This is the slide from class explaining how each different political institution functions with each other. As you can see the assembly of experts is in charge of choosing the next supreme leader. The Supreme leader carries the most power and reviews all decisions of the political offices below him meaning the armed forces, the judiciary branch and the expendiency council, a mediating body between majlis and the guardian council, as well as the guardian council. The supreme leader also reviews the actions of the president.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The slide you went over in class made it seem as if the Islamic Republic of Iran is constitutionally rigged against any fundamental change in its structure because of the authority of the Supreme leader, the restricted manner in which he is chosen and the screening of all candidates eligible to run for office by the council of guardians. Is this an accurate characterization?
I would also like to know how the membership of the assembly of experts and the council of guardians is determined. Because it would seem to me that if reformists of Iran gained a majority in these two departments that it would be possible for a Supreme Leader to be chosen that would be open to allowing revolutionary change in Iran's form of government
What strikes me in the Iranian constitution is its permanent duality between some institutions inspired on the one hand by the Republican model, on the other by the theocratic model.
Indeed part of the constitution really ressembles the French fifth constitution. Indeed, it is a parliamentary regime : the parliament gets its legitimacy through the universal suffrage. The government (and the Prime Minister before the constituional revision of 1989) is responsible to Parliament. The President is also powerful because it is elected by the Iranian people through the universal Suffrage. In that way, the executive power counterbalances the legislative power (check and balances). This system is quite common to a lot of parliamentary regimes.
But what makes the particularity of the Iranian political regime is that, as it the slide shows it, every single power, be it executive, legislative or Judicial is counterbalanced and controled by a religious institution. The executive power is "bicephalous", as the power of the President is limited by the almighty Supreme Leader, appointed by the Assembly of experts. The Parliament has to deal with the Council of Guardians and by the Expendiency discernment council, directly appointed by the Supreme Leader, and which resolves the differences between the Majlis and the Council of Guardians. Third, the Head of the judicial power is also appointed by the Supreme Leader. Last, the Supreme Leader is the Commander in chief of the armed forces, especially the Pasdarans.
Consequently, Even if the Iranian political regime includes some democratic features (election of the Parliament, the President, and the Assembly of experts who elect the Supreme Guide), the Religious establishment, and especially the Supreme leader, has an overwhelming control on all Iranian institutions. Such a duality is, to my knowledge, unique in the world.
Based on the way that the Iranian government is structured, it seems like it is impossible for there to be possibility of change. Even though they have presidents, the president is still under the power of the older conservative supreme leaders. Therefore even if the president wants to make changes, like Khatami, it would pretty much be impossible if the supreme leaders were against it. The fact that the government is separated into different parts and that they actually have a president seems to be more like a cover up to make the government seem not too corrupt, when in reality it is because regardless of what everyone says or wants, everything is under the power of the supreme leaders and they have the final say.
This governmental structure seems to be very conservative focused on keeping fundamental Islamic laws that prohibit Western culture. The government could be considered legitimate because the parliamentary government allows the people's votes to elect a president. However, if the president wants to make a reform, the Supreme Leaders must approve, which would be difficult due to their conservative/religious views. Even though Iran has qualities of a parliamentary government (i.e. checks and balances), the overriding rule of the religious/supreme leaders still has control over many Iranian institutions. Would it be possible for reform if the Supreme Leader was elected democratically?
I would have to agree with Joshua on the issue that the slide does seem as if Iran's government structure is built around preventing any sort of fundamental change take place. It seems as if they only have the government divided into different sectors to hide the fact that all of the positions besides the Supreme Leader are a joke when it comes to having any sort of real power that could change Iran's government and policies. The elections that Iran holds, and even these at times can seem illegitimate, seem to be useless in the fact that even if the citizens do elect someone they wish to implement the policies that they as well believe in, it would be impossible due to the Supreme Leader having the final say. We saw this situation clearly with Khatami, to a certain degree. The government structure seems like it attempted to put a somewhat democratic veneer on a very authoritarian structure.
Viewing the slide, what I would like to know is how the assembly of experts is chosen and how they choose the Supreme Leader? Does this Supreme Leader then have the power to influence the choices, if not personally hand-pick, the next assembly of experts as to continue a rule much like his own?
In class we learnt the structure of the Iranian government. All elected officials are checked by a Islamic counterpart, and the check is only a one-way. The Supreme Leader checks and monitors the President but the President cannot influence, override, or change anything the Supreme Leader does. Really the President is no more than a puppet, just a face to put out to the public. A president may come up with some new ideas and programs, but anything and everything must fall within 'acceptable' Islamic guidelines. Although President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being blamed for all the problems, is he truly to blame? The same goes for President Khatami. Although he was strongly disliked for seemingly going back on his stance and word on issues, really can he be blamed. In my opinion the answer is no, not really. The President does not hold the true power, the Supreme Leader does. A good example to illustrate my point is when President Ahmadinejad passed legislation allowing males and females to attend sporting events and the Supreme Leader quickly revoked it. Even if a President has more liberal ideals and wants to pass more liberating legislation, they can really only do so to the point deemed appropriate by the Supreme Leader. So the President has a choice: try and pass legislation they want that may be more liberal and in support of the people that will just be revoked, or just go with the status quo and try not to push any buttons of those in the parliament and religious branches in hopes of keeping their seat. The President cannot really be blamed for choosing the later option. I mean, even if they chose the first, what good would it do? The only possibility, and even this is far from a guarantee, is that the people would become aware of some of the flaws in the governmental system and start to protest for a change. The entire system is set up quite cleverly by the religious sector honestly. The Supreme Leader is actually the one with all the power and control, from deciding who gets to run for president to what legislation is passed or not, however the Presidential and other elected offices were created so that the people could feel like they had power by voting while concurrently making them believe the people that are in the offices hold the power. The Supreme Leader can make unfavorable calls and prevent certain legislation from passing by direct action overturning it or simply because other will not suggest it knowing the Supreme Leader won't approve, yet the person who gets all the blame for the shortcomings is the President. The Supreme Leader created a perfect scapegoat for all the unrest with the political system to go towards, so that he is never questioned and can continue being the supreme power working behind the scenes, manipulating everything
The internal structure of the Iranian government is confusing to say the least. With two-toned indicators and arrows pointing every which way, the Iranian chain of command appears less than linear. There is a religious head of power and a secular head of power, of which the religious head is more powerful. So this all begs the question: Ahmadinejad, supposedly on the "axis of evil," finger on the button, aiming at America... has to ask his boss first.
If the Supreme Leader carries all the weight and is the final decision despite varieties of jurisprudence, it is upon the responsibility of the international community to be aware of its structure and to act in such ways as will create ambivalence towards the Supreme Leader. As we have seen from other video clips and slide shows, there is a substantial proletariat to Iran. The youth culture is quaking with a subtle, if not outright, stand against all farces of modernity and fairness. It is also wise to keep supporting Iran in this way, not to voluntarily rewrite another constitution or make it an American democracy, but to allow it to function within its own ideologies, in a way that is respectful of the international community. To say that the Supreme leader is the only one allowing factions of terror to stay alive is incorrect, but it does not take away from the reality of the matter. The reformists need to be given the main voice of Iran, and the international community needs to be supportive of that voice.
Post a Comment