The importance of the constitution in establishing and solidifying democracy is a legacy of the American Revolution. After the victory of the American Revolution and the independence of this country from British monarchy, the revolutionaries emphasized and focused on the drafting and regulation of the constitution, striving to carefully and skillfully design a national covenant that would support and prioritize democracy and human rights, and prevent any authoritarianism and the possibility of oppressive power and government domination over the people. The relatively successful experience of the American Revolution in establishing democracy sparked a wave of constitutionalism around the world, encompassing all political and social spheres.

From the French Revolution to the Constitutional Revolution of Iran, the main focus of all transformations was the constitution. Intellectuals and thinkers, in all corners of the world, believed that the establishment and sustainability of democracy is deeply dependent on the constitution. The fever of constitutionalism had risen so high that between 1789 and 1875, fourteen constitutions were drafted in France in hopes of establishing democracy in the country. The importance of the constitution had become so ingrained in the minds of those who were striving to create a better world that when social sciences emerged as a new academic field in the late 19th and early 20th century, the main concern of political science students in Europe and America was to find the connection between the type of constitutional design and political behavior.

In some countries, specialists were invited to design fundamental laws in order to create better societies. One of the most famous examples was the Weimar Republic in Germany. After the defeat of the Kaiser, the constitutional designers aimed to create what they believed to be the most perfect democracy in the world. They believed that by designing a complete constitution, the new German republic would serve as a model for others to quickly emulate, and based on it, they would build their own democracies. This belief was proven wrong in experience, as the Weimar Republic and its constitution ultimately gave rise to Hitler’s Nazi regime.

In our historical experience, we can also mention the emergence of Reza Shah’s dictatorship after the Constitutional Revolution and its Constitution. In general, the constitutional laws that were implemented in Europe after World War I were all drafted by experts and specialists, and were mostly based on the American Constitution, but they were not successful.

Only fifteen years after the collapse of monarchies in Europe, more than half of this continent came under the control of various authoritarian regimes, greatly disillusioning the people with their constitutional laws. On the other hand, the successful experience of democracy in England was a pioneer, as it was able to establish and sustain itself without a written constitution and based on institutions and procedures. Therefore, the enthusiasm for constitutionalism diminished and minds and thoughts turned to other matters. The question of how to establish and consolidate democracy was raised again and continues to be answered.

The role of institutions in democracy and dictatorship.

“Structure” is an abstract concept that is determined by the physical embodiment of it. If someone is asked about the structure of government in the Islamic Republic, the immediate response may be an explanation that is outlined in the Constitution (as an institution). The Supreme Leader, executive, legislative, and judicial branches, the Assembly of Experts, the Guardian Council, the National Security Council, etc. are all examples that will be referenced in explaining the structure of government.

But this visible and prominent form is the structure of government. There are many diverse institutional aspects that may not occupy any place in the respondent’s mind, but in democratization they must be specially considered. The exercise of power, which can be completely independent from the constitution, is more complex and diverse in institutional aspects and cannot be made democratic only by amending the constitution. Perhaps with the mention of a few examples, a better explanation can be given.

Islamic Penal Law as a Tool for Social Control.

In the original 24 fundamental laws, it is stated that “publications and media are free to express their content,” but Article 500 of the Islamic Penal Code states: “Anyone who acts against the Islamic Republic of Iran system… by any means of propaganda, will be sentenced to imprisonment for three months to one year.” Therefore, according to this law, any criticism of the Islamic Republic is interpreted by the interrogator, investigator, and judge as propaganda against the system and will result in the critic being sent to prison. Therefore, publications and media are not free.

Article 26 of the Constitution states: “Parties, societies, political, trade and other associations are free, provided they do not violate the principles of independence, freedom, national unity, Islamic criteria and the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic…”. However, Article 498 of the Islamic Penal Code considers “forming a group with any intention of disrupting the security of the country” punishable by imprisonment of two to ten years. Similarly, Article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code states: “If two or more people gather and conspire to commit crimes against internal or external security or provide the means for their commission, and if they are not considered as enemies, they will be sentenced to two to five years of imprisonment.”

