Legitimacy of Disqualifying Rouhani from Shariatmadari’s Perspective

The Legitimacy of Disqualifying Rouhani from Shariatmadari’s Perspective

The legitimacy of disqualifying Rouhani from Shariatmadari’s perspective: Hossein Shariatmadari’s reaction to the disqualification of Hassan Rouhani for the Assembly of Experts election, although predictable, is noteworthy from four aspects. Firstly, Shariatmadari is so pleased and happy that he didn’t wait until Saturday to publish in his newspaper and instead spoke with Fars News Agency. It might be said that the conservative news agency contacted him, but in other cases, his quick comments in interviews before the publication of his newspaper can also be noted.

Secondly, Rouhani’s argument that the disqualification is illegal and politically motivated, citing and recalling his five terms as a member of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, three terms as a member of the Assembly of Experts, two terms as President, and membership and chairmanship in some of the decision-making councils of the system, is not considered valid. This is because, as the wise Imam stated, the current state of individuals is the measure.

Meanwhile, the intention of this statement was to overlook the past, not to continuously offload the passengers of the revolution train at every station. In this case too, Kayhan has misinterpreted it. The current state of individuals is a measure meant for leniency in selections so that past records are not constantly brought up.

Thirdly, there have been many individuals whose qualifications were reviewed by the Guardian Council, and they encountered issues that were new to them and of which they were previously unaware. Or individuals who were previously qualified but later, through their political and ideological actions, lost their necessary qualifications and were therefore disqualified. In other words, illegal and politically motivated actions regarding others become a justification for its continuation.

With this in mind, everything relates to the second term of Rouhani’s government, but it is not specified what could have been done against Trump. If preserving the JCPOA was a sin, why are they pursuing its revival? And if importing vaccines was bad, why did the subsequent government take credit for it?

The fourth point, however, is more interesting: the vast masses of people were surprised and complained about his qualification for the second term of the elections, considering Rouhani’s performance and positions during his first term as President. Why did the Guardian Council approve his qualification for a second time?

Thus, it becomes clear whenever Kayhan refers to the people and vast masses of people, they do not mean the 24 million Iranians who voted for Rouhani in 2016, because logically, they could not be displeased with his qualification and yet vote for him.

The most important part of Mr. Shariatmadari’s remarks is this unveiling of the vast masses of people. Vast masses of people mean people minus 24 million because he didn’t say they complained after voting. We know that the protesters of December 2017 and November 2019, no matter how disappointed they were with Rouhani, did not move to the opposing camp. Thus, it becomes clearer that Kayhan’s reference to the vast masses of people is neither the 24 million who voted for Rouhani nor the absentees. The vast masses of people are others or those who voted for Mr. Raisi. The rest are either not the masses or, if they are, they are not vast masses.

The reason for not mentioning 2013 is because Kayhan insisted that Rouhani was a conservative who won in 2013, and reformists should not take credit for it. Now that they have turned against that same conservative Rouhani, they do not mention it, and probably, like the archives a few months before 2009, they will remove it from their archives.