What Is Keeping Iran from Political Supremacy? Iran is.

Polaroid of the Iranian Flag

Iran is a theocracy that presents democratic characteristics (i.e. regular parliamentary and presidential elections) providing, thus, Iranians with a limited say in the political arena. Yet, their voices are not being heard because of an outdated ideology (i.e. the Revolution of ‘79 and the velayat-e faghih [the political-ideological foundation for the clerical regime]) that hinders Iran from moving forward into the 21^st century and into a full Democratic State.

The church should never meddle directly in politics (even because that is not its primary role) and I wonder what would happen if the Ayatollah were stripped of his excessive powers over the Iranian political system: who would benefit from this move?

Iran is divided into four factions: Traditional Conservatives, Pragmatic Conservatives, the Fundamentalists and the Reformists.

The Traditional & Pragmatic Conservatives are rightists who adhere to the ideals of the revolution and adopt conservative views of religion and society. They are also tied to the bazaar and traditional business community and are led by Ali Khamenei and the high-ranking clerics; therefore a bit resistant to reforms that may threaten the revolutionary ideals and their own political & business interests.  Notwithstanding, the pragmatic conservatives are more open to reforms if these entail business gains.

The Fundamentalists (a.k.a. principlists) are also rightists and share the same ideals as the two mentioned factions; however, they represent a younger generation hailing from the revolutionary guards and the Basij paramilitary forces. Nevertheless, they can be extremely reactionary when it comes to their cultural and political values.

The Reformists (stemming from the radical-left that overthrew the Shah, took hostages at the US embassy and helped creating Hezbollah) have undergone continued transformations over the past two decades which translated into a loss of faith on policies to redistribute wealth and spread the revolution.  From them, the Green Movement was born; a movement comprised of Human and Women’s Rights organisations; secular and nationalist elements.

At first, the traditionalist and pragmatic conservatives would be the least to gain if the cleric were removed from politics; but then we realise it may not be so: since they hold the business and wealth in their hands, they control the nation; thus, the Ayatollahs could easily be set aside. The Principlists hold control of the military and secrets services; meaning that they control the law enforcement & national security in Iran – why do they need the Ayatollahs for? The Reformists have already expressed that they do not fancy the religious control; therefore, they require no further comment.

The business people, the military and the social-oriented folks can perfectly govern Iran without the interference of the clergy (who should be confined to the mosques to spiritually guide Iranians).

Theocracies made sense when the clerics were the only ones going to school, the only ones who could write and read and, the only ones having access to certain types of information and knowledge. In a society where all citizens go to school and know how to think by themselves, there is no need for an Ayatollah to make the thinking and decisions for them: the civilians can perfectly do it by/for themselves (and still see their interests well served).

Iranians are an admirable people who should be loyal to the Principle of the Revolution of the 21^st century: a powerful laic Muslim Nation.