Table 1.1 outlines specific rights and institutions included in the constitution as a compromise to liberal and leftist sentiments. I include the provision along with the article in the constitution where it is included. The provisions in the right column are specifically limited by Islam while the ones in the left column apply under all circumstances. Even though the constitution is progressive in many ways such as a section about the rights of women, it also specifies that those rights have to fall within the limits of Islam. At the same time, other provisions such as the abolishment of torture are supposed to apply under all circumstances.
Table 1.1 Compromises to liberal and leftist sentiments in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran
| Provision Applying in all Circumstances | Article in Constitution | Provision Limited by Islam | Article in Constitution |
| Protection of Non-Muslims | 13, 14 | Women’s Rights | 21 |
| No State Discrimination | 19 | Freedom of Press | 24 |
| Equality Before the Law | 20 | Freedom of Association | 26 |
| Freedom of Belief | 23 | Freedom of Assembly | 27 |
| Privacy of Communication | 25 | Right to Work | 28 |
| Right to Welfare Benefits | 29 | Elected Legislature | 58, 62 |
| Right to Education | 30 | Elected President | 60, 113, 114 |
| Right to Housing | 31 |
| |
| Rights of Arrested | 32, 39 |
| |
| Right to Recourse in Courts | 34 |
| |
| Right to Council | 35 |
| |
| Presumption of Innocence | 37 |
| |
| Torture Outlawed | 38 |
| |
| Respect of Private Property | 47 |
| |
| Public Trials | 165 |
| |
| Reasonable Punishments | 166 |
| |
An appointed 12 member group of clerics known as the Guardian Council would monitor the elected branches of government to make sure their activities fall within the guidelines of Islam. Also an unofficial Expediency Council would be appointed by the Supreme Leader to resolve disputes between the elected parts of the government and their clerical supervisors. The Expediency Council would officially become part of the constitution as part of referendum held in 1989.
The most important difference in the new draft of the constitution was the position of Supreme Leader who would become the clerical Head of State. The Supreme Leader would supervise the direction of the state and would have the final say over all actions of the government. Among the clerics in the regime, he is the top guardian of the people until the eventual return of the 12th Imam. Even with this vast power, the Supreme Leader would still be appointed by the elected Assembly of Experts and they would theoretically have the ability to remove him from power. Khomeini would become the first Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic despite his earlier pledge to stay out of the new regime.
Table 1.2 outlines the parts of the constitution that endorse theocratic sentiments in particular the idea of Velayat-e Faqih. I again include the provision in the constitution along with the article where it is included. These provisions demonstrate the non-secular nature of the constitution along with the vast authority given to the Supreme Leader.
Table 1.2 Compromises to theocratic sentiments in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran
| Provision | Article of Constitution |
| State Policy Must Fall within Islamic Criteria | 4 |
| Right of Supreme Leader to Rule in Absence of 12th Imam | 5 |
| Shii Islam Official State Religion | 12 |
| Ultimate Sovereignty Belongs to God | 56 |
| Clerical Guardian Council Can Veto Laws | 91 |
| Supreme Leader as Head of State, Commander-in-Chief, and Final Arbiter of State Policy | 107, 110 |
| Judiciary Appointed by Supreme Leader | 110, 157 |
Under the new constitution, certain important state institutions would be directly elected by the people while others would be appointed. Figure 1.3 shows the different institutions in the Islamic Republic as well as their mode of selection. I have omitted the office of Prime Minister since it was eliminated following the 1989 constitutional revisions. The oval represents the voters who directly elect certain institutions that are represented in the rectangles. The rounded squares represent institutions that are appointed by other parts of the regime through the bent arrows. Thus even with Velayat-e Faqih in the constitution, all power directly or indirectly flows from the voters at least in theory. Appendix C further elaborates the duties of these institutions and who is currently in control of them.
Figure 1.3 Key institutions and their mode of selection in the Islamic Republic of Iran
The new constitution had something to please those who believed in the popular will and those who wanted a strong role for the clergy. Although this approach seemed to create a system destined for conflict, “the Assembly found these qualities the best means for concealing or reconciling their differences, and deferring the practical meaning of these articles for the future Majlis and judiciary”. At least initially, the constitution would create the big tent necessary to create the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Even with the prominent role of the clergy in the new constitution, there was still a significant role for the average citizen to participate in the government compared to the previous regime.
The intense consciousness of the need for popular participation and legitimization through the votes of the people, reflected in the constitution, drew the poorer and less-educated groups into the political process, which provides a sharp contrast to the conditions under the Pahlavi regime. Whatever doubts the people as a whole might have had about the new republic, they continued to participate in the political process, so that in effect it may argued that one of Khomeini’s achievements was to mobilize ordinary people into involvement with the state.
The constitution was put to a popular vote and passed with over 98% of the vote. However, the inclusion of Velayat-e Faqih meant that there were more boycotts and less participation than the referendum on the type of regime a few months earlier.
The compromises in the constitution might have seemed reasonable at the time, but the end result was a fundamentally flawed document. For some it represented a democratic compact with the people that enshrined the doctrine of popular will and ensured fundamental freedoms for all. Others viewed the constitution as giving a select few clerics a divine mandate to rule the people in any manner they see fit.
Although the constitution did specify rights for the people and the ability to elect representatives, it also had many unresolved issues with regards to the extent of clerical power. For example certain basic rights, such as the freedom of assembly, were ambiguous in the new constitution, “public gatherings and marches may be freely held, provided arms are not carried and that they are not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam". Liberals saw this stipulation as a clear indication that the people have a right to assemble such as when Mousavi would invoke this section of the constitution 30 years later to justify protests against the regime, “in this same constitution, it clearly says that people are free to hold peaceful gatherings. If only this principle from our national covenant is enacted, be certain that no one in the ruling establishment will have the opportunity to misuse their power”.
Yet the stipulation that the assembly not be detrimental to Islam complicated things since it was not clear who would make that determination and under what circumstances. Those who believed in a more authoritarian view of the state argued that the jurists entrusted to be the guardian of the people had the right to make that determination. If the ruling clerics say that a protest was against Islam, then it is not allowed since they are the final arbiter of state policy. Thus the compromises in the constitution created a path to democracy or dictatorship depending on the political belief on those in power.
No comments:
Post a Comment