From the House of the Nation to the Leader’s Residence
From the House of the Nation to the Leader’s Residence, according to Iran Gate, recent remarks by Morteza Agha Tehrani, a Tehran representative and member of the Stability Front, about the dignity and position of the parliament have sparked many reactions.
The head of the Cultural Commission of the Islamic Consultative Assembly emphasized that the country’s economy must be freed from the grip of the dollar and that the vision of the Supreme Leader’s second step should receive more attention from officials.
Hojatoleslam Morteza Agha Tehrani, in his speech during today’s open session of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, expressed gratitude to the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judiciary—for working together and stated that understanding the problems and difficulties of the people by their representatives and the government is a positive point that should be considered.
Addressing the country’s policymakers, he stated that we policymakers must pay attention to the fact that our policy is synonymous with our faith and our faith is synonymous with our policy. Some do not accept this, and the separation of religion from politics, known as secularism, is unfortunately one of today’s dangers that is somewhat visible among officials.
The representative of the people of Tehran in the Islamic Consultative Assembly further clarified that if we do not understand Islam correctly, we will eventually fall victim to this ailment. Some look back to the past and the Enlightenment era in Europe, where the church and its lords were condemned for their misdeeds. However, it must be noted that Islam is not Christianity, our clergy are not church lords, our mosques are not churches, and our people are not the people of Europe.
Agha Tehrani, referring to Quranic verses about those who neglect and accept only parts of the religion, stated that representatives, officials, and ministers should be careful not to be among those who accept only parts of the religion, because according to the clear text of the Quran, if we become partial, we are not Muslims.
He emphasized that in new and current issues, we must refer to the position of the Supreme Leader. He said we must see what the Leader wants; the parliament is the place to realize the wishes of the Leader, as primary, secondary, and sent issues must come from the Leader and be considered in the various commissions of the parliament. I wish we all would implement the letter of the law and the oaths we took and not impose guardianship over the jurist but allow him to have guardianship over us. Every time we visit the Supreme Leader, his words are enlightening, but I do not see them reaching us in the parliament. This is our fault, the representatives and the cultural commission.
These statements are made with such an approach while the parliament in all democratic countries is the embodiment of the people’s will, and even in the Islamic Republic system, according to the leader and founder of the system, it is seen as the head of affairs. This perspective of the head of the Cultural Commission of the parliament and a member of the Stability Front can perhaps be seen as an extension of Mesbah Yazdi’s viewpoint. Agha Tehrani’s devotion and closeness to Mesbah can perhaps be better understood in this definition of him.
Agha Tehrani described Mesbah Yazdi at the anniversary of his death as a humble, devout, religious, and pious scholar who believed in the attention and intercession of the Ahl al-Bayt. However, the danger of this thought and intellectual trend can be found in Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi’s statements about the importance of people’s votes in the type and form of governance.
Mesbah says that democracy, which is intrinsic for Westerners, is only a tool for us. People’s votes do not bring us legitimacy; they bring acceptance. It is possible that in the future, the law will be such that people must express their opinion in appointing a governor. This law and process have no problem from an Islamic perspective, but this does not mean that people give legitimacy. Rather, people express their preference; otherwise, the main ruling is the ruling of God, the Prophet, the Imams, and the ruling of the Supreme Leader.
He was the theorist of a viewpoint that became known as the absolute guardianship of the jurist in the middle decades of the Islamic Revolution, a theory that entered the country’s constitution and became an inseparable and influential part of the fate of Iranians. Belief and commitment to it are considered part of the conditions for political activity.
In explaining this theory, Mesbah believes that if we accept that the issue of the guardianship of the jurist is appointive, it means that the jurist is appointed by a general appointment, meaning the criterion for validity and legitimacy reaches the Almighty God. The qualified jurist has authority over the lives and property of Muslims. However, in practice, without public acceptance, its rulings are not enforceable. Suppose we discovered that Mr. X is the instance of that general appointment by the Imam of the Time, but the people do not recognize him; practically, nothing is realized. According to the appointment theory, if he orders the formation of a parliament and people elect representatives based on his word, this action gains validity.
They enact laws, and the validity of these laws is based on his word, which says this parliament is formal and this government must be obeyed. This originates from the divine guardianship and is derived from his governance. In our view, all regulations implemented in the Islamic Republic of Iran derive their validity from the guardianship of the jurist and his endorsement. If we know he is not satisfied in any particular case, it has no validity. Sometimes he specifies a particular case, and sometimes he approves an institution.
When the Imam approved the constitution, it meant I order you to act this way and it gains validity because he endorsed it. If he had not endorsed it, it would have had no effect, even if all the people voted for it, it would have had no legal or religious validity, as he himself stated.
According to the appointment theory, the validity of the constitution originates from his endorsement, but according to the election theory, justifying the validity of laws and actions is problematic. They say the opinion of the majority is the validator, but how is it justified for the minority who did not accept it? All the problems that exist in democracy are raised here.
Some of them can be answered, but many of them cannot be answered. However, according to the appointment theory, people discover the person who has guardianship, and the condition for its actual realization is his acceptance. If people do not accept it, it cannot have a tangible effect. Everyone accepted this issue about the Imam; the whole world understood that the Iranian revolution means Khomeini’s revolution. There was no need for anything else. The assumption is that the Imam was the instance of the general appointment of the Imam of the Time, and everyone accepted it. No greater acceptance is possible in any system.
Now this perspective and insight are being theorized by Mesbah’s students and followers, even at the levels of legislation and executive governance. This evolution of the parliament’s position, from being at the head of affairs at the beginning of the revolution, has reached the point where today it is seen as a collective office of the leadership, whose success depends on the extent of obedience to the leader’s directives. It seems that the death knell of the system’s republicanism has sounded, and the Stability Front and Mesbah’s followers are the vanguard of this death symphony.
The parliament’s retreat from its decision
English
View this article in English