Mohammad Reza Vizheh; Ali Estiri
Abstract
Introduction and Statement of the Problem:
Historical disputes over political authority after the Prophet and the emergence of sharp divisions among Muslims, along with the Shiite position that a political ruler must be appointed by God and the minority status of this view, gave rise to an approach ...
Read More
Introduction and Statement of the Problem:
Historical disputes over political authority after the Prophet and the emergence of sharp divisions among Muslims, along with the Shiite position that a political ruler must be appointed by God and the minority status of this view, gave rise to an approach among Shiite jurists that was generally delegitimizing toward worldly political authority. In the presence of the Imam, Shiites considered the present Imam the only person qualified to assume political power. Given new circumstances, such an approach required reexamination during the occultation. The first changes began with modifications in juristic rulings, and with the formation of the theory of general deputization (niyābat ‘āmma), efforts were made to ease the life of Shiites; this continued until Shiite rulers came to power. With the formation of the first Shiite centers of power, the role of jurists became more pronounced. This development marks a turning point in the evolution of jurists’ political and theological theories and created a space for putting theological and juristic ideas into practice. The theory of political power in Shiism is the result of centuries of juristic intellectual struggle. The jurists’ thought can be divided into two stages:
Delegitimizing customary political power and legitimizing it. By scrutinizing the changes that have occurred in Shiite juristic rulings, its developmental trajectory is examined, and the process of transition from delegitimization to legitimization is formulated based on primary sources. The passage from a theoretical orientation centered on disinterest in customary political power and lack of a coherent theory about it toward a situation in which that power becomes a theoretical concern and object of jurists’ attention is examined under two main concepts: delegitimizing and legitimizing.
Research Background:
In previous studies, the prevailing intellectual tradition in Shiism and Shiite political jurisprudence has generally been described as the development and formation of the theory of general deputization. It has been regarded as the authentic and sole theory put forward by jurists in Shiite jurisprudence without attention to how it formed and was established or the historical context in which it emerged and spread. However, referring to jurisprudential texts compiled in early periods shows that the widespread and initially accepted historical theory was delegitimization of power; from the Middle Ages and with the rise to power of Shiite rulers, the dominant discourse shifted toward legitimizing customary political power. Understanding the theory of general deputization in its current articulation is not possible without a careful consideration of the earlier theory.
Research Objective:
This study discusses the theory of general deputization and the currently prevalent theory in Shiite political jurisprudence as the intellectual development connected to its antithetical theory—namely, the delegitimization of customary political power—as a historically prior political theory, relying on texts composed by jurists and on how it was completed and developed.
Research Method:
The present research uses a library-based method and examines books authored by Shiite jurists in historical continuity.
Conclusion:
By closely examining jurists’ theories, which were historically analyzed from the earliest authoritative jurists in Shiism to the present, it can be argued that their primary intellectual concern was preserving the identity of the Shiite sect in accordance with the governing principles of their theological and juristic beliefs. At one period, given the social circumstances and the need to preserve the communal life of Shiites, their view of political power was negative, permitting interaction between adherents of the sect and political authority only out of necessity At another period, owing to changed social conditions, jurists’ theories moved toward defining a specific political position for the jurist as an active political and legitimizing agent in social and political dimensions and as one who carries out religious duties.
Although these ideas have not always been expressed uniformly, we currently face two differing approaches: a minority and a majority approach. The minority approach believes in delegitimizing political power and limits the legitimization of it to restricted matters, viewing the jurist solely as an overseer. The majority approach, also referred to as general deputization, especially with the development and formulation of the theory of the jurist’s absolute guardianship (wilāyat-i mutlaqah al-faqīh), regards the jurist as the legitimate ruler and executor of the sect in all affairs. An idea that formed in the early period of jurisprudence, through the development of theological and juristic concepts, gradually became one of the most important political theories in Shiite political theology, managing to formulate a theory in accordance with the necessities of the lives of adherents that, for the first time, defined and preserved Shiite political and religious identity together in its present form.
One key reason for the change in juristic thought and the examination of the capacities present in hadith texts for forming elements that legitimize power is their increasing engagement with political institutions. After several centuries, the growth of the Shiite population and the establishment of political powers by them made outright denial impossible; continuing the previous approach of absolute rejection would have been self-defeating and would have created difficulties for Shiite life.
Therefore, jurists—especially after the Safavid shahs came to power—sought, by rethinking hadith texts and discovering new capacities, to provide some form of legitimation for customary power, to preserve the newly established and widespread Shiite power, and to consolidate the existence of Shiites, who until then had been struggling to assert themselves within the political community.
Political Thought
Kioomars Ashtarian
Abstract
Analyzing the structure of Constitutional law in the Islamic Republic of Iran can be used to identify the capacities of amending the Constitution and redefining the Iranian governance system. This article, with an institutional-normative approach, seeks to show the theoretical capacities of the constitutional ...
