Concerns of Reformists about Cabinet Introduction
The issue of inquiries regarding the introduction of the cabinet has currently attracted the attention of reformists.
It is unclear whether these inquiries are conducted to verify the qualifications and integrity of individuals or have become a tool for exerting pressure.
This issue will naturally become clear over time. The issue of national unity is also very important and is being discussed these days by both supporters of Pezeshkian and critics.
Critics seem more inclined to use this tool to impose some of their preferred choices on the government.
However, some believe that the discussion of national unity cannot be achieved merely by employing former ministers, and it should not be forgotten that 50% of the society did not participate in the previous elections, and their voices are also supposed to be heard.
We must see what list will ultimately be sent to the parliament and what the parliament will do with it.
Zarif’s Latest Report
Mohammad Javad Zarif, the President’s Strategic Deputy, published the latest report on the status of proposed ministers on his Twitter page. Zarif wrote that Thursday was a heavy and challenging day.
In separate meetings from 8 AM to 11 PM, Tehran headquarters managers and members of the health, oil, and foreign policy committees expressed their views and expectations with sincerity and frankness.
In a 200-minute meeting of the Strategic Council, I presented reports of these meetings and also discussions with members of the environment, women, welfare, youth, intelligence committees, and other elites and civil society activists.
Zarif continued, ‘Members of the Strategic Council also heard the report of the President’s respected office chief about Dr. Pezeshkian’s noble interviews with some candidates, which do not necessarily confirm any of them, as interviews were conducted with several individuals for a single responsibility, and the latest status of options for membership in the cabinet was heard, and they expressed their views to be conveyed to the honorable President.’
Concerns about some rumors were also expressed by the respected members of the Strategic Council. It is necessary to appreciate the attention and sensitivity of the dear people regarding the process and results of determining the cabinet members.
This is a new experience of transparency and democracy in the complex and difficult path of selecting ministers.
The Vice President emphasized that undoubtedly every new experience is fraught with numerous flaws and challenges, the most important of which is resistance to change, disbelief in innovation, and entrusting work to the youth.
Fortunately, the honorable President, with courage and belief in change, innovation, and the youth, has taken the first step on this difficult and challenging path, which deserves appreciation and gratitude.
The President’s Strategy
National unity plays a key role in the President’s rhetoric. In his last public speech during a friendly meeting with media people, Pezeshkian emphasized the issue of national unity several times. Pezeshkian stressed that he intends to form a national unity government and will use experts from previous governments.
This strategy was welcomed, but there is only one concern about it.
Some analysts express concern that in the case of using managers from previous governments, whether expert forces will be employed, as entrusting work to experts is another strategy of the President.
Another part of the concerns arises from whether the figures introduced for the cabinet align with the President’s perspective.
Warnings and Recommendations
Some political activists reacted to the repetition of the names of some ministers of the thirteenth government, the issue of external pressures for forming the cabinet, and the subject of national unity.
Part of these reactions is related to the re-introduction of Seyed Esmaeil Khatib as the Minister of Intelligence and also the rumor of retaining the Minister of Education and the re-proposal of Reza Moradzadeh to the parliament.
Rasoul Montajabnia, a reformist political activist, said, ‘Mr. Pezeshkian has taken votes from the people, and the people are also waiting for change and transformation in the government, so the faces must change, and the people should witness new individuals and culture.’
Mohammad Mehdi Mojahedi, a member of the Academic Board of the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, wrote on Twitter, ‘A cabinet composed of conflicting perceptions about public goods, governance style, the state of Iran and the world, and micro and macro policies is a wrong and dangerous interpretation of the dream of a national unity government.’
The honest interpretation of this dream depends on forming a cabinet of believers in political pluralism, not representatives of conflicting interests and conflicts of interest.
Mohammad Fazeli warned about the sensitivities regarding the selection of ministers and wrote, ‘The selection of the cabinet has a backstage, which is often lobbying and pressure.’
There is a front stage where it cannot be said that this was chosen because so-and-so lobbied.
In the front stage, it must be said that this was chosen because it had understanding, capability, background, social capital, program, and vision. Hold onto the front stage tightly.
