Accountability of rulers to citizens, the duty of all governments towards all citizens. But what are the roots and foundations of this duty and the reasons for its importance? Why is obtaining an answer considered a citizen’s right? What is the current state of accountability and justice as the residence of citizens’ rights in Iran today? These are questions that the monthly magazine Khat-e-Solh has pursued to go to Dr. Ali Akbar Gerji Andariani, head of the Iranian Association of Fundamental Law, and sit down with him to discuss this issue.

Dr. Gorgi, in this conversation, while discussing the reasons and importance of accountability, said, “Democracy without accountability and meaningful response is meaningless.” He added that “the situation in Iran is not one that we can compare to fully constitutional and fully democratic governments.” Dr. Ali Akbar Gorgi, the managing editor and owner of the journal of fundamental rights, further emphasized that “the overall problem in Iran is the same problem of constitutionalism, democracy, and rule of law,” while also addressing the issue of the lack of independence of the judiciary in relation to the leadership in the peace process, saying that “no one even thinks that the judiciary can enter into matters in which the leadership exercises authority.”

Dr. Gorji, who has a record of membership in the legal deputy of the presidency during Hassan Rouhani’s government, continued to say, “When you get close to the leadership institutions and the leader himself, there, the right to protest is completely stopped and limited.”

This lawyer and university professor also told us in the peace line magazine that during his time in office in Hassan Rouhani’s government, he stood up for justice, freedom, and the constitution, and has been harmed and is still paying the price for it. He warned institutions and individuals in the peace line and added, “None of the institutions I mentioned have done what we said.”

You can read the transcript of the interview with Dr. Ali Akbar Gerji Andarjani, the head of the Iranian Association of Fundamental Law and former member of the Legal Deputy of the Presidency, in the monthly magazine “Khat-e-Solh”.

At first, if possible, some of the responsibility of answering lies with the rulers.رود به سیستم

Login to the system

Tell its roots.

To accurately determine the foundations and legal principles of the responsibility of rulers to be accountable and the right of citizens to be answered, we must refer to the issue of the right of sovereignty. If we accept that in the framework of a modern nation-state, sovereignty belongs to the people and is not a divine or metaphysical gift, genetic characteristic, or a phenomenon achieved through domination and force, then there will be numerous consequences for this perception of sovereignty. When the assumption of rulers and leaders is that they exercise power on behalf of each individual citizen, it is natural that they see themselves as indebted and accountable to the people. Therefore, political and legal systems in which rulers govern on behalf of the members of the nation are obligated to be accountable. In a sense, citizens in these types of governments have the right to be answered by the government, rulers, and public sector.

If we want to broaden this foundation a little, we can say that the principle of accountability for the government and the right of citizens to receive necessary answers from those in power is rooted in a broader concept known as participation. When power and authority come from the people, the true owners of power and true rulers (who are the people themselves) participate in their political life and demonstrate their will, influencing the way the political space of the country is organized. This human right to participate in the political arena, which is one of the most fundamental rights, requires accountability and the existence of a duty to respond for those in charge.

The point here is that democracy without accountability and meaningful response has no meaning. Conditional power is in a sense created through this responsibility and the right to respond. The phrase “لا یسال عما یفعل” is specific to pharaohs and so-called tyrants. If we want to mention it in religious literature, tyrants, pharaohs, dictators, and despots are those who say “لا یسال عما یفعل”. They say that no one has the right to question what we do. Why? Because in their opinion, no one is worthy or qualified except for that righteous despot. In other words, everyone is ignorant, common, and subject to their rule. This means that there is a despotic ruler who can do whatever they want and it will be considered sweet.

In your opinion, is there a meaningful relationship between accountability and democracy?

Answering and responding to the characteristics of constitutional systems and governments, as well as the characteristics of republican and democratic governments, is essential. Therefore, the more we increase the number of authorities, administrations, and non-accountable organizations in governance systems, the further we will move away from constitutionalism and democracy. This is why I would like to point out that even in constitutional monarchies where the king and royal family have seized unequal and discriminatory power, their lack of accountability – as indicated by the constitutional law – distances us from constitutional and democratic power.

Why are the victims or their survivors seeking answers?

It is obvious that without accurate information and precise description and explanation of events and various matters, you cannot come to a judgment. For example, in incidents that occur in a country for an institution, organization, or individual, that institution and government are obligated to be accountable. This also goes back to the fact that humans are the owners of rights and government. Therefore, if any harm or damage is caused to citizens by political powers, those governments are undoubtedly responsible for compensating for that damage. Victims and survivors also have the natural right to seek answers and hold political powers and institutions accountable.

What do you believe are the main obstacles preventing citizens from being able to hold the government accountable in Iran? Is it the problem of existing laws and barriers, or their lack of enforcement?

The story of Iran must be analyzed in a broader context. The government in Iran has not yet become truly constitutional and is still in the early stages of constitutionalism. We are still in the formal and superficial stage of constitutionalism. If this superficial form does not evolve into a substantive and rights-based constitutionalism within a reasonable timeframe, it will essentially turn into a dictatorship. In other words, we will see a type of constitutional dictatorship. The situation in Iran is not one that can be compared to fully constitutional and democratic governments. Therefore, the main problem in Iran is the problem of constitutionalism, democracy, and rule of law. Whenever the elements of a rule of law government are realized in Iran, naturally the obstacles and even the inability to respond will be resolved.

