According to the Public Relations Office of the Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, Hojjat al-Islam Seyed Sajjad Izdehi, head of the Institute of Islamic Systems at IICT, discussed the theory of governance in the thought and political practice of Ayatollah Khamenei in an interview with Raha Media.
He emphasized the importance of the structure of the Islamic Republic, stating: “When Imam Khomeini (RA) was asked about the meaning of the Islamic Republic, he said: ‘Republic like the rest of the world, and Islam means based on the law.'”
Izdehi continued: “Did the Imam adopt this duality, where the republic follows the global norm, democracy as it exists, and the content is Islamic? That is, did he accept the structure and then add content to it? If so, it does not align; the structure cannot be separated from the content. A structure has its own requirements and is not neutral. The structure derives meaning from the content. The Imam certainly did not mean that we take content from religion, structure from the existing order, and then merge them.
The Supreme Leader’s Key Role in the Culture of the Islamic Revolution
The head of the Institute for Islamic Systems explained the significant role of the Supreme Leader in religious democracy, stating: “The term ‘religious democracy’ and the detailed articulation of what the Imam briefly mentioned belong to the Supreme Leader. Masoud Behnoud says that the Islamic Revolution was created by the Supreme Leader. He argues that the Imam governed for eight years based on the logic of the clergy and mysticism. But at that time, how extensive was the leadership structure? Just within its own scope. However, the Supreme Leader is the one who established the structure, created the logic, and infused it into governance. The Supreme Leader institutionalized this logic, and religious democracy is his expression, though it does not depart from the Imam’s logic. My interpretation is that this elaborates on what the Imam briefly articulated and what unfolded thereafter.
“If we observe the Islamic Revolution, the Supreme Leader institutionalized the structure, fundamental laws, chapters, and branches of governance. Some of the terms and concepts—those revolutionary chapters—were institutionalized by him in such a way that, without them, the Islamic Revolution would have ended 20 or 30 years ago. Its expiration date would have passed. Those who stood with the Supreme Leader claimed that the Islamic Revolution was a project. They said it ended in 1979 (1357 AH), concluding with a war imposed on us, which we repelled, sending Saddam beyond the borders. That was the end. Now, let’s move on with our lives. The Imam, however, stated: ‘War, war until the eradication of sedition.’
“The Supreme Leader says the Islamic Revolution is a process aimed at achieving civilization. At a time when everyone says the revolution is over, he declares the first step and then calls for the second step. This vision, perspective, and balanced approach consider the Islamic Revolution as a journey toward civilization. If we viewed the Islamic Revolution merely as a project, it would have ended in its time, been absorbed into the global order, and concluded. We would have become neutralized globally, having nothing distinctive to offer—just like others, where the Shah left, a jurist arrived, and the structure slightly changed. There would be no further engagement.”
The Logic of Religious Democracy
The head of the Institute for Islamic Systems elaborated: “In an article, I argued that religious democracy is based on God-centered humanism. Western democracy is rooted in secular humanism, whereas religious democracy rests on the foundation of divine humanism. If you assume humans are self-sufficient, democracy, despotism, and monarchy naturally follow. However, if you recognize God as the creator of humans, the result is that voting happens because God has ordained it. God has commanded that you take charge of your destiny and participate.
“The late Imam, with this perspective, stated that we are not atheists but God-conscious. God is among our principles and convictions. On the other hand, we must establish a system based on the early Islamic era. This is also a given. Our issue is clear, as are independence and freedom. When we analyze the Imam’s response—’Islamic Republic’—it means a system akin to the Prophet’s governance during his era.
“Was the Prophet’s governance during his time based on democracy?
The Supreme Leader has a delicate expression: Religious democracy is not two separate parts—’democracy’ and ‘religious’—that we have stitched together. The democracy stems from religion itself, meaning we have a form of democracy recommended by our faith.”
Hojjat al-Islam Izdehi explained the Prophet Muhammad’s governance: “In our religion, what is recommended, and what we seek to align with, is based on how the Prophet governed. When the Prophet was in Mecca, he had no governance. When he migrated to Medina, how did he establish governance? What was the foundation of the Prophet’s governance? Was it anything other than the people’s acceptance and support? Certainly, the Prophet was divinely appointed; there’s no debate there.
“People did not choose the Prophet, but how did his divinely appointed governance materialize in Medina? Was it not through the people’s acceptance? By ‘people,’ I mean the Muhajirun (Emigrants), the Ansar (Helpers), and the Jews, through treaties, allegiance, and independence.”
He added: “People did not accept the first caliph. Let me briefly explain this point. The logic of governance under the first three caliphs—and I’ll expand this to include Arab governance—is that you achieve unity out of plurality. If you manage to consolidate, the issue is resolved. If rivals step aside, that’s the end. If you have five contenders, reduce them to one.
