This article examines two governmental architectural complexes of the Qajar period in the city of Kerman—the Ebrahim Khan Complex and the Vakil Complex—and interprets them as two distinct modes through which political authority was articulated within the urban fabric. The study seeks to explain the historical grounds of the architectural differences between these complexes, both constructed during the Qajar period yet belonging to different historical moments. Accordingly, this study asks: What architectural differences distinguish these two complexes, and how do these differences relate to the formation of provincial authority in Qajar-period Kerman? The research method combines morphological analysis and comparative architectural study with historical interpretation. First, the two complexes are examined through fieldwork and architectural monographs within a comparative framework in order to highlight their principal differences. These differences are then reinterpreted within the broader historical transformations of Kerman. The findings indicate that both complexes were developed within governmental building initiatives associated with the city’s bazaar; however, the modes in which political authority was articulated in them differed. The Ebrahim Khan Complex, constructed in the period following the foundational violence of Qajar rule and during the consolidation of the dynasty’s authority in Kerman, relied on establishing legitimacy through the strengthening of religious–educational institutions, the waqf institution, and symbolic expression in architectural decoration and inscriptions; after its establishment, its continued life became closely associated with the Shaykhi religious movement. By contrast, the Vakil Complex, developed in the Naseri era, emphasized the strengthening of the city’s commercial core, the expanded scale and ordered organization of the complex, a more explicit representation of the patron’s bureaucratic authority in relation to the Qajar monarch, and competition with Shaykhism. More broadly, the study argues that the interpretation of such architectural works can move beyond the mere description and chronological cataloging of monuments only when they are analyzed in relation to the historical contexts and power relations that produced them.