Azar Mansouri, the head of the Iranian Reformist Front, reminded the issue of voters’ demands, ‘The people of Iran have learned after several elections to be claimants themselves and to guard the vote they have given.’
The Iranian Reformist Front also knows after repeated experiences that if it neglects the rights of the people and the demands of all Iranian citizens, it will lose its most important power base.
Serious Concern about Cabinet Composition
Hossein Nouraninejad, a reformist political activist, describes concerns about the exclusion of reformist and moderate options due to some inquiries as very serious.
He emphasized, ‘Do not forget that the serious decline in participation in recent election rounds was due to the disappointment in realizing the voters’ opinions.’
However, in these elections, a lot of effort was made to create new hope once again.
If the authoritarian current is to use its tools once again to block the minimum demands of the majority, it must also accept the consequences.
He believes that if Pezeshkian’s government fails, and especially if this failure is due to the obstruction of the hidden government, undoubtedly a significant portion of the votes given to Pezeshkian will turn towards the 50% who boycotted the recent elections, and the existing dissatisfaction will also lead to widespread protests, and in the numerous crises resulting from various imbalances and internal and external sanctions and threats, very difficult conditions will arise.
He also points out that only 40% of society participated in the first round of presidential elections. This number, with the negative vote added out of fear of this hidden government, barely reached the 50% threshold.
The hidden government, which has a long history in security matters, surely knows what impact these issues have on national security and interests and even on their own fate.
According to this political activist, national unity means accepting differences and resolving them through fair and just rule of law with democratic methods. Unity means the rule of the majority while preserving the rights of the minority.
Unity means considering each other’s conditions and emotions and relying on the common values of the majority. The people clearly showed with the votes they gave and the votes they did not give what their relationship is with Jalili’s approach as the continuation of the late Raisi government.
That too is a current that we know is only partially removed from power by the people’s vote, otherwise, it remains in control in most appointed sectors of power. Interestingly, with all this advantage, when they acquire elected institutions like the government with the help of supervisory oversight and the majority’s boycott, they do not allow anyone outside their closed circle into the government.
Now, it’s truly astonishing what face they have to have such expectations from Pezeshkian’s government.
He emphasizes that if involving one or two people from this faction leads to cooperation and alignment for fulfilling a significant portion of the people’s rights, it is worth considering as a step forward.
Nouraninejad believes that this issue is not achievable with general statements or fantasy thinking; rather, Pezeshkian must be able to set specific goals that cannot be achieved without the cooperation of a powerful minority, and he should negotiate and bargain over these goals.
Otherwise, thinking that by giving such concessions, they will feel ashamed of their usual obstructions is, in my opinion, not realistic.
Regarding the potential composition of the cabinet, he says, ‘The reality is that few expect a maximum reformist cabinet.’
Neither Dr. Pezeshkian’s political background and taste align with such an expectation, nor was such a promise made, nor did the majority of voters have such an expectation. However, the continuation of past trends with minimal and imperceptible changes is also unacceptable.
For example, in ministries with a more prominent political, social, and cultural nature, such as the Ministry of Interior, Culture, Science, Education, and even the Ministry of Intelligence, tangible changes are expected.
That is, if changes aligned with the people’s vote are not made in these ministries, a very bad message will be sent, and Pezeshkian will be forced to face tough questions from his voters and supporters.
This political activist emphasizes that a vote was ultimately given for change to occur, otherwise, assuming the continuation of previous approaches with minimal insignificant changes, it would be better if the same principlist current remained with its name and characteristics.
Unfortunately, some news, information, and rumors these days are concerning in this regard, which is mainly due to the inquiries, and these need to be clarified.
He suggests to the President that after all the twists and turns for selecting the cabinet through multiple working groups and the President’s selected Strategic Council, the chosen individuals from this council should be introduced to the people, and it should be known how many of them were in the Strategic Council’s list in the ministries and vice-presidential positions.
He states that the political scene should be more transparent than it is, saying, ‘Dr. Pezeshkian, who promised honesty and transparency to the people, please start this from the cabinet introduction stage.’
