Q-methodology focuses on individuals and their cognitive patterns. Sampling was purposive, based on direct relevance to the research topic, typically involving a small but rich data set.

This approach is widely used in political and social studies where analyzing complex and multifaceted elite perspectives is crucial. It facilitates uncovering hidden cognitive patterns and attitudes toward broad topics such as federalism and geopolitics.

Findings

The data reveal three prominent statements in Cognitive Pattern A:

• "State-level managers are from the same state, live near the people, and have greater familiarity with community problems."

• "At the regional level, any harmful regional tensions should be resolved to advance a strategy of peaceful coexistence with neighboring and trans-regional countries, avoiding provocative or expansionist policies."

• "States and smaller units, roughly the size of villages, enjoy autonomy in internal affairs and can manage their issues according to local customs and preferences."

In Cognitive Pattern B, the key statements include:

• "Avoidance of excessive bureaucracy."

• "Given the military weakness, the country is vulnerable to aggression."

• "The central government intervenes only in areas of shared national interests such as defense, foreign policy, and communications."

Cognitive Pattern C highlights:

• "States have the right to legislate and adopt policies while preserving their identity and customs."

• "The central government intervenes only in areas of shared national interests such as defense, foreign policy, and communications."

Discussion and Conclusion

Using Principal Component Analysis and the Kaiser-Guttman criterion, this study identified and analyzed three primary cognitive patterns among elites regarding federal governance at the national level. These patterns, explaining over 79% of attitudinal variance, reflect the complex and multidimensional mental structures of Iran’s political and academic elites, mirroring the unique geopolitical, cultural, and institutional challenges and opportunities.

A closer analysis reveals:

• Cognitive Pattern A (Q A) emphasizes the critical role of local managers originating from the same state, familiar with local issues-a perspective advocating for “localized governance,” recognized in political geography as key to legitimacy and efficiency. It also stresses peaceful foreign and regional policies, reflecting elites’ realistic approach to Iran’s geopolitical position and the need to manage regional conflicts.

• Cognitive Pattern B (Q B) highlights structural and institutional concerns, particularly avoiding excessive bureaucracy and limiting central government’s role to major domains like defense and foreign affairs. This pattern reflects elites’ concerns about administrative complexity and centralization, which may reduce governance efficiency, alongside sensitivity to security threats and the necessity of national unity against external pressures.

• Cognitive Pattern C (Q C) stresses cultural identity preservation and local customs, advocating states’ rights to legislate within a framework where the central government intervenes only in shared and major interests. This aligns with multi-dimensional federalism theories emphasizing cultural and political autonomy of minorities. It shows elites seek a model balancing national cohesion with cultural and political rights of states.

Collectively, these patterns represent a delicate balance between local autonomy and national cohesion, a fundamental challenge in federalism literature. Findings indicate Iranian elites favor a federal governance model that respects cultural and geographic diversity, prevents extreme centralization, and fosters balanced development and broader political participation.

These results underscore the importance of interdisciplinary and cognitive approaches in understanding federal governance complexities. Analyzing elites’ mental frameworks beyond traditional institutional and political analyses enables a more nuanced understanding of beliefs and attitudes influencing macro-policy, aiding the design of pragmatic and effective policies.