Who is the government (in the broad sense) primarily accountable to?

The answer is clear on one side and dark on the other. According to international law, the government (State) must be accountable to other governments for some of its actions. Unfortunately, the Islamic Republic of Iran has not done much to contribute to the discussion of international responsibility in its history; such as the case of American diplomats (known as the hostage crisis), terrorist incidents that have occurred around the world and have been attributed to the Iranian government, such as the Amia explosion and the assassination of some dissidents in other countries, and more recently the Ukrainian plane, attacks on diplomatic facilities affiliated with the governments of Britain and Saudi Arabia, support for paramilitary groups in other countries, and discussions surrounding the JCPOA. On the other hand, the Iranian government plays an active role in human rights forums and prepares reports on itself and other countries, making them known to the world. Therefore, the Islamic Republic government considers itself responsible to some extent in the international arena.

On the other hand, the relationship between government positions is how they are accountable to each other. This is predetermined in the administrative and constitutional system; such as the accountability of a manager to the general manager or the accountability of the president to the parliament. If we set aside cases that are beyond the law, such as excessive powers of the Supreme National Security Council or institutions with an unknown nature like the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, to some extent we may be able to see relative order in the governance system of Iran from this perspective.

The third topic is the government’s responsibility towards the people. The people primarily include the citizens of Iran, and then anyone who is within the territory of Iran. The government’s civil responsibility is somewhat clear. If the government causes harm to someone, it must compensate them. In cases where assigning the harm to the government is difficult, such as air pollution, there are still provisions in place by law.

But what about when the discussion is not about damages, but about governance? According to the fourth principle of the Constitution, “all civil, criminal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies to all principles of the Constitution and other laws and regulations, and the determination of this matter is the responsibility of the jurists of the Guardian Council.” This principle lays the foundation for what we know as governance in the Islamic Republic. Everything must be Islamic, and the six jurists of the Guardian Council determine what is considered Islamic. The selection of the jurists of the Guardian Council is also subject to the approval of the Leader, according to Article 110, Section A, Clause 6 of the Constitution. It is not clear whether the jurists of the Guardian Council are accountable to the Leader or not, but we do not live in a legal vacuum; we know that dismissal and appointment are done by someone who

According to Article 107, the appointment of the leader is one of the duties of the Assembly of Experts. Now, members of the Assembly of Experts must pass through the filter of the Guardian Council, whose jurists are directly appointed by the leader, in order to participate in the elections. In recent years, there has been much talk about the holding of exams for candidates and disqualifications by the Guardian Council. It can be assumed that if the leader has a specific interpretation of being Islamic or not, it will be transferred to the members of the Assembly of Experts, in addition to the jurists of the Guardian Council who are directly appointed by him. Apart from the distance that arises between them, these individuals are accountable to the people. There is no mechanism in place for this, except for participating in elections where the candidates have been previously controlled by the same jurists of the Guardian Council. This juristocracy has become a place where populism should be established.

In fact, my share, as a non-cleric, is much less powerful than a small group of people who are clerics, even though the majority of society are also non-clerics. Among the clerics, 6 individuals hold more power. One of these members has always been a member of the Guardian Council since its establishment. In reality, the clerics themselves must also compete with each other for 5 appointed seats. This council, which must approve all laws of the country and filter all candidates in elections, is not accountable to the people. The leader is also not accountable to the people for the removal or appointment of these individuals, and must only convince the members of the Assembly of Experts to remain in their positions. The procedures for the Assembly of Experts elections, despite some flaws mentioned earlier, are not based on the candidate’s program or goal. Meaning, no one has run with the slogan of wanting to replace the leader. They simply say they are a good person and

The lower ranks of power include the President, the head of the judiciary, and the representatives of the parliament. The head of the judiciary is directly appointed by the leader and their duties are clear. The President must also pass through the filter of the Guardian Council. In fact, before the people’s vote in the elections, the vote of the Guardian Council has already been cast. Anyone whose opinion goes against the will of this council cannot pass this stage. In fact, the President must always be mindful not to do anything that would disqualify them in the future. If the people’s will does not align with the council’s, the President must choose between the two. Therefore, if we assume that the President is accountable to the people for their vote, they will also need the council’s approval in the first place. The representatives of the parliament are not independent from the council’s favor either. We still remember the case of the woman who was disqualified by the Guardian Council after winning the vote.

Let’s put aside the next layers of power. The lower layers are essentially the ones executing decisions that have been taken in these two layers. Therefore, their accountability or lack thereof is not of great importance. The concentration of power in the system of the rule of the Supreme Leader is in the hands of 7 individuals (1 main and 6 changeable) and there is no accountability between them. Perhaps the reason for this is belief in the afterlife and accountability to God, but at least accountability to the people is not foreseen in the current constitutional law.