Surely, such an approach will prevent many obstructions, clarify the actual impact of the people’s vote, and make expectations realistic.
It will also shed light on the dark rooms of individuals, institutions, and currents that influence the people’s fate.
If it is a time of fairness and right-centeredness, it is the people’s right to know the current realities in governance that affect their fate.
Inquiries for Ministers are Not Mandatory
Ali Bagheri, another reformist political activist, examines the issue of inquiries for the cabinet and the concerns of reformists and moderates from a legal perspective.
He emphasizes that the President is not obligated to inquire from security agencies in selecting ministers, and this is among the exceptions listed in the law on the appointment of individuals in sensitive jobs approved in November 2021. Note 5 of Article 1 of this law stipulates that inquiries and appointments concerning institutions under the direct command of the Supreme Leader, such as the armed forces, direct appointees of the Supreme Leader, and appointments of officials for whom the Constitution has prescribed specific formalities, and judiciary employees, including judges and employees whose qualifications are verified and applied by relevant information protection, are subject to the decision of the appointing authority.
He adds that from this note, it can be concluded that given that Article 133 of the Constitution specifies the mechanism for selecting ministers and emphasizes that ministers are proposed by the President and must receive a vote of confidence from the parliament, therefore, inquiring for ministers is not mandatory.
Even the President can introduce the individual to the parliament if he receives a negative inquiry result, although this may make obtaining a vote of confidence difficult.
According to this political activist, if Pezeshkian considers his chosen option suitable for the country’s interests, he can introduce the individual to the parliament, and the parliament will give its vote, whether positive or negative, which is ultimately judged by the people.
Bagheri states that Pezeshkian has based his work on advancing tasks based on consensus-building with the parliament and high-ranking officials and institutions in the country, and I hope he can ultimately present a satisfying combination in the cabinet by bringing together all parties involved.
He also comments on retaining some of Raisi’s ministers in the fourteenth government, who have proven their efficiency to the nation over the past three years, and the relation of this type of appointment to the national unity government, saying, ‘Forming a national government has requirements, meaning you cannot call a government a national unity government but disregard the numerous colonies and populations within the country in selecting this cabinet. Of course, the President has the authority to introduce only those individuals as the cabinet who are politically aligned with him, but such a cabinet is not called a national cabinet.’
In a national cabinet, individuals who politically and ideologically belong to camps other than the winning election camp and the elected President must also be used. Therefore, I consider the use of different thoughts not only permissible but mandatory for realizing the concept of a national cabinet.
He further emphasizes the rational conditions for selecting a national unity cabinet, stating, ‘In reality, individuals from the political rivals’ camp should be present in the cabinet, who are efficient and do not harm the overall movement of the government.’
It seems that evaluating the performance of options who were in previous governments has not yielded positive results.
Therefore, we should not choose such figures merely because they belong to the opposing faction and we want to form a national unity cabinet, as we are responsible to the people and the country’s situation.
This political activist, stating that an inefficient individual should not be allowed into the cabinet, whether from one’s own faction or the opposing one, addresses other rational conditions for selecting the cabinet. Individuals from the opposing faction who enter the cabinet must, in addition to being efficient in their respective ministry, have general alignment with the President’s executive views and programs and not be in opposition to them.
In my view, applying these two conditions is a prerequisite for fulfilling the promise of forming a national unity cabinet that Pezeshkian referred to during the elections.
Bagheri also talks about the 50% silent votes and the need to consider them in the national unity government, saying, ‘We also have a 50% segment in society that did not participate in the elections, the same group that Mr. Pezeshkian announced he wants their voices to be heard. Certainly, a complete national unity government is one that, besides individuals from the political rivals of the winning President, also includes representatives from that 50% who did not come to the polls, but it should be noted that the path to forming a national unity government is a gradual process.’
He believes that it is not possible to form a complete national unity cabinet at the outset, which includes both that 50% and the 20% of the winning President’s rivals, therefore, with the presence of electoral rivals, the first step will be taken, and hopefully, in subsequent steps, we will move towards forming a complete and real national unity government. This political activist also expresses hope that Pezeshkian can introduce a cabinet that overall has the elements of a national unity cabinet and is also capable and based on the President’s broad ideas and programs.
