When it comes to analyzing the
Middle-East, many people in the United States do not have much to say other
than terrorist organizations that currently exist. I decided to take it upon
myself to analyze the culture of Iran because this is something constantly
overlooked or not understood and with Iran being such a key player in energy it
is important to understand what this country is culturally as it continues to
play a prominent role in the world.
Iran’s government is the first thing to
analyze when understanding the current culture of Iran. It seemed like a
complicated system in comparison to the United States. There is a position
titled “The Leader of the Revolution”, and council titled “ The Guardian
Council” and the President of Iran. These three function to lead the country in
most affairs.
The Islamic Republic of Iran adopted
their constitution in 1979 as a result of the revolution and is a combination
of theocratic and democratic principles.* The first two articles of the
constitution go into great detail as to the theocratic beliefs of the nation
claiming Islam as the nation’s religion, acknowledging only one God, leadership
continuing the revolution of Islam, God’s divine nature is fundamental in
setting laws, and the leadership must meet qualifications and standards based
on scripture from the Qur’an. Much of the constitution uses the Qur’an as a
basis for the standards of leadership as well as the quality of life for
citizens of Iran.
The Leader of the Revolution or also
referred to as the “Supreme Leader” serves an important role within Iran. The
Leader is a high-ranking authority figure in both religious and government
affairs of Iran. It has a term of 8 years, but does not limit the amount of
terms the Leader can choose to serve.
The “Assembly of Experts” elects the Leader, which is a council of
Islamic theologians who earn their position through a direct vote from citizens
of Iran to serve 8 terms. The Leader has vast authority of Iran’s military and
also decides whether Iran is at war or peace with 2/3 approval from Parliament.
The Leader also commands counter intelligence agencies, Iranian Police,
appoints half of the member of the Guardian Council, appoints the Chief Justice
of the Judiciary Branch, and has the power to inaugurate/impeach the President.
This is a powerful role within the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The President of Iran is seen as the
figure in charge of the government of Iran. It is the highest popularly elected
official and serves a four-year term. The President of Iran serves limited
executive authority and must answer to the Leader as well as Parliament for
many decisions. The President has the authority to create/accept foreign
agreements and treaties, administer national planning, establish a budget,
state employment affairs, and appoint ministers (subject to approval of
Parliament). Unlike other executives in other countries, the President of Iran
does not have complete control over foreign policy, armed forces, or nuclear
policy and must answer to the Leader for such approval.
The qualifications and election
process is somewhat similar to the United States. In order to qualify as a
President you must have Iranian origins and nationality and be qualified in the
eyes of the citizens, which is like the United States’ qualifications. The main
differences between the U.S. and Iran Presidential elections is Iran you can be
18, Iranian candidates must be “approved” by the Council of Guardians, and is
elected by simple majority from the citizens of Iran. If the Presidential
candidate does not receive a majority then the two candidates with the most
votes will be taken to a second round of elections.
The Guardian Council of Iran is an
interesting branch of their government that has substantial influence in the
direction of the country. The Council consists of 12 members with 6 of those
members being faqihs, or experts in Islamic law, who are appointed by the
Leader and the other six are nominated by the Chief Justice.* This Council
serves in the similar function of the U.S. Supreme Court having authority in
the system of checks and balances. Its legislative function consists of
approving bills passed by Parliament in order to become law. Rather than the
President holding powers of approving the bill for law or vetoing the bill, the
power rests on the Guardian Council as to whether the bill meets the standards
of the Iranian constitution and the Qur’an. Only the 6 members who are
appointed by the Supreme Leader are allowed to vote on legislation regarding
Islamic belief. If the Bill is rejected it will be sent back to Parliament for
review and correction. In this fashion it seems almost opposite to U.S.
Congress as the bill will start in committee and will go to the floor for a
vote with the President having veto authority or signing it into law with the
Supreme Court using the law for constitutionality, interpretation, and
implementation.
The Iranian Parliament, also known
as the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran and People’s House, serves as the
legislative body of Iran. This body currently has 290 representatives who are
popularly elected to serve four-year terms. The role of this branch serves to
draft legislation, ratifies international treaties, and approves the national
budget created by the President. The People’s House also has the authority to
remove cabinet ministers as well as impeach the President with a vote of no
confidence. Candidates who seek office for the People’s House must have
approval from the Guardian Council and have a written pledge to commit to the
principles of the Iranian Constitution. The leadership of the People’s House
includes a speaker as well as deputy speakers that are elected by a vote from
parliament. These positions only serve one-year terms.
The current People’s House of Iran
consists of Conservatives, Reformists, Independents, and Religious Minorities.
Al Jazeera reported 81 different parties ran in the 2012 election with
thousands of candidates being approved for a mere 290 seats. This is a clear
result of having a direct democracy vs. a two-party system like the one in the
U.S. Conservative parties have the main control in the current government of
Iran. The Conservative party is in support of federalism, strong militant
presence, and a conservative ideology of the Qur’an. This faction of Iran’s
political parties has worked to expand the roles of the Iranian executive. The
political faction “Islamic Republic Party” is one of the prominent political
parties in all of Iran.
