The goal of this article is to familiarize with the key role and function of whistleblowers in holding the government accountable, especially in appointed and bureaucratic sectors. Whistleblowing by a government employee from within a governmental institution is not only an act in the realm of media and news, but also a crucial element in the democratic political structure for holding the government accountable. Therefore, whistleblowers must be legally protected; for example, the VA Accountability Act in US laws supports whistleblowers against discrimination, termination, and threats.

But who is a whistleblower? Does a whistleblower not fulfill their legal or work obligations? The term whistleblower does not refer to anyone who publicly discloses confidential or organizational information in the media. What justifies and legitimizes a whistleblower legally can be explained as follows:

Every government employee, regardless of their position or rank, is ultimately committed and loyal to the country’s constitution. Their loyalty to the constitution (and therefore their loyalty to the country and its people) takes precedence over their loyalty to the institution they work for. Additionally, that institution must also be loyal to the constitution and national interests. In other words, a government employee’s loyalty to a government institution is only valid as long as that institution itself remains loyal to the country’s constitution. Otherwise, loyalty to the constitution takes priority and the individual is obligated to report any violations.

This proves that if an institution commits an act contrary to the constitution or conspires against the nation, then since the loyalty of the mentioned employee is to the constitution and the welfare of the nation, it takes precedence over their loyalty to the government institution. It is their legal duty to expose this corruption and conspiracy. Revealing confidential information of the government and its institutions is only justified if the whistleblower can comply with the above condition and demonstrate that the chain of loyalty to the constitution has been broken. Therefore, they must also break the chain of command and act against the above orders.

In case of law-breaking and conspiracy by an institution, not only employees and government officials are obligated to disclose the information, but the entire government body and its institutions are responsible for supporting the whistleblower against retaliatory actions. However, this support is not limited to just that. The parliament, congress, or any other institution responsible for investigation and impeachment must take testimony from the whistleblower. In this way, the whistleblower, by taking an oath to tell the truth in front of the parliament or congress, takes responsibility for their statements and can face legal consequences if proven to be lying or falsely accusing. By accepting this risk of testifying in front of the parliament, the whistleblower shows their commitment to the truth and that they did not fabricate lies for public attention or specific political goals. In the next stage, the congress or parliament can initiate an investigation against the mentioned institution based on the testimonies of the whistleblower and hold that institution accountable.

Legal protection of whistleblowers ensures that their disclosure does not harm the integrity and functioning of administrative institutions, as the whistleblower is also held accountable for their statements and knows that they must not disclose any other confidential information related to the misconduct. Otherwise, they will not be protected by the law. Additionally, official investigations into the disclosed information prevent the spread of rumors and falsehoods under the guise of whistleblowing.

In summary, in a democratic political structure, whistleblowing and legal protection of it are fundamental mechanisms for holding government institutions accountable.

Non-elected institutions and positions, with a set of multiple tasks, complex organizational regulations and extensive functions, usually stay away from the media’s reach. On the other hand, appointed officials are also not personally interested in being present in the media and being accountable, as they do not need to launch election campaigns. Therefore, corruption and conspiracy may thrive within the depths of government bureaucracy. Although in a democratic system, all appointed institutions must ultimately be under the command of an elected institution and position, we are well aware that many actions may remain out of the oversight of the elected institution (such as a president) or that they may compromise for various reasons. Consider a country’s intelligence service that can keep many of its illegal and conspiratorial actions hidden and, under the pretext of preserving the country’s secrets and security, does not need transparency and accountability. So what the people and the media are not aware of, cannot hold this institution accountable, nor can even a higher elected institution such as the presidency.

Therefore, in the face of such unaccountable institutions, only a whistleblower can hold the system accountable. He declares that he has chosen loyalty to the constitution and government institution over the first and is willing to defend his position with testimony in parliament. Legal protection for whistleblowers ensures that the integrity and functioning of institutions are not threatened by the leakage of confidential information.

But what can motivate and encourage a government employee to become a whistleblower? Some may argue that patriotism can urge an individual to refrain from betraying and revealing the hidden conspiracies of a government institution against the country. However, patriotism is highly ambiguous and just as a whistleblower can label their actions as patriotic, the mentioned institution can also have their own version of patriotism, often justified with vague terms such as national security. It is important to carefully distinguish what should be disclosed and what should not. Only the constitution can provide a criterion to determine which actions are in conflict with the constitution and which are not. Therefore, whistleblowing is not an act of impulse, personal opinion, emotions, or feelings (apparently patriotic), but a calculated legal action that requires the classification of information.

Although there is no hope for whistleblowing to become a legal process in an oppressive political system like the Iranian regime, it should be recognized in the political discourse of Iranian society. In this regard, the protection of whistleblowers and the process of listening and investigation can be entrusted to international institutions. As a suggestion, it may be possible to establish a mechanism for whistleblowing to transform from personal narratives in asylum interviews to a formal and legal process with the mutual commitment of the whistleblower to take an oath to tell the truth.

In summary, behind the legal concept of whistleblowing as a mechanism for holding government institutions accountable, lies the important principle that protecting the constitution is the duty of every citizen, and an individual’s loyalty to the constitution takes precedence over their loyalty to a government institution. However, the constitution must also adhere to human rights and citizenship, so an individual’s loyalty to human rights takes precedence over any other loyalty or professional and legal responsibility. If the constitution violates human rights, then a legal whistleblower can become a human rights whistleblower, and just as a democratic government is obligated to protect whistleblowers, there is also a need for international institutions and mechanisms to protect human rights whistleblowers.