Amir Taheri: Iranians talk of reforms as constitution fails
Gulf News
29-10-2003
In Iran's fractious politics there is one word on which almost everyone agrees. And it isn't even a Persian word. It is the Latin word "referendum", pronounced by Persians as refrandoom. (The Persian neologism of hameh-porsi, literally : asking everyone, has not replaced the Latin word.) These days almost everyone in Iran is talking about the need for holding a referendum; not always for the same reasons.
The argument is that the current constitution, hastily put together in 1979 in the heated aftermath of the revolution, is not working. The various mechanisms envisaged in the constitution for the exercise of power have produced a gridlock which prevents effective decision-making by a divided government. The only way out is to hold a constitutional referendum to approve amendments that would break the gridlock.
The current constitution is a rough translation of the constitution of the French Fifth Republic introduced by General De Gaulle. It, therefore, envisages a strong executive and a weak legislative with the status of the judiciary left murky.
The problem, however, is that the authors of the Iranian constitution added a number of articles that break the inner logic of the original French version.
The most important of these are articles related to the doctrine of the "Walayat Faqih" (Custodianship of the Jurisconsult). The articles give a single mullah, referred to as "The Supreme Guide", virtually unlimited powers thus rendering the constitution superfluous.
"The Supreme Guide" is elected for life by the so-called Assembly of Experts, a body of 90 mullahs, which also has the authority to remove him under highly unlikely circumstances.
Once elected, "The Supreme Guide" becomes the centre of power in the system. He is the head of state and must approve the heads of all three powers - the legislative, the judiciary and the executive.
Judiciary vs the executive
Some confusion is created because the head of the executive, known as president, is elected by direct universal suffrage. Nevertheless, the elected president cannot take office until an edict from "The Supreme Guide", approves his election. At the same time "The Supreme Guide" can always trigger constitutional mechanisms to dismiss the elected president.
"The Supreme Guide" can also dissolve the elected majlis or parliament. He can even suspend the basic rules of Islam, if and when he deems fit. No ruler in history has been given so much power as the Iranian"Supreme Guide" today.
The constitution contains other anomalies. It provides for a Council of The Guardians of Constitution, the equivalent of the French Constitutional Council. The Iranian council has a right of veto on all laws passed by the parliament. (The French version does not have such a right. It intervenes only if it is asked to determine whether or not any piece of legislation is in violation of the constitution.)
Iran's constitutional problems do not end there. Yet anther body, named The Council for the Discernment of the Interests of the System, can also intervene to stop or cancel laws passed by the parliament. In the past two years the council has even claimed to have the right to pass laws on its own without referring to the elected parliament.
The founder of the Islamic Republic, the late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini, had initially opposed the enactment of any constitution. Under the system of "Walayat Faqih" that he offered there would be no elections, no parliament and no president. In his system "The Supreme Guide" would rule in the name of Divine Power. He would appoint a prime minister and a council of ministers to act as advisors and executors of his orders.
Khomeini was unable to get all he wanted because, at the time, he still needed the support of democrats, liberals and leftists to consolidate his hold on power. It was as a concession to them that he accepted the idea of having a constitution.
But at no point did he have the slightest intention of creating a constitutional system. And, for as long as he was alive, he acted as an absolute ruler with no regard for any constitutional constraints.
His successor, Ali Khamenehi, lacks the stature to continue the tradition. At the same time, the revolution is now but a faint memory for most Iranians. When Khomeini seized power in 1979, Iran had a population of 38 million. Today there are more than 70 million Iranians. This means that some two-thirds of Iranians were either not born or were too young to vote in the constitutional referendum that Khomeini organised almost a quarter of a century ago.
"A referendum would allow our people to decide what form of government they desire," says Shirin Ebadi, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Peace. The idea of holding a referendum has also received support from Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah who now leads the monarchist opposition, and the National Front, a grouping of dissidents built on the memory of Dr. Muhammad Mussadeq, the nationalist prime minister of the 1950s.
Some senior clerics, including Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri, are also calling for a referendum as a way out of the political impasse that could lead to violence.
"A referendum is better than a civil war," says Mohsen Kadivar, a pro-democracy mullah.
The idea of holding a referendum is also finding echoes within the ruling establishment. The Participation Front, a grouping that supported President Muhammad Khatami, has already called for constitutional amendment. And efforts are under way to form a new bloc of candidates for next March's general election under the banner of a referendum.
The idea of a referendum has also received support from the remnants of half a dozen leftist parties.
Despite wide agreement that a referendum is necessary, when it comes to what questions should be put to the people's vote, views diverge. The monarchists and the leftists want a referendum that would abolish the Islamic Republic altogether, replacing it either with a "constitutional monarchy" or a "People's Republic" in which religion has no place.
Revision of the constitution
Others, however, want a revision of the existing constitution. They want the position of "The Supreme Guide" abolished so that the Iranian system comes closer to that of its original model: the French Fifth Republic.
The directly-elected President of the Republic will be head of state and would have large powers, including that of naming the prime minister. But he would not have the power to suspend the constitution let alone interfere with the rules of Islam.
The most minimalist position on referendum is that of those who simply want the "Council of the Guardians of the Constitution" and the "Council for the Discernment of he Interest of the System" to be abolished. Such an amendment would leave the powers of "The Supreme Guide" intact while enhancing the powers of the elected president and parliament.
The referendum issue is likely to emerge as the key theme of next March's general election. Right now, however, prospects for a referendum appear rather dim. On the contrary, some hard-line theorists around Khamenehi are publicly calling for a suspension of the constitution and a period of direct rule by "The Supreme Guide". It may take some time before Iran makes a final choice between a peaceful referendum and violent regime change.
The writer, an Iranian author and journalist, is based in Europe. He can be contacted on his e-mail at
amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=101492