The Reformists parties of Iran are a
continuously growing party in Iran since the Revolution. These parties typically
support liberal ideologies that consist of expanding democratic principles,
creating equality for women, increasing foreign relations (in some
circumstances including the West), reducing “political police”, and reducing
discrimination that has been fueled by fundamentalist practices. Many Reformist
parties struggle to be part of the general elections as both Al Jazeera and the
New York Times has constantly criticized the function of the Guardian Council
limiting liberal parties from participating in elections.*
Different ethnic factions exist in
Iran and have existed for many years. Some have lost prominence within Iran
while others have gained substantial control over the current state. These
factions include Kurds, Baluchs, Azeris, Arabs, Turkmens, Lurs, Bakhtiaris, and
Persians.* These factions have had large influence over the direction of Iran
and the Middle-East constantly organizing revolts, wars, separatism, religious
influence, and political influence. These factions have deep ties with 2 of the
main religious factions of Islam being Shi’a and Sunni.
The Shi’a faction of Islam has had
substantial influence in Iranian government. For much of Iran’s history, the
Shi’ites has substantial clerical hierarchy and power.* Up until the Islamic
Revolution, Iran had dual authority divided between the state and the Shi’a
clerics and held authority over the direction of the country.* Shi’ite
political theory has stated the necessity of protecting the community against
foreign invasion and community order as the basis for establishing Shi’a
control within Iran. This faction is typically conservative politically in
protecting the Qur’an, choosing leadership based on the relationship with the
Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali, and the affiliation with the political party Islamic
Republic of Iran. This faction believes the Shi’a have the spiritual authority
in both theocratic and government entities within Iran. This is the dominant
faction of Iran.
When analyzing the Sunni of Iran,
their ideologies differ from the Shi’a in a number of ways. One of the
differences between Sunni and Shi’a is the acceptance of the caliphs
(Mohammed’s successors) where Sunni recognize the four successors and the Shi’a
only recognize Ali, the fourth successor.* The Sunni are a particularly small
faction within Iran and is sometimes associated as an “orthodox” branch of
Islam. Sunni Muslims have constantly made statements against the government of
Iran suggesting discrimination against Sunni and other religious factions since
Shi’a have such a prominent role within Iran.* Approximately 10 percent of Iran
are Sunni and live in Baluchistan, Kurdistan, Kermanshah, Khorasan, and
Khuzestan. Many progressive factions are associated with these regions as well
as Tehran that are part of the moderate political factions that push for
diverse representation within Iranian government and wish to add representation
within Parliament particularly after the Revolution.*
Many of the governments in the Middle East are
similar with the understanding of these countries establishing theocracies and
having religion culturally engrained within their societies. That is the root
of many of these countries problems both internally and externally. When it
comes to internal factions in Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and Iraq, many uprisings,
terrorist organizations, government revolutions, civil wars, and external wars
have all been fueled by secular religious beliefs.
In my personal opinion, Israel and
Iran have many similarities. Instead of having a direct democratic election
monitored by the Supreme Leader, Israel has a party system somewhat similar to
the U.S. The similarity with Iran is the religious influence and political candidates
that represent Jewish factions except in Iran it’s Islam. Both of these
governments have Presidential roles that are simply ceremonial with other
leaders being responsible for executive decisions.
In regard to the Judiciary when
comparing Israel and Iran, both have religious leaders within the system to
enforce religious ideology in various circumstances within the country. The
difference with the Judiciary in Israel is the other religious courts
designated for Christianity and Islam.
The military for both Iran and
Israel are both bloated and have substantial influence over the direction of
the country. In the defense of both of these countries, war has been a large
part of both county’s culture since there have been numerous disputes in the
Middle East especially on a religious level. These countries both have
prominent support in the game of “World Domination” so to speak with Russia and
the United States having a large role within the Middle East. The United States
has looked to Israel as a way to have a prominent role within the Middle East
particularly with oil and militant control while Iran has had close ties with Russia
for similar reasons. The recent events of the Iran nuclear deal is a prime
example of Russia, United States, Iran, and Israel determining to future of the
region as well as global influence, but I digress.
Going back to analyzing the
religious role within Iran, one could compare it to the Roman Empire. The Pope
substantially influences the Roman Empire, leaders of Europe, as well as
Catholic Nations. Many societies that accept Catholicism as their national
religion look to the Pope’s guidance and interpretation of Christianity in
order to guide their society. This is even found in evangelical movements
within American Society when determining legislation of many things like birth
control, abortion, LGBT rights, stem cell research, etc.
Many of the leaders of Iran are
specifically chosen based on their fundamental values toward Islam. This has
become one of the lead causes of the Revolution because many people within the
society of the understanding of the function of democratic governments and
would rather support the voice of the people rather than the current
authoritarian government fueled by Shi’a beliefs and motives. I would argue
that Iran is starting to transition from an authoritarian government to more of
a democracy with less emphasis on conservative Muslim influence, but it still
has a long way to go before it changes that foundation since it has been this
way for many years.
