How much power does the parliament wield within the Islamic Republic of Iran? Are the MPs true representatives of the people and their wishes, or do they owe their seats to the endorsement of the Supreme Leader and his acolytes? In this series of articles on the relationship between parliament and Ali Khamenei, we explore the answers to these questions.
Ayatollah Khamenei’s efforts to clip the wings of the legislature went to new lengths in 2010, during the tenure of the eighth Iranian parliament. In this period, the Supreme Leader succeeded in laying the groundwork for yet another body to temper the actions of people’s representatives. In time, this body came to be known as the Supervisory Board on the Conduct of Representatives.
In 2010, a year after the disputed 2009 presidential election, Khamenei called on MPs to “fully cooperate” with the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He also implicitly criticized them for making changes to bills introduced by Ahmadinejad’s administration.
In a speech to MPs a year later on May 29, 2011, he also castigated representatives for not following his advice – and ushered in a new organization to force them to do so. “Last year,” he said, “I suggested that you should establish self-regulation mechanisms in parliament. You should watch your own organization. Certain criticisms were voiced here and there, saying that MPs must be free. Nobody disagrees that MPs should have freedom. It is only deviant behavior that we are opposed to. MPs who display deviant behavior might tarnish the reputation of the parliament. Is it not a shame to see the reputation of such a great legislature being damaged?”
He went on: “In previous decades, we had a political current in the country which was called ‘leftist’. They chanted good slogans, but they failed to watch themselves and exercise communal piety. There were people among them who had individual piety, but the lack of communal piety ultimately made the situation so bad that seditionists who were opposed to Imam Hussein, to Islam, to Imam Khomeini and to the Revolution, could also rely on them. They did not shout out slogans against the Imam or the Revolution, but those who were shouting slogans against the Imam and the Revolution counted on them for support. This is a very serious danger... As such, communal piety is necessary.”
What was this “communal piety” that the Supreme Leader cited several times over in his speech? “Last year,” Khamenei clarified, “I suggested that you should establish self-regulation mechanisms in parliament. This is an example of communal piety.”
Finally, the Supreme Leader made it abundantly clear that what he really wanted was to silence those representatives who might dare to swim against the current. He did so in typical fashion: by issuing one apparently reasonable statement, then contradicting it moments later.
“I do not at all insist that different political tendencies should come together and unite as one,” he said. “Differences of taste, differences of opinion, different political viewpoints are natural. Such differences are beneficial in many cases, though they may have certain unwanted consequences in certain situations. There is no emphasis on eliminating these differences. The emphasis is on what I explained earlier: MPs must not attack each other, and these differences must not result in personal hostility and in ignoring America. They must have self-regulation mechanisms between themselves. They must watch themselves. They must not let their party be derailed.”
Another Sword of Damocles Over the Heads of MPs
For four decades now the Guardian Council has pruned and filtered parliamentary candidates and preventing apparent undesirables from getting into the legislature. The judiciary has also shown that it has no qualms about violating parliamentary privilege. Why, then, was Khamenei keen to create yet another organization, this time within parliament itself, to increase his control over the people’s representatives?
There were two key reasons for this decision:
1. Despite the extensive and rigorous control of the Guardian Council over the eligibility of candidates, and its power of veto over Acts of Parliament, some MPs invariably enter the legislature and go on to voice criticism against the regime unexpectedly.
2. The constitution of the Islamic Republic is very clear on parliamentary privilege, the immunity of MPs to reprisal for remarks made in session. This makes it costly for the judiciary to take action against MPs for perceived “deviation” in the course of their duties. On the other hand, a body within parliament confirms that a certain action or statement fell outside the sphere of parliamentary privilege, the judiciary has an easier time punishing them.
The Board to “Supervise” the Conduct of the Representatives
The eighth parliament was dominated by principalists and hardliners. On Khamenei’s orders, it duly approved the bill for the “Law on Parliamentary Supervision of the Conduct of Representatives”. At first the Guardian Council objected to certain provisions but in the end it rubber-stamped the bill and it formally became law on April 21, 2012.
According to this law, each new parliament must form its own Supervisory Board on the Conduct of Representatives within three months after its term starts. The board has the following responsibilities:
1. Deal with reports on alleged financial or moral offenses by representatives, including on unconventional income and expenses;
2. Examine reports of unethical behavior by representatives;
3. Investigate reports of acts by representatives against the “national security” of the country and other alleged criminal acts, from a disciplinary perspective.
If and when the board comes to the conclusion that the a representative is guilty of any of these offenses, it can send the case to the judiciary. In other words, the board can bypass the constitutional immunity of members of parliament.
Coup de Grâce
As if this was not enough to undermine MPs’ independence, eight years later, the new principalists elected to the 11th parliament in February 2020, right before the outbreak of coronavirus was officially acknowledged in Iran, sent a bill almost immediately to the parliament’s steering board that sought to amend the conduct law.
Among other things, the bill proposed that representatives from the judiciary and the General Inspection Office, and a jurist from the Guardian Council, be added to the Supervisory Board. In other words, it would allow non-parliamentarians to judge the conduct of representatives.
Furthermore, the new bill sought to allow the Supervisory Board to independently summon and investigate any representative of its choosing, with or without a prior report. These amendments would constitute yet another step toward completely stripping MPs of their independence, destroying the separation of powers in the Islamic Republic for good and taking away MPs’ freedom to perform their duties as representatives of the Iranian people.
Related coverage:
Khamenei.com: Disenfranchising the Parliament, Part One
Khamenei.com: Disenfranchising the Parliament, Part Two
visit the accountability section
In this section of Iran Wire, you can contact the officials and launch your campaign for various problems
comments