The purpose of this study is to attempt to answer if, and if so, which phase of the democratization process Iran is in, and what the country’s prerequisites for democracy look like. The study is a qualitative case study and is mainly based on Dankwart Rustow’s transition theory, Ron Eyerman and Andrew Jamison’s social movement theory and Sharon E. Nepstad’s theory about revolutions and non-violent movements. I also present Robert A. Dahl’s polyarchy theory to explain the overarching definition of democracy the study is based on and to find out the level of democracy in the Iranian society. The primary purpose is thus to present if, and if so, which phase has been fulfilled, according to Rustow’s transition theory. I will also present the social movements in the context of the ongoing protests and if and how social media has had an impact.

Iran does almost fulfil the two first phases in Rustow’s transition theory, and the social movements can be interpreted as mostly nonviolent, which is a normal way to go to reach a democratic transition. But with the empirical basis it seems that the state is not interested in talks and use violent methods against the protesters. Certain democratic principles are followed, but these at limited through a complex system which almost completely limits the possibility to fulfil Dahl’s institutions. Being located among authoritarian states doesn’t neither improve the possibilities for a democratic transition, and despite a more united population than before it can be stated, due to a excluding opposition, that an Iranian democracy is out of reach and the underlying reasons are mainly due ethnic, religious and political differences.