On the pretext of criticizing Pezeshkian’s statements
On the pretext of criticizing Pezeshkian’s statements
Power division or crisis division with governors
While Iran is grappling with deep economic challenges, political troubles in the region, and ethnic-oriented comments domestically, a sensitive and somewhat unexpected discussion seems to be forming in the country’s political circles: federalism. Federalism is defined as a governmental system where power is divided between the central government and smaller political units, each enjoying relative independence in specific areas.
This idea, which once was on the fringes of Iran’s political debates, has now taken on a more serious tone due to statements from some senior government officials.
The first signs can be found in the comments of Masoud Pezeshkian.
His history of remarks regarding the necessity of governing the country in a provincial manner, or as he puts it, similar to the Islamic provincial model, dates back to when he was the Vice Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. After becoming president, reports of meetings with Pan-Turk separatist activists also raised sensitivities.
Recently, the First Vice President has also suggested a similar approach, emphasizing governors being like provincial presidents and delegating powers to them. The peak of these remarks can be found in the recent words of the president among Bushehr’s economic activists, where he spoke of efforts to obtain authorization for extensive delegation of powers to governors, up to the level of a provincial president.
These statements, especially with the emphasis on a regional president for each province, clearly echo the logic of federalism. Federalism inherently seeks balanced distribution of power and authority, which, depending on the economic resources, social, and cultural conditions of each region, can be an appropriate approach for governing countries.
But does this distribution of power in Iran’s current conditions truly mean power distribution? There are serious concerns in this regard. The historical division of Iran’s provinces has somewhat been formed based on ethnic boundaries.
In such a context, ethnically-based federalism could become a catalyst for separatist ideas rather than solving problems and could endanger the country’s territorial integrity.
Economic problems 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 reduced legitimacy, the federalism proposal appears more as a distribution of crisis and an evasion of responsibilities by the government rather than power distribution.
It seems the government, which is in a bankrupt father’s position, wants to pass its debt to its children under the guise of delegating powers. Federalism will be effective only when the central government has sufficient power, popular support, and a strong national sense—features that seem somewhat diminished in the current situation.
Moreover, changing the governance system to federalism requires fundamental changes in the constitution, a complex and time-consuming process that must be executed at the peak of power and calm, accompanied by education and cultural development.
In a situation where the country needs cohesion and unity to confront crises, addressing such challenging issues not only doesn’t lift the burden off the government but might also break its back.
Addressing the federalism discussion in Iran’s current conditions requires contemplation, caution, and extensive national dialogue.
Before any practical action, it must be answered whether these whispers of federalism truly indicate power distribution and problem-solving or merely the distribution of responsibilities and crises at a critical and delicate time.