The Power and Taboo of Referendum
The suggestion of a referendum, recently proposed by Molavi Abdulhamid, the Friday prayer leader of Zahedan, has once again faced frowns from conservatives. Previously, reformists and later Hassan Rouhani had raised the issue of a referendum or plebiscite on various topics. In the discussion about hijab, it has been repeatedly suggested to put the matter to a referendum to see what percentage of people support or oppose mandatory hijab. Similarly, it was suggested that the supervisory vetting process be put to a referendum to determine its supporters and opponents.
However, some believe that at this historical juncture and given the level of public demand, holding a referendum is not feasible. Ashraf Boroujerdi, a reformist political activist, has stated that the public’s demands today are much broader than just the morality police and the nuclear deal. Therefore, in my opinion, holding a plebiscite at this historical moment will not be effective and will not yield results.
The Suggestion of a Referendum is Not New
Molavi Abdulhamid, who has become a highly vocal critic after 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 and accept its results. The law should have been updated during this time, but even the law from 40-plus years ago hasn’t been implemented, and numerous discriminations have been imposed on women who are the loudest voices in the protests today.
The last time Hassan Rouhani brought up the issue of a plebiscite was in December 2020. He mentioned that ten years after the passing of Imam Khomeini, amendments were made to the constitution, but for 31 years, the constitution has not changed, and it might change at some point. Article 59 of the constitution can be important in times of fundamental disagreements and lack of consensus. Of course, it should be a significant issue to be discussed and reviewed 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, due to the deadlock of the FATF bills in the Expediency Discernment Council, he had said that as the person responsible for implementing the constitution, I would really like conditions to be created so that this principle can be implemented once, and an important economic, political, social, or cultural issue can be put to public vote and referendum as a legal provision or program.
Attack on a Constitutional Principle
Alireza Panahian, a revolutionary preacher and one of the figures with a regular presence on state TV, known for his very harsh stances, sarcastically remarked about both Molavi Abdulhamid and Rouhani. He said the history of the revolution shows that anyone who has been politically defeated during the Islamic Revolution has used the word referendum to disrupt the game and plan. This word has become a code name for cheaters. It’s not unprecedented; in every decade of the revolution, you see politically bankrupt individuals with this situation. A religious scholar doesn’t speak this way; he considers all realities.
Fars News Agency also wrote a harsh report against Molavi of Zahedan, stating that his remarks and positions have always been accompanied by controversies. He generally takes a stance against the Islamic Republic during seditions and at other times shows himself aligned with national interests. Fars accused Abdulhamid of having ties and taking cues from Saudi Arabia and finally hinted that if Molavi Abdulhamid continues his current positions and crosses red lines, there will be no leniency with him.
A cleric from the Qom seminary also said, ‘Mr. Abdulhamid, you are inviting people to a referendum and 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 attacks by conservatives on the bearers of the word referendum or plebiscite and harshly criticizing the speaker have reached the point where, as Abbas Abdi puts it, something that is 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 there was calm in the country and no protests, conservatives viewed a referendum as an overthrowing move, let alone these days. Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi said in 2018 that it might even be said that we should hold a referendum again to see if people want Islam at all. 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 depends on people’s opinions.
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. He said, ‘It’s clear you haven’t heard the slogans. Now the foundation of the system is being targeted, and hijab is just an excuse. The constitution has provisions for a referendum, but can the foundation of the system be put to a referendum? Referendums are for specific issues, not the foundation of the system.’
Conservatives believe that the people of Iran voted in a yes-or-no referendum in 1979, and since then, no referendum, neither general nor specific, is needed or permitted. An example is a statement by a representative from Malayer who said some talk about a referendum; our revolution is the first and so far the last revolution that held a referendum, and people gave their opinion.
Hamidreza Taraqi, a member of the Islamic Coalition Party, has also poured cold water on 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 they should put it to a referendum.’
Contrary to all analyses and warnings from sociologists and political science researchers following recent protest events, Taraqi and his ilk not only do not believe in the existence of an insoluble problem in the country but also do not want to believe that the number of protesters is not small. This is precisely what would be clarified by conducting a referendum, even on specific contentious issues like hijab or the nuclear deal, but they suffice with ignoring the issue.