Iran's Foundation: The Vilayat-e-Faqih Doctrine

Iran's current system represents the culmination of centuries of religious thought and a turbulent political history

by Ali-Asad

Iran attempts to balance popular sovereignty with divine authority (1). Iran's constituion was designed to give more power to its theocratic element. But over time, this element has accumulated much more power and has come to dominate Iran's democratic institutions. This trend has created an enduring tension within the country - tension that came to a head last month over claims of electoral fraud. Now, the political crisis has progressed into a new phase where the very legitimacy of the system itself is in question. Specifically, the foundation of its theocratic element is being reexamined.

While theories of popular sovereignty and democracy have been studied well, the basis of Iran’s theocracy has not; it is the Vilayat-e-Faqih doctrine (VEF). To understand VEF, we must go back to the very beginnings of Islam and the original Sunni-Shia divide.


---------------------


As discussed previously (2), after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 623 AD, his close companion Abu Bakr assumed the leadership mantle. Though his ascension took place under controversial circumstances, acceptance of Abu Bakr's leadership quickly became the orthodox view among a majority of Muslims - the Sunni. They maintain that after the Prophet no other held divinely-sanctioned authority, and so the pious were left to choose their leaders and run their own affairs by consultation (shura) and concensus (ijma'). Contemporary Muslim thinkers claim that Islam has contributed towards the theory of democracy with these ideas. But history is less kind. After the immediate successors, leadership among the Muslim community disintegrated over time into a mixture of Dynasties, Empires and Kingships who were no democratic bunch. These rulers skillfully exploited faith by using doctrines of predestination as a shield. They claimed that they ruled because God wills all human activity and, therefore, any opposition to them was opposition to God. This charade survives today in places that need not be named.

Back in the 7th century AD, a group of the faithful insisted that Muhammad had actually nominated a successor: Ali, his first cousin and son-in-law. This group became the Shiat Ali, or the supporters of Ali – they would continue to follow Ali and his designated descendents as divinely appointed guides – Imams. These beliefs later developed as points of doctrine including designation (nass) whereby God's representatives may legitimately nominate their successor and leadership (imamah) describing the qualities of God's chosen representatives. However, both Sunni and Shia doctrine developed well after Muhammad's death, in a time of great intellectual fervor.

The first few centuries of Islam after the Prophet were very productive times for Islamic thought. For the Sunni community, God’s last representative on Earth had departed leaving them to concentrate on canonizing Prophetic traditions and finalizing theological doctrines. Additionally, the faithful engaged in speculative discussions on the nature of God, the Qur’an and the nature of destiny. These discussions required philosophers to combine knowledge of texts and traditions with inner senses of reasoning and morality to achieve a higher level of understanding, an undertaking known as ijtehad - the struggle for knowledge. But in the 10th century ijtehad within the Sunni community came to an abrupt halt mainly as a reaction against rationalist theologians who questioned God's power by giving more weight to logic, causality and human free will. The Sunni have shunned ijtehad ever since.

The Shia, while also engaged in theological speculation, always had an Imam present. But as a minority movement, the Shia community experienced greater oppression and constant surveillance, which restricted the movement and communication of the Imams. Eventually, the 12th Imam (the eleventh after Ali) was forced to completely seclude himself for mortal fear and used a network of representatives to guide his supporters. Then, the 12th Imam disappeared completely, and the faithful were thrown into disarray. Nevertheless, the faithful, with the help of the Imam’s representatives, quickly settled on the idea that the Imam had only occulted; God had temporarily withdrawn him from the physical world for a later return with Jesus to fight for justice. In the absence of the Imam, the Shia embarked on a gradual but sustained effort in developing a distinctly Shia identity and practice using their own texts and reasoning - the method of ijtehad. But an important question arose; what role did religious scholars play in a community with a spiritual vacuum?

Initially, Shia clerics resisted any community role, which they demonstrated by their stance on collecting religious alms: in the 12th Imam’s time, this charity was collected and administered by the Imam for assisting the poor and communal development. After the Imam, the clerics refused to collect and administer these alms arguing that only the Imam had the authority to do so. This position changed when later Shia scholars successfully argued that someone had to administer this charity, and the clergy were the logical people to do so. This view gained wide acceptance and opened the door towards further clerical involvement including the development of doctrines such as taqleed (imitation) whereby the faithful must seek to emulate a specific cleric’s rulings in terms of religious practice. These clerics are ranked as Grand Ayatollahs, a title that al-Sistani in Iraq and Iran’s Supreme Leader both hold. While embracing taqleed's call for a greater clerical role in religious practice, al-Sistani practices quietism by shunning a role in politics.