Read More
Analyzing the structure of Constitutional law in the Islamic Republic of Iran can be used to identify the capacities of amending the Constitution and redefining the Iranian governance system. This article, with an institutional-normative approach, seeks to show the theoretical capacities of the constitutional movement on the one hand and the capacities of Mantaghato-laugh (Free area of Islamic regulation) on the other hand to review the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. In Iranian governance, the distortion of the national division of institutional tasks in the form of bureaucratic-tribal monarchy has been widespread in the governance structure. As such, the structural differentiation of social spaces, which leads to the logical separation of religion from public policies, has been ignored. This is while the concept of a “Free area of Islamic regulation” gives general directions to public policies that can return powers and duties to the people, to the government, and the parliament without compromising the legitimacy of the political regime. This article has several theoretical pillars that are used synthetically in connection with the main finding of the article. 1) order and power, 2) separation of powers, 3) legitimacy, 4) unity of religion and politics, and 5) constitutional orientation of public policy making. The main point of the article is that the theoretical capacities of these 5 pillars can be useful for analyzing the structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran's Constitution and revising it. First, with a normative approach, we have discussed the right to exercise power and the separation of powers (the first and second theoretical pillars). The fact that the constitution guides the operation of political societies is born from the idea that the government must protect the fundamental rights of individuals. The fundamental rights have a technical dimension that organizes the exercise of power and therefore creates limitations for the exercise of power. That is why separation of powers is considered a tool against abuse of power, prevention of tyranny, and a factor of national self-actualization, and according to Montesquieu, there will be no freedom without separation of powers. In terms of the third theoretical pillar of this article, it has been discussed that the relation of legitimacy and efficiency are closely intertwined in Iranian governance. In the Constitution, there are several principles that not only determine the direction of the policy-making systems but also lay the foundations of an interventionist government with full responsibility for the welfare of the citizens. As a result, public policies take into account the legitimacy of the political system, and in practice, the legitimacy of the political regime depends on its efficiency. This phenomenon has found an ideological facet in the shadow of the theory of Unity of religion and politics. With regards to the relationship between religion and politics in the Islamic Republic (the fourth pillar of the article), we are facing two aspects of political jurisprudence theory and legal tradition, which appear to be aligned but at the same time can be contradictory. On the one hand, legitimacy refers to the divine sovereignty over the world, and it is embodied in the Islamic Republic's Constitution. On the other hand, for some “official” theorists of the last two decades, this divine sovereignty has led to the acceptance of an approach called the theory of “discovery” and “designation”, which we call "revelation legitimacy". This revolutionist approach, in its essence, makes the legal processes of the constitution irrelevant, which means that at first, it reduces the role of experts to a passive role in the designation of Leader. The fifth pillar of the article deals with the "basic rules of public policies" and the issues of political structure related to public policies. The importance of this article is that it allows freedom of public policy-making to the citizens.
Milad Heidari
Abstract
In addition to government and official institutions such as the police, the gendarmerie, and the National Organization for Security and Intelligence (SAVAK), the second Pahlavi government used militias to suppress its opponents. This use of armed non-state actors continued throughout this period (1942-1979). ...
Read More
In addition to government and official institutions such as the police, the gendarmerie, and the National Organization for Security and Intelligence (SAVAK), the second Pahlavi government used militias to suppress its opponents. This use of armed non-state actors continued throughout this period (1942-1979). In fact, force and violence which should have been the monopoly of the state were also entrusted to non-state actors. Previous academic studies have ignored and underestimated the role of such informal/semi-official forces in the politics and militarism of the government. Moreover, these studies have paid little attention to their persistence. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to explain why pro-government militias continued to exist in the second Pahlavi period. To explain this issue, the views of experts in the field of militias were used as the research hypotheses. The research method was functional-historical explanation and library, documentary, and field methods were used for data collection. The present study examined the performance of militias during the events and political developments of this period. The research showed that during the various political and security crises that the Pahlavi government was involved in from the beginning to the end, gradually, some of the advantages of the militias over the official and government military were realized. These advantages included the low cost of managing and training them, local and specialized knowledge, strengthening the legitimacy of the government, and their deniability. Therefore, the government insisted on strengthening and developing the militias.
Yaser Ghahremaniafshar; Kheirollah Parvin
Abstract
Modernization of governance and the attainment of collective enthusiasm and participation in political decision-making began since the fundamental shift of sovereignty from the Sultan to people. The modern state, as a descendant of ancient forms of governance, defines its sovereignty based on human wisdom ...
Read More
Modernization of governance and the attainment of collective enthusiasm and participation in political decision-making began since the fundamental shift of sovereignty from the Sultan to people. The modern state, as a descendant of ancient forms of governance, defines its sovereignty based on human wisdom rather than spiritual sources. As a claimant to the divine and popular sovereignty, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)—within the Constitutional Law—has recognized its own political–legal framework based on revelation and jurisprudence. Yet as a political entity in international politics and relations, the IRI cannot remain indifferent to the necessities of the modern world, especially when it comes to political and legal systematization. As a result, the IRI has also used modern methods of governance to organize the country legally and politically as well as to manage public affairs. Since state and modernity are pluralistic phenomena in intellectual and political systems, there are differences in the way the components of the Modern are recognized. Taking this as its central topic, the present study used a descriptive–explanatory and prescriptive approach as well as the library data to analyze the constituting components of state. The main finding is the fact that the difference lies in the normative basis and genesis of the two legal systems.
