The legitimacy of disqualifying Rouhani from the perspective of Shariatism
The legitimacy of disqualifying Rouhani from the perspective of Shariatism and the reaction of Hossein Shariatmadari to the disqualification of Hassan Rouhani for the elections of the Assembly of Experts. Although it was predictable, it is noteworthy from four perspectives. First, he is so delighted and happy that he couldn’t wait until Saturday and had an interview with Fars News Agency. It may be said that the conservative news agency contacted him, but in other cases, his quick comments in the interview before the publication of his newspaper under his management can also be mentioned.
Second, Rouhani’s argument of considering the disqualification as illegal and politically motivated and referring to and mentioning his five terms as a representative in the Islamic Consultative Assembly, three terms as a representative in the Assembly of Experts, two terms as the President, and membership and presidency in some decision-making councils of the system, is not justified because, according to the wise saying of Imam, it is the current state of individuals that matters.
This is while the intention of this sentence is to imply a reference to the past, not to continuously carry the passengers of the Revolution train at every station. And in this clause, Kayhan has interpreted it in a distorted way, as it was meant to facilitate the selection process and not to constantly bring up past cases.
Firstly, it is important to note that there have been cases where the Guardian Council has encountered qualifications that were not previously known or individuals who had previously been qualified but later engaged in actions that rendered them unfit for qualification. In other words, they have been disqualified due to illegal and politically motivated actions towards others.
With that being said, whatever issues there may be are related to the performance of Rouhani’s second government. However, it has not been specified what could have been done against Trump. If preserving the JCPOA was considered a sin, then why are they pursuing its revival? And if importing vaccines was considered bad, why did the subsequent government take credit for it?
The fourth point, however, is even more interesting. Large segments of the population were surprised and complained about the confirmation of their qualification for the second round of elections. They wondered why the Guardian Council approved their qualification for a second time, considering Rouhani’s performance and positions in the first round of the presidency.
Thus, it becomes clear that whenever Kayhan speaks on behalf of the people and the massive crowds, it does not take into account the 24 million Iranians who voted for Rouhani in 2017. It is illogical for them to be dissatisfied with his qualification and vote for him.
The most important part of Mr. Shariatmadari’s speech is his unveiling of the massive crowds. The massive crowds refer to the people minus the 24 million who didn’t vote because they complained. We know that the protesters of December 1996 and November 1998 did not join the opposing camp against Rouhani. With this clarification, it becomes clear that by massive crowds, Kiyān means not the 24 million voters for Rouhani or the absentees, but rather the voters for Mr. Raisi, the rest, or the people who are not part of the massive crowds, or if they are, they are not a massive crowd.
The reason why he didn’t mention 1992 is because Kiyān insisted that Rouhani was a principlist who won in 1992, and the reformists should not take credit for it. Now that they have cut off the principlist label from Rouhani, they don’t mention it, and they probably remove it from their archives, just like they did a few months before 2009.