However, some clerics embraced the idea of an overtly political role for the religious scholars. In this spirit, Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic Republic, developed Vilayat-e-Faqih - a theological basis for politically active clergymen. Both taqleed and VEF rely on interpreting various traditions from the 12th Imam where the Imam advises the faithful to “seek out the narrators of my traditions’’ after him because “they are my proof to you” (3). While quite vague, these traditions combined with centuries of thought, debate and discussion set a foundation for a more activist Shia clergy. In this context, VEF represents the furthest reach of clerical authority as a political theory and a religious doctrine.


---------------------


VEF translates as ‘Authority of the Jurist’ – the idea that an expert in religious law (the Jurist) has complete authority (Vilayat) over the faithful much the same way as the Imams and the Prophet before them. This Jurist represents the last delegation of God’s absolute authority over His creations – from God, to the Prophets and from the Last Prophet to the Imams and finally to the Jurist. Khomeini formed the VEF doctrine at a time when the Shah governed Iran as its monarch with an iron fist. The self-styled Shehen-Shah (King of Kings) resisted the clerics and oppressed many ordinary Iranians, including the pious. It was these people who came out by the millions to support Khomeini and overthrow the Shah in the 1979 revolution. But they had little idea that Khomeini had a very specific vision for post-revolution Iran – one where the clerics held the final say in all matters.

To Khomeini, the people were always too prone towards moral degradation and corruption to be left in control of their own affairs. Rather, they needed a guide who could steer society towards moral purity. So, Khomeini oversaw the creation of a Supreme Leader within Iran’s constitution - an absolute authority designed to check the people’s excesses. This system heavily relies on the military for support and specifically the Revolutionary Guards division, who as their name suggests, are charged with guarding the Islamic Revolution. This alliance gave birth to a new authoritarian regime based not on a monarch's claim over his subjects, but God's right over humankind. And when men inherit God's authority, they leave no room for men to rule themselves.

And that's jus' the tip.

References/Further Reading

(1) Untangling Iran's Politics, at Jus' the Tip
(2) Understanding Sunni-Shia, at Jus' the Tip
(3) The Occultation of the 12th Imam (A Historical Background), Jassim Hussein
(4) How Quarreling Ayatollahs affect Iran's Crisis, Time Magazine

* Special thanks to Clint Johnson for his help with this article. Clint blogs at Why We Worry.

Fiscal & Monetary Policy for Fun

by Ali-Asad

Governments possess two sets of tools that help combat recessions - monetary and fiscal policy. However, the language of economics makes it difficult to understand these ideas; talk of 'quantitative easing', 'fiscal stimulus' and 'stagflation' only helps induce mental atrophy. But I've found two simulations that help promote the understanding of these concepts without the unneeded lingo.


Firstly, the Bank of Finland's monetary policy simulation allows you to control monetary policy; your goals is to keep prices stable (you'd be pretty panicked if the price of bread kept going up everyday). Your only tool is the interest rate, which...oh right - no lingo. Basically, low interest rates help increase prices because people save less (you get less interest at the bank) and buy more things. If more people buy more things, prices go up. This game is quite visually stimulating with colorful animation - though the highlight has to be the TV commentator who updates you on the status of the economy - in Finnish. Classic stuff.


Secondly, 'The economy, stupid' puts you in control of a small European country's fiscal policy; you control how much the government takes in (through taxes) and how much the government spends (through retirement/unemployment benefits and public sector spending). As you start, the country is spending more than it's taking in, and you've got to bring things into balance before the next election (the people care what you do with their money). Your decisions will impact certain groups more than others so watch your approval ratings - they may come to haunt you. Also, your country is quite small and so depends heavily on the global economy for growth - exports will help your economy grow, along with you revenue. But the global economy is quite unpredictable. By fiddling about, you can try your hand at running a welfare/socialist economy (high taxes, high spending) or a laissez-fair/business friendly economy (low taxes, low spending). It's your economy, stupid.

And that's jus' the tip.

