Gandhi says that what will lead us to destruction is as follows: “Politics without principles, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, and commerce without morality.” It may not be a bad idea to briefly mention some relevant and valid definitions of politics and exercise of collective power in the political-governmental form and political legitimacy to enter and approach the subject.

Weber writes in his definition of politics: “Efforts to participate in power or efforts to influence the distribution of power, whether between states or within groups within a state.” Based on this, the exercise of power is a fundamental feature of political activity and refers to imposing the will of one social sphere on another. He sees the importance of power as a political concept, especially in the realm of the state, and in the exercise of legitimate or legitimate power. Weber sees politics as a means of mediating conflicts between humans and considers the role of the state or government as an important regulator or organizer.

Hannah Arendt also defines power in her book “Violence” as: “Power or authority is the ability to not only act, but to make things happen. Power is never a characteristic of an individual, but belongs to a group, and only exists when individuals and groups are together.” Hannah Arendt says: “Action, the only activity that directly takes place between human beings without the mediation of things or materials, is dependent on the human condition of plurality… This plurality is specifically the condition of all political life – not just a necessary condition, but a sufficient one.” Arendt argues that the legitimacy of power comes from the initial gathering of the people, meaning from the founding covenant of society that establishes a political community and is reaffirmed whenever individuals act together in common and with the mediation of speech and persuasion. For her, power, being inherent in the existence of political communities, needs no justification; what it needs is legitimacy; beyond resorting to the past, power

Therefore, power relies on each political group and is defined as the expression of a potential that is always available for action. Power is also a source of legitimacy for political and governmental institutions, a means through which they adapt to new conditions and are obligated to respond to the opinions and needs of citizens. This popular support is what gives power to the institutions of a country, and it is nothing but the continuation of satisfaction that brings laws into existence. All political institutions are manifestations and materializations of power; as soon as the vital power of the people no longer supports these institutions, they will cease to function and be destroyed.

Legitimacy is the active consent of the people towards political institutions associated with power. As long as governments are seen as an effort to maintain power for the future by institutionalizing it, they require constant support and active intervention from all citizens for their survival.

Oraeil says: “After establishing a new social structure, if the new system is unable to meet the expectations of major groups within a relatively long and continuous framework based on new values, new legitimacy crises will arise. On the other hand, sustainable efficiency can lead to a legitimate political system after several generations, which means ensuring material and economic interests, as well as having the necessary tools and institutions for this purpose.”

Patrick J. Bol, organized political participation as an effort to increase control over interests and regulating institutions in specific social conditions by groups and movements, knows that those who have been exempt from such control so far, and in this period, say that the legitimacy of a system means the adaptation of the regime to the public society, the basis of the relationship between a political system and society, and thus legitimacy has a direct relationship with democracy.

Hossein Bashiri presents this position in the following way: “Social support deficit + legitimacy deficit + inefficiency + disruption of power and coercion + organized opposition with leadership and revolutionary ideology = collapse and political revolution.” The term “legitimacy” here refers to the sociological concept of public acceptance and approval. Max Weber also sees legitimacy as the manifestation of the mental and internal acceptance of the ruling power among members of society.

Hossein Bashiri discusses the political culture of Iran in the concept of “Amreit/Tabeiat political culture”, which considers the main factor in the formation of such a culture to be the ideology and attitudes of the ruling groups in the government. Bashiri states that this attitude (in the Amreit political culture) has inevitably led to the creation of a one-sided vertical power structure. The culture of Tabeiat and the construction of a general power relationship have been mutually reinforcing.

Given these definitions and a look at the history of organized politics, which refers to the formation of community-based institutions such as newspapers and political parties, it is not far from reality to claim that the history of political imprisonment in Iran dates back to approximately one hundred years ago.

1- With a closer look at history, it can be seen that the existence of a role defined as a political prisoner has always been in line with the existence and establishment of authoritarian and dictatorial political structures. It is a form of collective executive power that is initially created and accepted based on the social background and needs, and in the next stage, based on defined interests and goals that only meet the needs of the dominant group, it leads to dissatisfaction in other parts of society. This dissatisfaction usually ends with public protests being violently suppressed by the government, and this is the way the ruling power structure deals with it. In most governments, even in different times and places, this has led to dissatisfaction and resistance against the methods of exercising power and policies set by the government, turning into hidden and non-public struggles. This is the starting point for organized political work, which is formed based on the need for better and more effective results and the possibility of continuing the struggle among opponents.