In the Islamic Republic, any speech or action that does not support the policies of the rulers is considered a threat to security. Therefore, it is enough for two people to form a group on Telegram and criticize the government or rulers there, and spend two to five years of their lives in prisons of the Islamic Republic.

These are just a handful of examples of laws that, independent of the constitution and even in contradiction with some of its principles, have enabled the government to suppress and use force in a completely institutionalized manner. Although the constitution of the Islamic Republic as a whole is anti-human rights and anti-democratic, the issue here is that even with a democratic and human rights-based constitution, democracy cannot be achieved with the existence of laws like the ones mentioned, and institutionalized oppression and systematic suppression will continue.

Iranian prisons are full of innocent women and men who have been convicted and imprisoned on false charges such as social and political opposition, membership in illegal groups, establishment of groups, blasphemy, insulting the founder of the Islamic Republic and its leadership, propaganda against the regime, disrupting public order, and more.

The government structure in Iran is authoritarian, but this authoritarianism is not closely tied to the constitution. Numerous and diverse institutional factors have created this non-democratic and oppressive structure, with some of them being formulated in the Islamic Penal Code. In all areas and fields, political, economic, social, and cultural, we are faced with laws that hinder the growth and development of society. In fact, it is through these laws that the government has placed society under its control and domination. At every opportunity and excuse, the ruling powers use these laws to further their control.

Democratization through institutional channelization.

In democratization, all of these laws must be changed in a way that they are not at all detrimental to human rights and do not limit freedoms. Focusing on the constitution and neglecting other institutional aspects of government will lead to failure. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to all institutions and institutional structures in society, which can both promote authoritarianism and democracy. In fact, democratization is an effort to change these social institutions towards a transformation from authoritarianism to democracy; but how?

To explain this process, we need to have an understanding and grasp of the concept of “power”. Bertrand Russell says, “Just as energy is the most fundamental concept in physics, power is the most fundamental concept in social sciences.” Therefore, in order to describe authoritarianism and the transition from it to democracy, we need to clarify the concept of power.

Michel Foucault has provided an understanding of the power of presentation that is very enlightening in comprehending the importance of the role and position of social institutions in democratization. He believes that power is exercised, not possessed; it is not the power of acquired or preserved privilege of the ruling class, but rather the overall effect of strategic positions of that class. In other words, power is a strategy, not a possession; and its effects cannot be attributed to a possession that can be attributed to arrangements, maneuvers, tactics, techniques, and performances.

Power does not have the ability to concentrate in a place like government, but rather it is distributed and present in all social gears and centers, which are completely different from each other. Therefore, we should not analyze the situations of authoritarianism, democracy, and transformation from one to another with the preconceptions that have been deposited in the layers of our thoughts and minds. Mental images of “power concentration” and “power acquisition” cannot properly explain authoritarianism and democracy. Power is always distributed and present, and the difference lies in how this distribution and presence lead to authoritarianism and democracy. In authoritarianism, distributed power is channeled in institutional valleys in a way that the arrangement of minor powers and their actions result in the exercise of power and domination by the rulers. In democracy, however, this institutional channeling is aimed at limiting the boundaries of the exercise of power by the government, and distributed minor powers at the social level are strategically arranged in a way that does not allow rulers to

The police force exists in both authoritarian and democratic systems, but its function is different in each of these systems. In one, it is a tool for suppressing citizens and maintaining the rule of the authorities, while in the other it is a means of preserving the freedom and security of citizens. This difference in function is a result of differences in institutional arrangements or patterns in which power is distributed and exercised. Democratization means a transformation in institutional patterns, so that the function of the police is transformed from one of suppressing people to one of safeguarding their freedom and security. Institutions are the realities that shape structures, so in order to create and enable democratic structures, we need to build and transform social institutions towards democratization. One of these formal institutions is a set of laws known as the Islamic Penal Code, which serves as a tool for social control in the Islamic Republic.