Ali Akbar Moosavi Khoeyni, a former student activist, sixth parliament representative, and former secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Republic of Iran Graduates, is a symbol of unity. During his time as a representative, he repeatedly addressed public demands in the sixth parliament and paid the price for his words and actions with long-term detention. His lawyer, Mohammad Sharif, declared at the time that “the charges against Moosavi were related to interviews he had given to various media outlets during his time as a parliament representative, based on the rights granted by Article 84 of the Iranian Constitution.”

We sat down with this former representative of the parliament and political activist to discuss the issue of continuous monitoring of the residents of Baharestan by the Guardian Council. In this conversation, Musavi described the duties of the Guardian Council in the field of monitoring and called this new type of monitoring a “disaster,” “shameful,” and “throwing sand and mud on the face of the half-open democracy and elections” of the country.

He also referred to the political context of the country by examining the reasons for implementing this type of monitoring and added that “the changes that have taken place in the political structure of the country after 88 have brought the Guardian Council to this point.”

We read below the explanation of the peace talks with this former representative of the Iranian Islamic Consultative Assembly and political activist residing in the United States.

What is your analysis of the Guardian Council’s pursuit of continuous monitoring of parliament members?

“I think the main reason for the Guardian Council’s fear is the emergence and rise of forces that were previously unknown and have recently become more recognized among members of parliament. The Guardian Council is afraid that despite all the filters they have put in place before the elections and the large budgets they have allocated for things like setting up numerous offices, if a candidate with even a hint of criticism emerges, they will reject them. There may be individuals who have found their way into parliament, despite having these characteristics. They may even come from other backgrounds, such as the principlists, and later become aware of the information and want to oppose the wrong paths that exist in the country’s management. A clear example of this is Ali Motahari, who even with the support of the reformists in recent years, openly states that he follows issues from an ideological perspective and comes from a principlist background. When Mr. Ali Motahari first came to parliament, perhaps few would have thought that the son

Do you consider these issues that have been raised regarding continuous monitoring only as a warning for possible disqualification in the future?

See, they can also make progress to some extent. They have tried to have this progress, but since the moderate conservative faction in the parliament, namely Mr. Ali Larijani, has not given the green light, the Guardian Council has also been somewhat halted and lowered its guard, and for now, it is moving forward under the title of a threat and presenting the issue as a subject. Otherwise, it was possible for them to make progress.

What is the purpose and desire of the Guardian Council in continuous monitoring of representatives and has this issue, even in a similar form, been a precedent?

Their discussion is about extending the circle of supervision and disqualification of representatives even to their current term of representation. That is, during these four years that they are representatives, at any moment the Guardian Council, thinking that a representative has the potential to make criticisms and take actions – which a collection of specific sections of the country’s hardline faction are against – decides and disqualifies them. This is a tragedy and throwing sand and gravel on the face of our half-closed democracy and elections that we have in our country. If such a thing happens, it will be very regrettable and one hundred percent against the explicit principles of the constitution, including Article 86 of the same law. Where in this article it says that representatives are free and no one can arrest or prosecute them. This issue is even worse; because it removes a representative from their authenticity and existence, which is representation on behalf of the people through the votes they have received from the people.

During the sixth term of parliament, representatives were being pursued. But this issue will be much worse than just being pursued. At that time, during Mr. Shahroudi’s term (in the judiciary), there were cases where representatives were summoned or arrested illegally. For example, Mr. Laghmanian, the representative of Hamedan, or myself, who, with the support and backing of Mr. Karoubi, did not go to the summons and ultimately they were not able to make much progress. But in any case, at that time they were trying to use the tool of being pursued and dealt with by the judiciary in an illegal manner. During my term as a representative, I never attended any court. Because this issue was completely illegal and fortunately, as I mentioned, the presiding board supported us. But in any case, the Shah’s family wants to add this, that surveillance should also extend to the term of representation.

Currently, according to the laws of the Islamic Republic, what areas is the Guardian Council authorized to oversee?

Executive bodies are responsible for executive and operational tasks according to the laws, but they do not have the right to reject someone based on their personal opinion. However, if they confirm or reject someone who is outside the legal framework, the Guardian Council can review the case according to existing laws to determine if the person has been correctly confirmed or rejected. If rejected, the Council can also determine if the rejection was in accordance with the laws and make a final decision. This is currently stated in the law. However, it should be noted that in the past and after the passing of the founder of the Islamic Republic, the Guardian Council exceeded their powers and crossed red lines, often giving their personal and political opinions. They never provided a clear reason for not allowing me to run for parliament, for example, stating that according to a certain clause, I am not authorized to be a candidate, which is against the law.

Based on the legal authority, it is necessary to refer to the Assembly for determining the expediency and, based on one of the legal cases specified by the powers of the Guardian Council and its executive bodies, obtain information from the regulatory institutions and the four authorities. For example, if someone has committed a crime, a serious offense, or what is known as a prominent corruption that would invalidate their candidacy, they must have evidence of these actions. This requires the judiciary to announce that this person, for example, has committed theft and this is also the ruling of the court. For example, the law enforcement agency may write that according to this document, they have committed a crime and we have sent them to court and they have been convicted. Or the Ministry of Intelligence may announce that they have been accused of espionage and this has been proven. Because it is not enough for the Ministry of Intelligence to simply announce that this person is accused of espionage, according to the accepted law, and that person must

Dear Mr. Musavi, in your opinion, what has happened that the Guardian Council has now reached a new interpretation of supervision?