2- It took a long time and a lot of expenses for the evolution of protest movements with different goals and natures to return to public processes and replace the definition of underground and guerrilla struggle with civil disobedience and non-violence. Perhaps this evolution began with Mazdak and Mani and Kaveh, and continued with Babak Khorramdin, Siahjamegan and Sarbedaran, and reached the Constitutional Revolution and the Jungle and Tudeh Party, and continued with ideological movements such as Fedayeen Islam, Faraqan Group, Mojahedin Organization and moderate parties like Freedom Movement and National Religious Movement, and led to the widespread social protests of 1978, which resulted in a revolutionary transformation of the ruling system at the time. Once again, the newly established Islamic government resorted to severe violence against its opponents, who were not unaware of any measures to suppress and eliminate them in the 1990s, and continued this approach in the

3- Based on the above summary and the fact that in a democratic social situation where the transition to institutionalizing the essence of democracy has taken place, there is no role for a political prisoner. It is also evident that in such a social context, a critic of government policies and a political opponent are not suppressed by police and security forces and are not subjected to imprisonment or physical elimination. It can be concluded that the existence of a political prisoner in social structures such as Iran is only defined when the ruling political power is maintaining and reconstructing its minimum legitimacy among relevant social bases, and replacing authority through suppression of opponents instead of legal and democratic legitimacy.

4- One of the reasons for the prevalence of the political prisoner phenomenon in Iran is the contamination of society with political ideology, rooted in religious ideology. The concerning issue is the transfer of this political contamination to the scattered and separated components of society, which are still orbiting around this central point. The problem of political ideology poses a serious obstacle to the transition from authoritarianism and totalitarianism to the organization of social democracy and the democratization of the behavior of social institutions. It manifests itself in various social roles, but with a common goal, and its strategy is to reform affairs based on opportunism, with the common outlet of religious ideology and the ruling center, in order to preserve and create the conditions for its desired ideological political life. This peripheral structure of power takes advantage of the tools created by democratic thinking and ideas, but uses them in an unrelated manner to the foundation of democracy. This is evident in the use of human rights as a means to enter the issue of political prisoners, by dividing

5- It seems natural that a social organization with such problems would be unsuccessful in its attempts to change and overthrow the government created by the ignorant majority of society, which has been transformed into a minimum-maintenance system for the security regime over the course of more than three decades. Although changes in social layers and politics have been initiated since the beginning of the absolutist government of the Islamic Republic, a government with such nature and mechanism still challenges the definition of political crime. This is because, with the identification of the type of action that is to be recognized as a political crime by the law and considering the level of politicization in society, nothing will be achieved except for the fact that the political system will quickly be faced with a large number of individuals who are included in the definition of political crime. If prison sentences are considered for these individuals, they will be recognized as political prisoners. As a result, the more the number of these prisoners increases, the more social dissatisfaction becomes evident. For this reason

Based on the above explanations, it can be said that in both sets, whether it is security prisoners or political prisoners, there is no specific definition and distinction by the government, and among recognized political activists, there is no affiliation to the government or even independence, except in a subjective and selective manner that is solely based on party and political interests. Perhaps in this context, raising some questions can create the possibility for clarification in this area.

Is someone who is in opposition to the power structure considered a political protester based on the definition of politics and government that came before?

Does an opponent and critic of the policies and programs of the ruling power only considered a political prisoner when they declare their opposition, criticism, and protest through peaceful actions and avoidance of violence?

Does being a political prisoner only refer to someone who has been active within the political system, or can it also include someone who is part of the power structure or closely associated with it?

Is only a person who is considered a political prisoner within the framework of laws and ruling power, and who takes action to oppose and express protest and resistance against the actions of these laws, taken into account?

If a social protester, who is recognized as an organizer of political parties and not a political activist, uses tools such as sticks, stones, and Molotov cocktails to defend themselves against oppression, would they be considered a political prisoner for this reason during their imprisonment? Or only if they engage in a defined action to criticize the ideological foundations and policies of the ruling government?

Is it considered as a hidden act of resistance if a dissatisfied member of society, due to the closed space for criticism and dialogue and the high sensitivity of the ruling power towards opposing views, expresses their opinion, criticism, and activities for enlightening and organizing collective power in a hidden manner while enduring the condemnation of being a political prisoner?

Can every member of society who protests against the policies, programs, orders, laws, and regulations enforced by the government or state be considered a political activist, according to the definitions of politics, power, and legitimacy in the field of political sociology? And if the ruling power confronts this protester through the use of security and judicial tools and considers them as a political prisoner, will they be considered a political prisoner? Or is a person only considered a protester, critic, and opponent of the political system and a political prisoner when they are a member of an organized, structured, and party-based organization and act according to a specific code of conduct and manifesto?