Islamic Republic of Iran, an Islamic Popular System

If you might recall, last week we discussed the powers and responsibilities of the Valiy-e Faqih or the Supreme Jurisprudent as defined by the constitution. Today we will focus on the supervision of the Leader’s performance as per the constitution, in view of the fact that democratic systems have certain legal mechanisms to control and supervise the senior-most authorities of the country.
The Islamic Republic of Iran as the popular system endorsed by the votes of the people, has the most precise and reliable methods to supervise and control the country’s highest political figure, i.e. the Leader, compared to the highly flawed western concept of Liberal Democracy. Since it is the people in the Islamic Republic of Iran who determine and elect the Leader through the Assembly of Assembly of Experts, they exercise their rights for proper supervision and control of the Leader through the same Assembly. In other words, the mission of the publically-elected Assembly of Experts doesn’t end with its determination of the person who is qualified to be the Leader, but the Assembly continues its vital and sensitive task of supervision of the performance of the Leader. According to the 111th Principle of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Constitution, the Assembly of Experts is also a referral body to determine, if necessary, the disqualification of the Leader, on the basis of certain conditions, such as the Leader’s lack of ability to carry out his legal responsibilities.
An important factor that needs to be stressed is that the duration of the Leader’s term in office is not time-bound, although conditions could change if the passing of time were to prove that members of the Assembly of Experts might have erred in discharging their duties of proper selection. Therefore the Assembly of Experts should precisely review and examine the religious, scientific, scholarly, moral, and practical merits of the person selected as the Leader, as specified by the 111th principle of the Constitution. In addition to the Assembly of Experts’ supervision, the Islamic Republic system has certain other legal mechanisms to keep a proper check on the powers of the Leader and the bodies under his supervision. Principle 107 of the constitution which emphasizes the equality of the Leader and all other citizens makes sure that that Leader doesn’t have any undue privileges and extraordinary advantages compared to the rest of the people. Principle 142 of the constitution, which deals with the personal property of the Leader, specifies that the Chief of the Legislature is in charge of supervising the Leader’s personal assets as well as that of other state officials and their wives and children, before and after taking of office, in order to determine that these were not illegally accumulated. In addition, as per the 76th Principle of the Constitution, the Majlis (Parliament) has the right to investigate and examine the various affairs of the country, including the bodies under the control and supervision of the Leader. Another controlling mechanism on the basis of the Constitution warrants the Leader to consult with experts regarding crucial issues, which means that he is not needless or heedless of consulting bodies, in line with the emphasis of the holy Qur’an on consultation. According to the 112th Principle, one of the responsibilities of the Assembly of Experts is to act as an advisory body for the Leader.
Most of the secular systems of the West take advantages of various methods and apparatuses to define limits, checks and counterchecks on the authorities of the senior-most officials. These constitutional checks empowers the parliament to be supervise all affairs including the necessity for the President or the Prime Minister to take the oath of office at the Legislature for commitment to carry out the duties entrusted to him. In such political systems there is no emphasis on the internal controlling levers such as superior moral characteristics for the top government officials, by merely insisting that the person concerned has won the majority of votes and is not treasonous. Thus, in such systems there is no legal mechanism for setting up any special body for supervision of the moral aspects of the chief executive, such as piety, observance of justice, rectitude, etc. This is in sharp contrast to the Islamic Republic system of government of Iran, where merits such as piety, justice, courage, and academic qualifications are considered as necessary for the Leader in order to act as the internal controlling lever for him. This is because of the fundamental difference between the popular Islamic religious system of Iran and secular democracies. In the Islamic system the fundamental emphasis is on “theism” and proper observance of divine values. Principle 2 of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Constitution, says: The Islamic Republic is a system based on faith in the One and Only God and submission to Divine Will. The main and vital difference between the Islamic Republic system and secular democracies is the position of the Leader or more properly Religious Leadership which is defined as “Velayat-e Faqih” or Governance of the Supreme Jurisprudent, which is the axial pillar of the Islamic Revolution. This is the reason that the opponents of the religious system level their criticisms and attacks toward the Leadership.
There are basic differences between the Islamic Republic of Iran’s system and the western democratic systems in four main categories related to the Leader, i.e. the merits and conditions, choosing methods, authorities, control and supervision on the Leader. The Islamic Republic’s constitution adequately defines the qualities required for the Leader, and a comparative study with western democratic systems, proves that the methods for electing the Leader in Islamic Iran is more reliable and trustworthy when compared to other political systems. Another plus factor of the Islamic Republic system is the selection of the qualified person as Leader by Assembly of Experts which is elected through people’s vote, rather than naming several candidates to compete with each other in direct public voting, as is done in secular democracies where all unhealthy and immoral practices take place. In our discussion on comparison of the Leader’s authorities in the Islamic Revolution with the western democratic systems, the point has been proved that the Chief Executive in all of the world’s political systems must have sufficient power and authority to handle the issues of the society, confront the crises and solve the problems. Similarly, the Leader in the Islamic Republic System also possesses the required power and authority, equal to those of the senior-most officials in many other political systems. In contrast to western democracies which are limited to legal and non-religious frameworks, in the Islamic Republic both divine values and public morals make the Leadership popular and trustworthy, especially in view of the qualities of piety and justice attached to the person of the Leader.