Budgets for Fun

by Ali-Asad

Nothing provokes groans and feelings of boredom more than talk of budgets. Mix in the snooze-inducing phrases like 'deficits', 'marking up', 'structural imbalances' and you deserve to receive a prize for just finishing this sentence. However, this topic matters greatly. The current global financial crisis makes one thing very clear: countries all over the world, and especially the US, relied too heavily on debt to create wealth. And countries can go broke just as families can. The US federal budget does not add up; when you spend more than you earn, you have to borrow to make ends meet. And if you keep borrowing too much, you'll have to spend more and more on paying back what you owe. Eventually, you will not pay what you owe and then everything comes crashing down; confidence shatters, no one trusts anyone and money becomes worthless.

If this sounds like something worth understanding, check out I.O.U.S.A, a extremely well made documentary on the debt issue that has a free version on youtube. And on the lighter side, 'Budget Hero' is a public interest online game putting you in the position of deciding where money should go, and then forecasting how the economy will look 20 to 50 years down the line. Budgets matter even if they're no fun.


And that's jus' the tip.

The Vice President's Conscience

by Ali-Asad

Joseph R. Biden Jr. got into politics for one issue: civil rights. When he reached the senate, the Voting Rights act had already been passed and the country was set on a new path towards racial reconciliation. Once in the senate, Biden turned his attention towards another issue he deeply cared about - campaign finance reform (CFR) - the idea that money should be separated from politics by having the government finance all political campaigns. If legislated, CFR would level the playing field and allow political campaigns to be about ideas and policies, and not dependent on incumbency and fundraising. But Biden never got very far; warned by his colleagues that no one in congress would support an idea that eliminated the advantage of incumbency, Biden dropped the issue.

Now, Joe Biden has a boss who in theory likes the idea of campaign finance reform but in practice almost broke the back of CFR supporters. After securing the Democratic nomination, then-senator Obama broke his pledge and opted out of he public financing system for presidential candidates - which McCain abided by - in order to take advantage of his superior fundraising machine, and the fundraising abilities of the candidate himself. This decision allowed Obama to safely secure his victory over the Arizona senator on election night, 2008. Now, President Obama does not appear interested in delving into an issue which greatly concerns his deputy - the issue remains absent from the whitehouse's list of important policies. Though a possible second term issue, achieving CFR requires great popular consensus, dedication and political will. While this issue does not garner as much attention - or vitriol - as abortion or healthcare, the ideological divide remains vast.

CFR raises a fundamental constitutional issue as to what constitutes free speech - does money equal speech? Many liberals argue no on the basis that wealth is distributed unequally across society. The ultimate exercise of free speech, participating in an election, follows the principle of one man, one vote. But wealthy individuals wield disproportionate power in terms on wealth, and so have a lock on so called 'money speech'. So, the idea that money equals speech does a disservice to the first amendment and possibly violates equal protection and due process guaranteed therein. Most conservatives argue that separating money from politics violates first amendment rights in terms of freedom of speech and expression - everyone has an inherent right to express what policies and candidates they support, and the constitution in no way prohibits the use of a person's wealth to further those goals. Also, allowing the government to restrict how individuals can express their political views creates a slippery slope towards the further curtailing of civil liberties such as expressing unpopular opinions. So, the ability for individuals to use their own resources for political expression serves as a bulwark against governmental tyranny.

With such a huge ideological divide, congress has muddled through the issue with the Federal Election Campaign act of 1979 and McCain-Feingold in 2002 which accepts money's role in politics but with government regulations imposed. As with all compromises, neither side is happy and both sides have used lawyers to no end finding loopholes in the laws.In the current session, some members of congress have introduced a bill - the Fair Elections Now act (FEN) that would further rewrite the rules on on money in politics. This proposed legislation would bring us closer to a publicly financed system by setting up a 'Fair Elections' fund. Candidates, who qualify by demonstrating statewide support, would have the option of joining the fund, which guarantees a fixed sum of money for campaigning. Although it's only optional, this legislation would give challengers to congressional incumbents, who rarely lose, a shot at competing.

In Joseph R. Biden Jr., the proponents of CFR have a stealthy supporter in the white house. It's unclear whether the Vice President has made his concerns clear to the President. He should, by appealing to this President's visionary inclinations - the impact of CFR will only be felt many many years after it is signed into law, when money and corporations will no longer have a stake in individual parties or candidates. The Vice President knows how urgent an issue this is - will his conscience allow him to stay quiet? And for how long? We'll get an indication if and when the whitehouse turns its attention to, and openly supports, the Fair Elections Act.

And that's jus' the tip.