Power and the Taboo of Referendum
The proposal for a referendum, recently suggested by Molavi Abdolhamid, the Friday prayer leader of Zahedan, has once again faced frowns from the conservatives. In the past, reformists and later Hassan Rouhani also brought up the topic of referendums or public votes on various issues. In the discussion about hijab, it was often suggested to put the matter to a referendum to see what percentage of the people are for or against mandatory hijab. Similarly, it was suggested that the supervisory oversight be put to a referendum to determine the number of its supporters and opponents.
However, some believe that at this particular time and historical context, and considering the public’s demand, holding a referendum is not feasible. Ashraf Boroujerdi, a reformist political activist, has stated that the public’s demand today is much broader than just the morality police and the JCPOA. Therefore, in my opinion, holding a referendum at this historical juncture will not be effective and will not yield results.
The proposal for a referendum is not new
Molavi Abdolhamid, who has become a highly vocal critic following recent events in the province and the killing of dozens of people, stated in his latest remarks that the majority of people are dissatisfied. If you don’t believe it, hold a referendum with international observers present and accept its outcome. The law should have been updated and modernized during this time, but even the law from over 40 years ago hasn’t been implemented, and numerous discriminations have been inflicted on the women who are the loudest voices in today’s protests.
The last time Hassan Rouhani raised the issue of a referendum was in January 2021. He said that 10 years after the passing of Imam Khomeini, amendments were made to the constitution, but for 31 years, the constitution hasn’t changed, and it might change at some point. Article 59 of the constitution can be important in times when there is a fundamental disagreement and no consensus. Of course, it has to be a significant issue to be discussed and put to a public vote and referendum. The mechanism of this article is quite complex, but after 40 years, it can be implemented once.
Earlier, citing the deadlock of FATF bills in the Expediency Council, he said that as the person responsible for implementing the constitution, he is very keen to create conditions so that this principle is implemented at least once, and a significant economic, political, social, or cultural issue is put to a public vote and referendum in the form of a legal article or program.
Attack on a Constitutional Principle
Alireza Panahian, a revolutionary preacher and one of the figures with a regular presence on state television, known for his very harsh stances, has sarcastically remarked about both Molavi Abdolhamid and Rouhani, saying that the history of the revolution shows that anyone who has politically failed in the history of the Islamic Revolution has used the word referendum to disrupt the game and the plan. This word has become the code word for troublemakers. It’s not unprecedented; in every decade of the revolution, you see political bankrupts with this situation. A religious scholar doesn’t talk like this; he considers all the realities.
Fars News Agency also wrote a harsh report against the Molavi of Zahedan, stating that his remarks and stances have always been accompanied by controversies. He generally takes a stand against the Islamic Republic during seditions and at other times presents himself as aligned with national interests. Fars accused Abdolhamid of having relations with and taking cues from Saudi Arabia and finally hinted that if Molavi Abdolhamid continues with his current stances and crosses red lines, he will not be tolerated.
A cleric from the Qom seminary also said, ‘Mr. Abdolhamid, you are inviting people to a referendum and are making inappropriate remarks with the platform you have gained through the Islamic Republic, while you know your words do not align with reality.’
Referendum is not Overthrow
The frowning and attacking of conservatives towards those who carry the word referendum or public vote, and their harshest criticisms, have reached a point where, as Abbas Abdi puts it, something accepted as a principle in the constitution has become so sensitive that referring to it is considered an overthrowing slogan.
Abbas Abdi is right. When peace prevailed in the country and there were no protests, conservatives viewed the referendum as an overthrow, let alone now. Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi said in 2018 that it might even be said that we should hold a referendum again to see if people even want Islam. Based on this, if people said they don’t want Islam, should Islam be set aside? We need to work more on the foundations of rights to understand whether the legitimacy of everything is subject to public opinion.
Mohammad Hosseini, Ahmadinejad’s Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance and Raisi’s parliamentary deputy, also responded to a student who asked why the system does not seek the majority’s opinion on mandatory hijab through a referendum, saying, ‘It’s clear you haven’t heard the slogans. Now they are targeting the core of the system, and hijab is just an excuse. The constitution has provisions for a referendum, but can the core of the system be put to a referendum? Referendum is for specific issues, not the core of the system.’
Conservatives believe that the people of Iran voted in the 1979 referendum with a yes or no, and after that, no other referendum, neither general nor specific, is needed or allowed. An example is the statement from the representative of Malayer, who said that some speak of a referendum, but our revolution was the first and, so far, the last revolution that held a referendum, and the people gave their opinion.
Hamidreza Targhi, a member of the Islamic Coalition Party, has completely dismissed the idea, saying, ‘In no country do they hold a referendum for the opinion of a minority. Find a country that holds a referendum for such issues. A referendum has a specific path; there must be a problem in the country that cannot be solved by any legislative or executive body, and then it should be put to a referendum.’
Contrary to all the analyses and warnings of sociologists and political science researchers following recent protest events, Targhi and others like him not only do not believe in the existence of an insoluble problem in the country, but they also do not want to acknowledge that the number of protesters is not small. This is something that would be precisely determined by holding a referendum, even on specific contentious issues like hijab or the JCPOA, but they suffice with erasing the problem.