The Logic of Democracy
The Islamic Revolution emerged with the logic of bringing the concept of democracy, as understood from the early days of Islam, to the present era. This also coincides with the fact that the monarchical system is no longer viable in contemporary times. Islam, as a universal and timeless religion, must be able to present localized models suitable for any condition, providing effective solutions. The Imam briefly and the Supreme Leader in detail have stated that the model of governance in the current era is based on religious democracy. This means that people play a central role, and they rise based on religious values. The rightful uprising of the people leads to the establishment of the governance of a fully qualified jurist. Up to this point, legitimacy, acceptance, and religious democracy are achieved. However, religious democracy is not a one-time concept; it is the central axis of the Islamic Revolution.
A renowned thinker once said, “With religious democracy, you can conquer the world; I don’t understand why you don’t capitalize on it!” This is a key code and a breakthrough in various fields. It has manifested in our structures, in the Basij, the economy, and security, achieving remarkable results for us through religious democracy.
When the Islamic Revolution was realized, they said we should now have a theory of governance. Does this theory mean a jurist at the top dictating everything, or does it mean religious democracy? What does religious democracy mean? Can we combine public acceptance and legitimacy from both divine and earthly perspectives in such a way that it is attributed to God while remaining effective? For example, in the presidency, can we offer a model similar to the time of the Prophet or Imam Ali? Who was appointed as governor in their time? Imam Ali appointed the governor of Egypt and other regions. So, who appoints the president? The Supreme Leader. This resolves the issue. Who appoints parliament? The Supreme Leader. The judiciary? The Supreme Leader. And it works excellently. Isn’t that what we already do? Who appoints the provincial governor? Do the people? It is done through specialized appointments, and the people accept it. But what does the logic of religious democracy say? It states that if you can secure the people’s votes and opinions, apart from being rooted in our religious foundations, it’s a win-win situation. What does that mean? On the one hand, it aligns with our principles, often reflecting popular suggestions and support, and it has no restrictions.
Hujjat al-Islam Izdehi on Western Democracy explained: We are dealing with concepts like elections and democracy globally. Western democracy, which relies on elections, is based on the denial of God. We seek a democracy grounded in the acknowledgment of God. We can utilize Western experiences, such as elections and voting systems, within our framework.
Today, we are under the shadow of Western civilization. Most methods, tools, and formulas come from the West: the separation of powers, constitutions, national borders, parliaments, and majority rule, just like mobile phones, chairs, and projectors. Can we adopt these elements?
He elaborated that there are two aspects: if something in the Western system is based on atheism, we cannot adopt it. If it aligns with human experience, we can. For instance, inventions like bicycles, motorcycles, or airplanes, which replace traditional modes of transport like horses and camels, can be adopted without issue.
In the humanities, the issue differs; what comes from the West often has atheistic roots or denies God explicitly or implicitly. Can we adopt their systems, like elections or the separation of powers? Figures like the late Naeini did accept (to adopt). But it’s not straightforward; it requires ijtihad (independent reasoning) to align those tools with our foundations. We must Islamize them, ensuring they can be attributed to religion. For example, regarding the presidency, the Supreme Leader can declare someone as president. This is actually the easiest, most beneficial, and most efficient method. Why? Because the Supreme Leader knows everyone and can ensure compatibility. Why go through the trouble of registration, voting, disputes, and so on?
On Elections: Why do we pursue elections? There are two reasons. First, when people choose something, they stand by it. If the Supreme Leader chooses, people may question the choice, saying it didn’t benefit them. If the decision causes harm, people blame the chooser, much like in sports when the coach is blamed for losses. If the people make the choice and it succeeds, they claim credit; if it fails, they take responsibility, saying, “It was my choice.” Thus, democracy and consulting the people ensure stability and prevent the perception of dictatorship. It removes the misconception that leadership interferes excessively and anchors decisions to the people’s choice.
From a jurisprudential perspective, even the Prophet consulted the people. For example, during the Battle of Uhud, he asked the people for their opinion. Though the majority opted for a certain strategy, leading to a defeat, the Prophet respected their decision, never blaming himself. The Quranic verse شاوِرْهُم فیالامرِ فاذا عزمتَ فتَوکلْ علی الله “Consult them in affairs” relates to governance, emphasizing the value of consultation.
Religious Democracy and Rejecting Dictatorship: Religious democracy is founded on faith in humanity, values, and God. In such a system, there is no tyranny or oppression, unlike in secular democracy. It ensures that the ruler possesses the highest virtues and does not require constant surveillance. The separation of powers exists to prevent tyranny, but this concern is irrelevant in religious democracy. Instead, separation aids in enhancing efficiency.
Interestingly, the parliament, presidency, and councils are rooted in popular choice, while the Supreme Leader oversees everything. This integration of divine legitimacy and public acceptance is the core of the system. Solving this and applying it in various domains reveals its true impact.
Exporting the Islamic Revolution: If we are to export the Islamic Revolution, which is the product of the Imam and leadership, we must do so through religious democracy, not the concept of Supreme Leadership. The latter is specific to predominantly Shia communities, while religious democracy can promote the governance of the righteous, trust in people, and adherence to values, fostering a universal appeal under the values of the Islamic Revolution.
Religious democracy is the antidote to all systems that oppose us. It is the key to understanding the Islamic Revolution, though its full application requires detailed discussions.