While in the midst of this analysis, it must be said that both the laws are at fault and their lack of enforcement. This means that we have serious problems in our legal and judicial system. Additionally, the education of our leaders and citizens, as well as issues such as legal and political culture, are serious obstacles. We fundamentally still need to practice democracy, freedom, rule of law, dialogue, tolerance, and non-violence together. Transparency and non-violence are necessary in various areas of our society. It is not surprising that the government sometimes violates these principles and foundations. However, the reality is that the state of our society is not entirely defensible. Just look at how we treat each other in this virtual space. For example, as soon as a republican declares their position, the monarchists immediately attack them and put them in a position of “adoration” until they regret their decision. On the other hand, we are also witnesses to a lack of transparency. Therefore, our

One of the main elements in upholding citizens’ rights is an independent judicial system. Do you think the judiciary in Iran is independent? Does it bear any resemblance to modern judicial systems in the world?

The judicial system in Iran is both formal and informal. In terms of formality, this system operates within the framework of the horizontal separation of powers theory and has a certain degree of independence from the legislative and executive branches. However, in practice, the first blow to the independence of the judiciary comes from the fact that the leadership can be considered the ultimate authority within the judiciary. This means that the judiciary never truly has independence from the leadership. This is also why it is not even considered possible for the judiciary to intervene in matters where the leadership exercises its authority. Although we can interpret the constitution in a way that contradicts this initial statement and say that according to the constitution, the leader is a position that is indirectly elected and fully accountable, and there is no prohibition in the constitution against filing a complaint against the leadership in public courts. However, when we see that the law explicitly states that institutions such as the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, the Supreme National Security Council, and various other institutions

The second issue is a practical one. It means that we can no longer rely on laws and such matters. The problem is that the judiciary does not have practical independence from the commanders and military and security forces under their command. In what cases is this independence measured? In difficult cases and files. In small cases, the judge says that my opinion differs from that of the commander. But in sensitive cases, political and security files, we have seen time and time again that these commanders are the determining factor in the entire judicial process. In my opinion, this undermines the values and ideals of the constitution and fundamental justice, and I hope that a solution will be considered in this regard. Because even during the constitutional monarchy era, the most important concern of the Iranian people has been the judiciary. The concern for justice has been our two-hundred-year-old concern, which unfortunately has not yet been achieved in its standard and fair meaning.

Modern judicial systems, in addition to being equipped with knowledge and modern technology, are flexible, innovative, and transformational, and the independence of judges is easily accepted in them. In these systems, judicial power is a power that can affect the public and political sphere within the framework of justice and fairness, and in a sense, legalize a political issue. In modern states, in addition to these, the independence of judicial power is such that sometimes it can even act and issue a verdict against the highest political authority in the country. Examples of this have been seen many times in Western countries. Within the framework of a modern judiciary, judicial immunity is meaningless for meaningless rulers. While we still see in the judiciary of the Islamic Republic, some political authorities are considered immune in practice and opinion. While in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, no one, not even the leader, is immune.

Are there any institutions in Iran that can monitor the right of citizens to respond and how is their mechanism?

You can consider parliamentary institutions for this right of response. You can also consider commissions and institutions such as the Court of Audit and the Article 90 Commission, or even members of parliament and their spokesperson and president. The problem here is that Iranian parliamentarism is in crisis and we also have problems in this area. Iranian parliamentarism is so damaged that it cannot even solve a very obvious and clear problem like the issue of cars in the country. A representative who had raised the flag of solving car problems in Iran is ultimately disqualified and crushed, and there is essentially no accountability.

On the other hand, when the unions, NGOs and civil institutions want to show a lot of independence, they will face specific reactions and ultimately either have to be abolished and dissolved or take an intermediate path and proceed slowly and calmly so that extremists do not harm them.

Furthermore, there are institutions such as the Islamic Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Headquarters in the judiciary, but they are unable to do much in practice. Even now, under Mr. Rouhani’s government, a committee for the implementation of the constitution has been formed. It is natural that we cannot expect these institutions to have the audacity, courage, and demand for rights, and to stand for justice, freedom, and the constitution without any hesitation. In Mr. Rouhani’s government, in the legal deputy of the presidency, we have stood up and fought many times, and we have also faced its consequences. I am still paying the price for that time. Why? Because I made a promise to myself and my God to not be afraid and not compromise when it comes to defending the constitution to the best of my abilities. That is why I even warned the Guardian Council at that time. I warned Mr. Alamolhoda. I warned various institutions and the selection system, and

In your opinion, to what extent can the existence of an independent media play a role in this regard?

Independent media is a tool for independent expression, especially when this expression challenges political, economic, and cultural powers. If the media is not independent, it naturally cannot defend this critical expression.

In many cases, we have conducted interviews and raised issues that official newspapers have told us we cannot publish. Because it is dangerous and could shut down the newspaper. While none of my statements were fundamentally outside the framework of the Islamic Republic’s constitution. These very statements that I have also expressed in this conversation are completely within the framework and in fact the structure of the republic that is being discussed. Therefore, it is not necessarily contrary to the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. But in this area, there is a kind of conservatism prevailing.

Independent media is the defender of freedom of expression. It protects the rights and freedoms of the people and undoubtedly, such media supports holding those in power accountable and is a staunch defender of the right to respond.

Thank you for the time you have given us in the Khatt-e-Solh magazine.