It Resembles Everything Except the Law

It resembles everything except the law.

It resembles everything except the law.

Unfortunately, we are in a situation where members of the Parliament’s Cultural Commission do not recognize artists, do not watch films, and according to the rule, everything of ours should match everything else. It is probably a futile and excessive expectation to ask these gentlemen to practice a bit of politics and accept that governance, like physics, chemistry, medicine, and engineering, is a science that must be learned.

I believe that the publication of the text of the so-called chastity and hijab bill and its possible announcement in the coming days will serve more than anything as a means to restore the reputation of political science, because reading this bill shows that unfortunately, some officials do not have a proper understanding of the basics of political science and, based on their own imaginations, think they can turn any text into binding law merely by standing and sitting, and worse, by approving it in closed sessions.

This is while, for example, if the officials had leafed through a bit of Nicomachean Ethics and Aristotle’s Politics, they would have acknowledged this obvious point that, firstly, not all matters can be regulated by law because it is impossible to legislate on some issues, and secondly, the more the law, the more the loss and damage. Aristotle pointed this out 2300 years ago, and today this statement is among the first teachings given to students in political science faculties.

Despite all this, unfortunately, we are in a situation where members of the Parliament’s Cultural Commission do not recognize artists, do not watch films, and according to the rule, everything of ours should match everything else. It is probably a futile and excessive expectation to ask these gentlemen to practice a bit of politics and accept that governance, like physics, chemistry, medicine, and engineering, is a science that must be learned.

Of course, fairness demands that the error of excessive disregard for political science does not only arise from the rulers but also many people in their daily conversations have repeatedly criticized this small student of politics with the taunt that, after all, what good is politics or worse, does politics even require studying? The simple answer is yes, politics is a science and requires research and education.

Incidentally, here again, Aristotle’s point that calls politics the master of sciences should be kept in mind because today the deadly consequences of governance errors in drafting such a text or decisions like filtering have been exposed to all economic and cultural aspects of citizens’ lives. Perhaps such a situation will prompt us to recognize the importance of politics as the administration of administrations and realize that one cannot naively think that by avoiding politics, one can create islands in other areas of society and be at ease. No, it is not so, because every political decision affects all dimensions of business, entertainment, leisure, and even the breathing of people.

Some time ago, I read that a poet had said people think their children should only study medicine and engineering, and literature is not important. Now politics should also be added to literature, and efforts should be made to first make the rulers aware of this meaning. The memory of Dr. Abdolali Ghavam is cherished; he used to say that once before the revolution, he was in charge of a department where anyone who wanted to take on a position like governorship or provincial governorship outside the central province had to undergo a training course there.

He himself said that after the revolution, this work continued for a while with the support of Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, but interventions and pressures eventually led to the closure of that department. Now, it is the tale of our present day, where we see that our lawmakers, for example, do not pay attention to the simple difference between law and legislation and think it is enough to decide to write a law and impose their desires and opinions on society under the pretense of being a member of parliament. Let’s not even mention that these representatives have not even received the votes of seven percent of eligible voters.

Law differs from legislation. Hayek explained this in his book ‘Law, Legislation, and Liberty.’ In short, not every order and command can be called a law. Hayek called the act of consciously designing and imposing orders by government officials legislation, while he considered law to be those social norms that have gained widespread acceptance and prevalence through long-standing interactions among people, without anyone having designed it or forced others to follow it.

For example, think of the law of queuing. If someone breaks the queue, social norms will automatically and without government intervention consider them a lawbreaker. Do you remember the law mandating the wearing of seat belts while driving? The first observers of it were the very children who today, in their adulthood, this bill seeks to discipline.

To summarize, if the parliament issues an unjust order that the public understanding of society deems contrary to the public interest, not only will that order not be executed, but it will also not gain legitimacy, and violating it will not be a source of shame. Aristotle taught us this too. In other words, a law is either just, meaning people find it fair, or it is not a law at all.