I want to take this opportunity to
analyze the comparison between the United States government from Iran’s. I have
pointed out some of them already, but will go ahead and make a full comparison
henceforth on a government, social, economic, and religious standpoint. First, it is important to analyze the election
of parliament. This body is similar to that of Congress with it is elected by
the people. These two entities are also tasked with the approval of executive
decisions such as budgets, foreign affairs, peace treaties, and legislative
decisions. Where these two differ in the regard of the legislative body is the
candidates have to be approved by the Supreme Leader as well as adhere to
Islamic beliefs in Iran and be elected in a direct democracy vote; the United
States is formed by a two-party system fueled by the ideologies of the American
people, which sometimes involves religious beliefs, and is elected on a
representative measure through the electoral college. They are both have flaws
and both face skewed elections based on financial influence, business
institution involvement, as well as religious involvement. Some would say this
is merely ensuring candidates adhere to the concerns of the public.
The Presidential roles in these
countries are highly different. The President of the United States has more
similarities to the Supreme Leader of Iran, since the President of Iran is
mainly a ceremonial role and has limited power much like many constitutional
monarchs in Western Europe. The President of the United States has about as
much power as the Supreme Leader of Iran being able to appoint members to the
Judiciary and having the power to override the legislative when the executive
authority does not agree with the legislative action. The only difference is
executive leaders are directly associated with Islam where the President of the
United States may merely be associated with religious entities.
The third comparison between Iran
and the United States is the Judiciary. This is probably where the United
States and Iran are the most different. The Judiciary of Iran is extremely
controlled by religious perception with ideology of the Qur’an being written
into the Constitution of Iran. Half of those appointed must be clerks of Islam
and have great understanding of the Qur’an, while the other half seek to
accommodate the needs of the people. The Judiciary of Iran also has large
influence over parliament and elections. This is extremely different from the
Judiciary from the United States because the Supreme Court has all of its
members appointed by the current President who serve life terms and merely
adhere to the legality of situations. This in the U.S. merely adheres to the
agenda of Congress as well as the President. Religion also doesn’t have much
influence within the Supreme Court other than laws that have been passed
protecting religious freedoms and ideologies.
Overall, Iran has an intriguing
democracy. With the Judiciary having so much prominence over
elections/candidates, Parliament having limited power with legislation, and the
Supreme Leader having authority over the agenda as well as several appointed
positions, it is fairly clear that the government is swayed in a particular
direction and could easily be biased to supporting conservative factions. At
the same time, one could argue this is a better system of check-and-balances in
comparison to the United States. The President of the United States has many
shared responsibilities of the Supreme Leader of Iran as well as the Guardian
Council by holding veto powers, establishing the budget, foreign relations,
peace treaties, official war declarations, and establishing the agenda of the
United States. Some would argue that Congress in the United States has too much
power by having the capability of overriding the President, being responsible
for finances, corruption of political funding, having control over war financing,
and many reasons. By having Congress have such substantial influence over
finances gives Congress the most power within the United States because most
everything done within the United States has to get financial approval from
Congress.
The last thing I am going to analyze
is the election process. This is different from the United States in several
ways. One example, as I mentioned before, the candidates have to be approved by
the Guardian Council to ensure the Constitution and Islamic beliefs are protected.
This is controversial because many have accused the Guardian Council and
Supreme Leader of having too much control over the election process by only
approving of conservative factions. I agree with that, but at the same time the
United States could be just as corrupt in the since of political financing and
only having a two-party system. It is easily arguable that the two-parties in
the United States have become extremely partisan and have left the concerns of
Americans behind to either score political points or adhere to the private
investors of their campaign.
This leads me to the next election
point of a direct-democracy election vs. a republic two-party election. As I
mentioned, the United States has a two-party system where most people have to
generally agree with the candidates leaving some minority groups left behind in
the U.S. in terms of representation. The Iran election process has a direct
vote, which can adhere to numerous factions within the society. There are
positives and negatives to both sides with a two-party system being
substantially more efficient and potentially meeting the needs of a vastly
bigger demographic. Having a direct democracy might be able to meet the needs
of particular factions and create numerous candidates during an election, but
is an extremely slow process and if the candidate that won by a simple majority
because the elected leader may result in less people being represented and only
that particular faction.
Iran has been through many changes
through the years, particularly in the last 30 after numerous wars, foreign
relations, and revolutions that continue to shape the country to this day. I
believe Iran will become more democratic in the next 20 years as more moderates
and minorities throughout the country continue to go political influence. The
idea of Iran being a theocracy will also be the basis for the country for many
years, but I could easily see it transitioning to a place such as Israel that
isn’t necessarily a theocracy, but still has substantial religious influence.
Bibliography
“What
it takes to run Iran’s Parliament”, Al Jazeera, 28 Feb 2012, Parvaz, D.
“Iran
MPs pledge to boycott poll”, Al Jazeera, 23 Jan 2004, Unknown
“The
Role of Political Culture in Iranian Political Development”, Ashgate Publishing
Company; 2002; Seung Yu, Dal
“Iranian
Sunnis complain of discrimination”; Al Jazeera; 09 March 2014; Mohammadi,
Farshad
“Israel Government”;
globaledge.msu.edu; 2015; Michigan State University
