On the pretext of criticizing Pezeshkian’s remarks
On the pretext of criticizing Pezeshkian’s remarks
Power sharing or crisis sharing with governors
While Iran grapples with deep economic challenges, political troubles in the region, and ethnocentric remarks internally, a sensitive and somewhat unexpected discussion seems to be forming in the country’s political circles: federalism. Federalism is defined as a system of governance where power is divided between a central government and smaller political units, each enjoying relative independence in specific domains.
This idea, which once lingered on the fringes of Iranian political debates, has now taken on a more serious tone due to statements from some senior government officials.
The first signs can be traced back to the remarks of Masoud Pezeshkian.
His history of advocating for the necessity of running the country in a state-like manner, akin to what he describes as an Islamic-province model, dates back to his time as Deputy Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Even after becoming president, reports of his meetings with Pan-Turk separatist activists raised sensitivities.
Recently, the First Vice President also proposed a similar approach, emphasizing governors being like provincial presidents and delegating powers to them. However, the peak of these statements can be found in the recent words of the president among economic activists in Bushehr, where he spoke of efforts to obtain authorization to delegate extensive powers to governors, akin to presidential powers for each province.
These remarks, especially with the emphasis on having a regional president for each province, clearly echo the logic of federalism. Federalism inherently seeks a balanced distribution of power and authority, which, depending on the economic resources, social, and cultural conditions of each region, can be a suitable approach for governing countries.
But will this distribution of power in Iran’s current conditions truly be a distribution of power? There are serious concerns in this regard. The division of Iran’s provinces has historically been shaped, to some extent, based on ethnic boundaries.
In such a context, ethnicity-based federalism, instead of solving problems, could become a catalyst for separatist ideologies and threaten the country’s territorial integrity.
Economic issues and uneven development are among Iran’s main challenges, but is ethnic federalism the solution to these crises? It seems that in a situation where the central government is struggling with numerous economic problems and a decline in legitimacy, the proposal of federalism appears more like a distribution of crises and an evasion of responsibilities by the government.
It seems the government, which is itself in a state of bankruptcy, wants to transfer its debts to its children under the guise of distributing powers. Federalism will only be effective when the central government possesses sufficient power, public support, and a strong national sense—qualities that currently seem somewhat diminished.
Moreover, transitioning to a federal system requires fundamental changes in the constitution—a complex and time-consuming process that must be carried out in a period of strength and calm, accompanied by education and cultural development.
In a situation where the country needs cohesion and unity to tackle crises, engaging in such challenging discussions not only does not relieve the government but might also break its back.
Addressing the topic of federalism in Iran’s current conditions requires careful consideration, caution, and extensive national dialogue.
Before any practical steps are taken, it must be answered whether these whispers of federalism truly indicate a distribution of power and resolution of problems or merely a distribution of responsibilities and crises at a critical and delicate time.