Negotiating with Parliament before Introduction
Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardastani, a representative of Ardastan in parliament, however, has another perspective on the issue of selecting the fourteenth cabinet. Referring to the Strategic Council as Mr. Zarif’s council, Bakhshayesh says, ‘Mr. Pezeshkian is a remarkable personality, both honest and transparent. He often quotes Imam Ali’s saying that those who are stubborn in their opinion will perish.’
Currently, the Strategic Council or Mr. Zarif’s council plays a significant role in introducing cabinet members. Based on what I’ve heard, in this council, they give scores and points to individuals who have a hand in the matter, for example, those who import livestock feed naturally introduce a minister who will be their minister in the future.
I’ve heard this issue regarding all the members proposed for the cabinet.
He points out that ministers are a joint product of the President and the parliament in the sense that the head of state introduces ministers and the parliament gives a vote of confidence. One way is the path Pezeshkian is pursuing, and another way is to conduct negotiations between the parliament and the President before the introduction.
I had three meetings with the President, but they usually remained silent about the cabinet. Where they mentioned names, it was one or two names that mostly came from Zarif’s council. If, for example, he introduces the cabinet to the parliament and, as they say, the parliament rejects the cabinet, it is not very interesting.
Initially, it is better for the negotiations to take place before the introduction.
This parliament member emphasizes that the President is undoubtedly under pressure and constraint from the Strategic Council. After all, he is engaged in work, moving from one meeting to another, and perhaps has entrusted the work to the Strategic Council.
I wish the council would invite some parliament members to hear their viewpoints as well. It has always been like this, for example, Zarif sends Araghchi in his place, another introduces the Minister of Education.
Pezeshkian is not separate from other Presidents. Usually, people attribute victory to themselves and interpret failure as the result of various other factors.
Referring to the statement by the President’s parliamentary deputy that Pezeshkian introduces the cabinet to the leadership and the work proceeds with their approval, he continues, ‘I don’t think there is a need to mention this point.’
After all, the leadership has said to help the President, and he should also pay attention to the parliament’s sensitivities. There is no need to keep mentioning it. The issue of inquiries is also natural when someone is to be placed in a position like a minister; they must be approved by supervisory and security agencies.
In any case, the President is free to introduce his chosen individuals, but perhaps the Strategic Council wants to introduce some sharp individuals to be rejected and then introduce their subsequent choices.
Getting an inquiry from responsible agencies and them giving a negative opinion does not mean pressure on the President.
Pressure is when the supervisory agency’s opinion about an individual or individuals is negative, but there is pressure to employ them, and they say this issue does not matter.
Bakhshayesh Ardastani, noting that he is not yet aware of the final composition of the proposed ministers, adds, ‘But Pezeshkian has said he wants his cabinet to be a national unity cabinet.’
There can be ministers from the previous government in the cabinet who were strong and good ministers or capable managers. I saw somewhere that the President said he wanted to introduce Amirhossein Qazizadeh Hashemi for the Ministry of Health, but his friends did not agree.
We asked why he wanted to choose him, and they said that Mr. Qazizadeh Hashemi is scientifically strong, but Mr. Zarif’s council friends said no. We also want Pezeshkian’s cabinet to be successful.
Because a successful cabinet will bring glory to the Islamic Revolution, and an unsuccessful cabinet will lower the tent and flag of the revolution.
The type of affection that the leadership had towards Mr. Pezeshkian has been seen less with other Presidents, perhaps because the leadership does not want the distance that occurred in the past between the leadership’s position and the governments of Khatami and Rouhani to happen again.
This parliament member states, ‘Although we were the independent conservative faction and believed that some parliament members should also be present in this process, they did not accept our suggestion.’
To express an opinion about the cabinet composition, we must see whether they have the indicators considered by the leadership and the parliament or not. We must see whether the proposed individuals are truly themselves or are supposed to represent others.