Political crime, like all other social-legal phenomena, has existed throughout the history of human civilization; “a reality that exists”; this discourse is the clash of human rights with tangible issues. A discourse based on fundamental values outside of legal rules that governmental systems must include in their constitutional and always changeable rules and laws in order to secure the fundamental rights of human beings by considering and implementing its fundamental principles.

Political crime has always been faced with various definitions throughout history, which has never had much sustainability and stability in the world of law and legal interpretations. The main reason for this is the conflict and clash of interests between governments and state officials on one hand, and the rights of the people and civil-political freedoms on the other. One of the most important challenges in defining political crime is the issue of shared and conflicting meanings and concepts of political crime with security crimes, which are directly related to the social and historical developments of countries. The emergence of humanism and the centrality of human beings as the basis of the new history of humanity and the era of modernity turned the human object into a human subject, linked with consciousness and rationality, and considered reason, equality, and justice as the inherent rights of human beings.

Important transformations have taken place in contemporary Iran. In the late Qajar period and early Pahlavi era, prominent and wealthy individuals of society passed through a period of ignorance by studying in Europe and learning modern ways, and upon their return to Iran, based on their level of knowledge and specific intellectual backgrounds, each one found their place in the various emerging civil and political factions.

Marxist thoughts, considering the social situation in Iran and the simultaneous developments in foreign countries and the triumph of communism, found a special place in the intellectual dialogue of that era. The Iranian monarchy did not see its interests in communism, but the spirit of communism was linked to the proletarian revolution and the weak economic conditions in Iran and the negligence of government officials could create a similar ground for a workers’ revolution like that of Russia.

The government took a stance and considered the effort to create a dominant discourse of proletarian rights as a crime. The crime of collective morality, which had taken on a judicial color during the Pahlavi era, was used as a means to suppress all political efforts and activities of intellectual and aware groups in society who criticized the government. This is where the ambiguity of the definition of political crime began; some considered anything that threatened national security as a political crime, while others saw any political action or formation of opposing parties, groups, or factions as a threat to the stability of the government. Many individuals who joined political groups and associations were imprisoned under the charge of collective morality and in the most severe cases, were sentenced to death.

With the passage of time, the revolution gained meaning and different groups entered the arena under the banner of Carter’s freedoms. Criticism rose and the flames of revolutionary excitement set fire to the dry and decaying shackles of monarchy. Yesterday’s political and security fighters and criminals were freed and some seized power. Revolutions are victorious with the slogan of freedom and equality, but with the doctrine of pressure, they chain freedoms.

After some time, in the year 1362, many individuals were executed under the titles of political and security criminals. The idea of reviving political crimes in the laws entered the discourse of revolutionary government officials. However, over time and with the ups and downs of the political situation in Iran, this issue remained silent until it was brought up again in the Council of Revolution. But it didn’t lead anywhere and only security criminals were defined, which could also include political criminals with different interpretations. In the sixth term of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the bill for political crimes was passed around the red seats, but the presence of reformists and the semi-open atmosphere prevented its approval. In practice, during the political changes in 1378, a large number of protesters and students were imprisoned under the label of security crimes. This strengthened the synonymous meaning of security and political crimes in Iran. After the tenth presidential election in 1388 and the intense protests of the people and students against the election results

After the unlawful imprisonment and trial-less detention of opposition candidates following the election results, the idea of legalizing political crimes was put to an end by some religious authorities and theorists, who issued various fatwas on the matter. One of the representatives of the Guardian Council, relying on the fatwas of scholars, wrote the text of the political crime bill and with the support of other fundamentalists, has brought the possibility of its legalization to the green public forum of the parliament.

A political plan has faced strong opposition in the academic space. The reason for this is the use of terms that are outside the scope of legal writings. The materials of this plan raise issues that undermine the philosophy of political crime, which supports greater protection and positive discrimination towards political offenders.

In the materials of this plan, any cash and any motivation that undermines the foundations of the system is considered a political crime. Due to the historical ambiguity of the definition of political crime in this plan, not only has political crime not been defined, but also with general descriptions and non-exclusive examples in the legal plan of political crime, the danger of synonymous meaning of security crime with political crime remains.

Some prominent law professors not only do not consider political activities as criminal, but also believe that political crimes are not definable. Others, however, do approve of political crimes from a jurisprudential perspective. Another professor considers political crimes to be definable based on their motivations, to the extent that he says if a politically motivated murder is committed for the public interest, it should be treated the same as political criminals. For example, he argues that if someone shot Hitler in the heart and killed him, 42 million people might not have died and therefore this type of murder could be considered a political crime. On the other hand, it is argued that political crimes should be defined in relation to the institution of power; where ballot boxes can be manipulated and the outcome of democratic elections can be changed, the common good and public interest have been violated, and individuals and political groups within the institution of power who have the ability to carry out such actions should be tried for political crimes.

Another view is that as long as the fundamental freedoms of the people, recognized in the constitution, are not respected and not effectively implemented, talking about the definition of political crime is meaningless. Civil and political freedoms, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and political associations, the right to speak, the right to be forgotten, the right to be different, and the right to strike are rights and freedoms that have been identified and emphasized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966, and other international human rights documents. Many of these rights are also mentioned in the Iranian constitution, but have never been given attention in ordinary laws for implementation.

On the other hand, it should be considered that when criticism can undermine the foundations of a political and governmental system for any reason, this issue leads to the weakness and deterioration of the system. When the government is unable to resist criticism and its security is at risk, it actually loses its legitimacy. The government is a symbol of security and protector of the people’s interests and their peace, and people give positive votes to governments for this reason and become the source of their legitimacy. Now, if a government is so weak that it does not even consider itself immune from danger, its legitimate foundation is at risk.

According to the legal definition and the perspective of criminal law professors, this plan does not have three fundamental elements of crime; its material element is not directly related to the mentioned effect, which is not a threat to the foundations of the system, and its spiritual element is ambiguous and cannot be defined with any motive.

Ultimately, it can be said that political crime has been faced with the challenge of legal definition in all periods of Iran’s history, which can be the result of various political situations. However, it can be said that political crime is placed against the interests of government officials and political systems. In other words, political crime is not the concern of the people, but rather the concern of their freedoms and human rights.

Political crime has always been considered synonymous with security crime. Political crime is not definable as a harm to the people, as it violates their civil and political freedoms. However, it is defined and considered a crime by the government in order to protect the interests of the people and to prevent political institutions from committing arbitrary and illegal acts.

Political crime prevents any social and political activities, and criticism of the government. It limits freedoms and paves the way for tyranny. However, it should be noted that the definition of political crime may be achievable to support individuals and positive discrimination towards them in democratic societies; because democracy has a specific definition and considers ensuring freedoms and political participation of people in determining their own destiny as the fundamental goal of a democratic society.

It seems that in order to define political crimes, there must first be a democratic structure, which should not only be defined formally, but also in terms of its nature. In a democratic system, human beings and human rights are the focus of all actions, policies, and criminalization. In a system where democracy is in place, respect for basic human freedoms is a duty for the government and a right for the people. Rationality becomes the basis of the rule of law, and justice and fairness guarantee the protection of people’s rights. The legitimacy of the government comes from the people’s vote, and its illegitimacy is also determined by the people’s vote; because the government is the representative and attorney of the people, and according to the social-political contract, the attorneyship is revocable and the attorney is removable. The doctrine of power balance and guaranteeing the rights of the people is summarized in democracy.