This is a caption

This is a caption.
Mustafa Ahmadian

One of the disadvantages of civil institutions and trade unions is parallel work and deviation from the principles of democracy. Bar associations, as a civil institution, while deprived of basic facilities for development and influencing the fate of their group, will never succeed if they do not have enough coherence within their organizational structure or do not adhere to democratic and proper governance rules. In this case, there is a fear that many mistakes will accumulate in the history of the legal profession and the process of democratization of bar associations will turn into a dream and a nightmare, and cover the future of the legal profession with a dark and terrifying atmosphere. The disadvantage is that many decision-making and decision-making processes, which have been made in a correct and democratic manner, also lose their power and influence due to neglecting the obvious aspects of affairs and parallel work and lack of systematic criticism, and do not receive enough support within the legal family.

Parallel work, in the direction that sometimes has a connection with political orders, never allows work to proceed. A policy based on the desire for regression in institutions also has a deep connection with internal weaknesses within those institutions. It is enough to promote non-systematic and destructive criticism and the use of non-democratic methods such as parallel work in these institutions to also destroy the existing achievements.

Although some consider analogy to be the worst form of acquiring knowledge in the light of correct knowledge, it is easy to compare the establishment of the Legal Consultants Institution in Article 187 of the Third Development Plan alongside the main authority of the Bar Associations, and see how the existence of this institution has hindered the progress and development of the legal system. In these years, instead of investing in fundamental issues and taking big steps towards developing the legal institution, a part of the available resources and talents have been wasted on denying and ignoring the natural process of the invalid Article 187. Many attempts have been made in this regard, such as the comprehensive draft of the official Bar Association, which fortunately has been temporarily archived and the threat has been eliminated.

In normal circumstances, groups and organizations that operate parallel to bar associations or affiliated institutions can lead to weakness, deficiencies, and setbacks in their affairs and become major obstacles to progress and development. There are also organizations outside of bar associations that are increasing in number and, without necessarily having the necessary knowledge, have dealt devastating blows to the structure and dynamism of bar associations.

Sources in totalitarian governments, because they never allow any other actors in the social sphere, view civil institutions (such as the Bar Association as a civil institution) with suspicion, even if they are formed based on legal capacity and historical necessity. They are inclined to take control of the fate of political parties, political and trade unions, non-governmental organizations, and grassroots organizations, and completely deprive civil liberties.

In our country, due to one of the ideals of the nation being influenced by the collective life experiences under the past regime, the freedom of political, social, and trade unions and civil institutions was approved in Article 26 of the Constitution in a way that no government or ruling institution has the legal power to confront civil institutions. Unfortunately, nowadays, the interpretation of freedom mentioned in Article 26 of the Constitution in our society has only been positive and its negative aspect, which is the philosophical interpretation of -civil institutions being free from restrictions and prohibitions- has not been implemented. In a way, these associations are not free in decision-making and legislation and are surrounded from all sides and are interfered with in the name of the law.

One undeniable fact about the institution of attorneyship is that its fundamental prerequisites, such as independence from judgment or financial independence, are entirely dependent on another entity. This other entity can be the legislative or judicial powers, who determine the fate of attorneyship and the concept of defense through the establishment of laws and regulations, or it can be the people themselves, whose financial independence is tied to that of the attorney.

Therefore, without considering the existing realities and examining the obstacles to progress of civil institutions and attitudes towards other areas, it is not possible to accurately and correctly diagnose the institution of advocacy in society. Diagnosing the institution of advocacy, taking into account the opinions and achievements of other social sciences in Iran, is a necessary and essential subject that is more needed than ever before.

Regarding understanding and comprehending the meanings of terms used in the institutional field and the possibility of systematic criticism, the subject is very significant. Firstly, it is necessary to fully understand the semantic burden of concepts such as the independence of bar associations, which have been established for more than 70 years. Influenced by constructivist ideas, the construction of concepts is based on internal connections, and in order to maintain their dynamic and evolving meanings, it is necessary to find a way to describe and report on these internal connections, through which meanings are formed. Therefore, it is necessary to first identify the structures, something that has not yet been fully understood. We have no clear understanding or perspective on how concepts are constructed and their historical analysis. Among civil institutions in Iran, concepts often experience stagnation and severe deprivation, and their value and credibility may be lost over time, potentially leading to a newly graduated lawyer not fully understanding the concept of bar association independence, or not valuing or being able to defend it

The possibility of systematic criticism of the structure and internal fabric of lawyers’ associations and the surrounding radiation of decisions and decision-making, for the sake of progress, is a historical and necessary need that requires sufficient education and deep study. Since criticism is essentially a method for discussing and examining literary texts and social sciences, it cannot be easily used for conscious actions and decisions; unless there is sufficient knowledge and study in this field. Therefore, criticism of behaviors and decisions requires something beyond pure criticism, even though it is entirely related to the realm of knowledge.

Criticism has been a form of judgment and evaluation in literary and philosophical matters. The best method of criticism is to use critical theory, which is based on the Frankfurt School of philosophy. This theory has certain requirements, one of which is criticism of ideology, and it stands against the traditional theory of criticism. Therefore, the weakness of criticism becomes apparent in decision-making and actions. It seems that many criticisms do not have the foundations and components of traditional criticism, let alone from the perspective of critical theory. As a result, every criticism will only be a reflection of the direct judgment of the critic’s intellectual and mental system and their mental objectives, rather than shedding light and clarifying thoughts.

Regarding the structure of the institution of advocacy and the overall organization of bar associations, we need sufficient and comprehensive understanding of the structures and internal connections within the associations, as well as the formation of concepts within its historical and organizational context. When we talk about the independence of bar associations, we are specifically referring to a historical phenomenon (the independence of bar associations as a phenomenon), and this alone will not be enough.