Ayatollah Khamenei and the Paradox of Citizen Rights for Opponents

Saeed Jalili stated on December 2, 2014, in Mashhad that the house arrest of the leaders of the Green Movement had nothing to do with the protests following the 2009 elections, but was because they intended to establish a revolution similar to those in Egypt and Tunisia in Iran in February 2011 (refer to the article 'Green Movement of 2009 or Revolution of 2011?'). Following this, the website of the Political Office of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on December 21, 2014, confirmed this claim, stating that the house arrest of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi was unrelated to the 2009 elections, but rather because they were seeking to overthrow the regime with a 'change of method' in February 2011. Mehdi Taeb, head of the Ammar Headquarters, reiterated this claim on January 1, 2015, stating: 'The issue of the rebellion of the leaders of the sedition was discussed in the Supreme National Security Council, and [Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani], the head of the judiciary, who is also the chief judge, was present, along with security agencies that were supposed to provide information about the leaders of the sedition.' Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, senior advisor to the Guardian Council, also stated that the actions of Mousavi and Karroubi were against national security and could be punishable by death. The unresolved issue of the leaders of the 'Green Electoral Movement' remains a current topic. They have become a mirror reflecting the status and rights of opponents of the Islamic Republic. Opponents have always been an issue for Ayatollah Khamenei. He has long faced pro-democracy opponents. For this reason, he speaks of the connection between pro-democracy movements and overthrowing the regime by enemies. Democracy for Overthrow Ayatollah Khamenei, in a meeting with members of the Assembly of Experts on September 6, 2001, spoke about the essence of the regime, the guardianship of the jurist, the greatest denial, and the malice of the opponents of the Islamic Republic. He stated that Western governments, under the banner of democracy, theoretically undermined Marxist regimes but cannot do the same with the Islamic Republic because this regime is a product of the people, and 'people's democracy in the Islamic system is more genuine, real, authentic, and rooted than Western systems.' The main evidence for this claim includes the referendum of the Islamic Republic, the elections of the Assembly of Experts for the Constitution, the elections to confirm the Constitution, presidential elections, parliamentary elections, elections for the Assembly of Experts of Leadership, and city council elections. This regime has relied on the votes of the people from the beginning until now. His other arguments in various speeches are: First: The level of public participation in various elections of the Islamic Republic is much higher than that of people in Western democracies. Second: In U.S. presidential elections, people are always forced to choose between one candidate from the Republican Party and one from the Democratic Party, but in the Islamic Republic, the number of candidates is always several times that of the U.S., resulting in greater competition. Third: U.S. presidential candidates must pay billions of dollars to the media to speak, while the Islamic Republic provides many hours for candidates for free to speak to the people through state television, showcase various tendencies, and hold serious debates. Fourth: The funding for U.S. candidates comes from large capitalists, and as a result, politicians are beholden to large corporations, but this problem does not exist in the Islamic Republic. From the realm of slogans to the world of reality When we descend from the level of slogans to the level of reality, the Islamic Republic is ensnared in various issues and problems. Opponents naturally consider these issues and problems as a result of this regime. Ayatollah Khamenei claims that it is the enemies' work to 'attribute all shortcomings to the structure of the Islamic regime and to the Islamic nature of the regime.' The enemy targets specific pillars and internal puppets follow the same path. His claim is that the guardianship of the jurist is the clearest and most defensible 'rational credentials,' and at the same time, the basis of the enemy's work is to attack this axis. In his speeches and those of other believers in the theory of the guardianship of the jurist, there is not a single reason that proves or confirms the rationality of the guardianship of the jurist. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini claimed that the guardianship of the jurist is a theory whose 'imagination leads to its confirmation.' However, the truth is that this theory is an idea whose imagination leads to its denial. Ayatollah Khomeini and other jurists have considered the guardianship of the jurist as a category of guardianship over minors and guardianship over the insane. Another analogy they have used is that people, like sheep, need a shepherd to guide them. Considering the relationship between the people and political rulers in this way is something whose imagination will lead to its denial. Because the people create political governance to act according to their will and satisfaction, and whenever they do not approve of it for any reason, they dismiss it. The political system is a creation of the people, so it has the maximum status of a representative, not a guardian