The changes that have occurred in the country’s political landscape after 1988 have brought the Guardian Council to this point. As I mentioned, it seems that the main reason for this is that despite narrowing the circle of approved qualifications and becoming more partisan, they have still seen individuals emerge in some assemblies who did not behave according to their wishes. In fact, they did not pay attention to the fact that it is not important for someone to simply have a label of being principled, reformist, or independent; they are all human and should be accountable to the people’s vote. In the process of their representation, they may receive information or be put in situations where they can no longer tolerate and take action beyond a certain point. They may not even be good speakers or may be afraid of the consequences of their speeches and positions, but they are honorable people who preserve their integrity in their field of expertise. For example, if someone is a doctor and goes to the Health Commission, when a violation

Therefore, the gentlemen saw that in this process, all the strictnesses have not been completely effective. Even within the front of stability, if you release some individuals and give them a position, they see that as representatives of the parliament – whose name is everywhere – they have a position and why should they be under the control of one person from morning till night. Those same individuals, although they have been supported by some people in power, may find themselves in situations where their conscience is at stake or they are under pressure from society. They also become aware that those who turned a blind eye to certain issues and only justified the wrongdoings and were subservient to special and powerful institutions, had negative consequences. The Guardian Council is very concerned and the only way it sees ahead is to present such a plan now and say that even in these four years, a hammer should be held over the heads of representatives so that if they are to be shaken, we do not allow them to continue their

You mentioned the four main references. These references are generally a source of supervision, known as intelligence supervision. From the 1970s onwards, according to the announcement of the Secretary of the Council, the supervision of the Guardian Council has been determined as supervisory approval. In your opinion, what is the connection between this new understanding of the supervision of the Guardian Council and the issue of “supervisory approval” for the parliamentarians?

There is no relationship between these two and this proposal [general election policies] is even a violation of that supervision. This type of supervision at least allows the elected and sworn-in individual, with a confirmed certificate, to remain a representative. It considers the next four years, and if that representative makes a mistake according to their own standards (which is also against the law), they will not be confirmed again. But here they go further and say that if a person has voted, taken an oath, and their certificate has been confirmed in the parliament, we can still reject them at any moment and before the end of their four-year term. In fact, it is a new claim that they have forcefully brought up, hoping that with the support of some centers of power, they can throw it in and if not, at least create fear and chaos among the representatives. Unfortunately, they see the country in this way and with this type of political behavior, they move forward.

I am sorry to say that this Guardian Council, to which this very law has given permission to monitor, does not speak out against corrupt individuals who have committed millions of thefts and become representatives through deceitful tactics. Their concern is not for individuals who have such problems. They show no sensitivity towards those who have brought our country to this point with their thefts and mismanagement, depleted our resources, and put Iran on the brink of an environmental crisis and other vital problems. This is true for both the approval of qualifications and the statements made in this recent proposal. Those who, under the title of the Guardian Council, are now raising such proposals, do not express any concern about the mentioned issues. They do not send a signal to society that we are concerned about thieves or those who have plundered the resources of this country, and if the representatives are contaminated with such things, we can disqualify them at any time. Of course, even in such circumstances, there is a legal

What could be the potential impact of this continuous monitoring on parliament members and the parliament’s duty in relation to laws and the government?

It is clear that they may want to impose unnecessary precautions on the representative. This authority of the representative, who can be accountable to ministers under the supervision and control of representatives and specialized commissions, can threaten and in fact take away their freedom and independence and make them ineffective. While they should perform their duties with freedom of action and thought, with the support of the constitutional law that has given them authority. In any case, it is highly likely that there are weak elements in the government who have entered for some reason; representatives must correct their inefficiency. The duty of the representative is to, for example, if a minister cannot fulfill his promises and has made baseless statements when taking a vote of confidence, or has made claims that he later did not fulfill his duty for any reason, even if it is not allowed by the country’s conditions, bring him to the parliament and hold him accountable and even dismiss him if necessary. And even above the ministers, he can bring the president to question and

As the final question, you were a member of parliament. The element of “national sovereignty” is mentioned in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. The parliament is the “house of the nation” and according to the interpretation of the founder of the Islamic Republic, it is “at the forefront of affairs”. What is the contradiction between this type of continuous supervision and that type of national sovereignty and the parliament being at the forefront of affairs, and the right of national sovereignty that must be addressed in this structure?

The reality is that many of these issues, even before this proposal, have been violated by the actions of the Guardian Council and have deprived the country of many forces that could have served and had independence, and their abilities, expertise, and experience could have been a help to the country. Ultimately, they allowed some forces (I don’t want to say all) to grow and come and become representatives of the people, whose flattery overshadows their other qualities, including their expertise and qualifications – which are conditions for representing the people – and they are the ones who always flatter and flatter. Therefore, individuals who are opportunistic, flatterers, and sycophants, who have been condemned in our religious teachings and have been accelerated in laws, have been given a field. Now, if this happens and in fact, God forbid, this proposal is also implemented, we must read the funeral of this half-closed democracy. In this case, I think talking about national sovereignty and

If you have any points regarding this topic that we did not mention in the questions, please let us know at the end.

I hope that the Guardian Council, not just for political reasons, but for the sake of the country’s future and the young generation who are seeking jobs today (according to available statistics, more than 65% of our society is under 35 years old and most of them are seeking employment), will put these discussions aside and allow the current representatives in the parliament who have claimed to fight corruption to take action on this issue in all its dimensions and fulfill their promises to improve the living conditions of the people first and foremost, and alongside that, restore a peaceful political atmosphere and increase cooperation – so that forces can find common ground and reach agreements on minimum requirements to resolve some of the important issues of the country. Especially since it must be mentioned that the international situation has also changed and we have not taken full advantage of the opportunities that were available during the presidency of Mr. Obama in the United States, and if we do not act in a timely manner and remain distracted by these distractions, the conflicts will

Thank you very much for the opportunity you have given us.