of orphans. These slogans should be measured against this stark reality. The greatest known and unknown After stating these premises, Khamenei seeks to introduce the greatest known and the greatest unknown based on the Quranic command of enjoining good and forbidding wrong. A. Opponents of the essence of the Islamic Republic are the main enemies. B. The greatest known is defending the Islamic Republic: 'The greatest blessing of God is the existence of this regime, and the greatest known is defending this regime. This is the greatest work that must be done.' The greatest unknown is opposing the essence of the regime: 'Some are determined to confront this regime - whether through theorizing or through political propaganda and various malice - and they undermine the regime. Their issue is not criticism of the regime or its officials; from their perspective, criticism is a means to destroy the regime itself. Those who are knowledgeable and understand the situation clearly understand this and must understand it.' This claim considers the Islamic Republic as a morally legitimate system that must be defended. However, according to the narration of the Prophet of Islam and Ali ibn Abi Talib, the greatest virtue and the highest rank of enjoining good and forbidding wrong and jihad is to speak the truth in front of an oppressive ruler. The self-righteousness has led the oppressive ruler to distort good and evil. Determining the fate of the malicious opponents Naturally, people expect to know what the fate of opponents of Islam, the essence of the Islamic Republic, and the essence of the guardianship of the jurist is. Interestingly, Khamenei states that opponents of Islam and the Islamic Republic have the right to life and enjoy all citizen rights: 'Of course, someone who is an enemy of the regime does not mean that they cannot live in this regime; no. Opponents of Islam can live in this regime; those who do not accept Islam at all can live in this regime. Islam has not said that anyone living under the Islamic regime must believe in Islam and its principles; no. They can live and enjoy citizen rights and security. If a thief breaks into the house of a non-Muslim and steals, that thief will also be punished. In general, there is no difference in citizen rights between those who believe in the regime and those who oppose it.' If opponents of Islam, the Islamic Republic, and the guardianship of the jurist actually enjoy 'citizen rights,' then there would be no issue from the perspective of democracy and human rights. It is true that it seems that 'human rights' are abstract human rights, but in reality, First: Abstract humans do not exist in reality, and all humans are specific historical beings - a black woman from Nigeria, a Muslim man from Rasht, Iran. Second: Citizen rights are the rights of citizens. That is, it is assumed that people have passed from the stage of servitude and bondage to their masters to the stage of citizenship. That is, they have become 'free and equal citizens.' In other words, all rights are the rights of these 'equal and free citizens.' Civil and political rights are part of citizen rights. Here lies Khamenei's and the Islamic Republic's problem. Khamenei states that opponents of Islam, the Islamic Republic, and the guardianship of the jurist enjoy citizen rights, but they do not have the 'right to overthrow' or 'to strike at the roots of the regime.' Let us assume he is right and 'overthrowing the regime' is not and has never been a citizen right. But what happens to the remaining citizen rights? Ayatollah Khamenei has always defended the distinction between the 'insiders' and 'outsiders' and emphasized the demarcation of insiders from outsiders. In other words, First: Outsiders - whose circle is much broader than the opponents of Islam and the Islamic Republic and the guardianship of the jurist - do not have the right to enter the 'lifeboat of the regime' or hold political responsibilities. They are deprived of the right to form political parties and organizations. Second: Insiders must always maintain a boundary with these outsiders deprived of political/citizen rights. Third: Baha'is are deprived of non-political rights - including the right to education. In many cities - especially villages - they are deprived of the right to life as well. The Islamic Republic and the Guardianship of the Jurist's Need for Opponents' Votes However, the regime needs the votes of opponents to legitimize itself. The regime needs the votes of the people because: 'The security of the country depends on the presence of the people; reducing the pressures of enemies depends on the presence of the people, it depends on the unity and cohesion of the people with the regime and with the Islamic Republic and the mutual trust between the people and officials.' It may be said that the people here do not include opponents because they are not counted. However, Khamenei explicitly states in this speech two days before the presidential election on June 14, 2013: 'My first and most important recommendation is to participate in the ballot boxes; this is more important than anything else for the country. Some may - for whatever reason - not want to support the Islamic Republic, but they should support their country; they should also come to the ballot box. Everyone should come to the ballot boxes to prove their presence.' His reasoning is clear. He says: Without the high votes of both supporters and opponents, we cannot create security for the country against enemies. Thus, First: Opponents of the essence of the Islamic Republic have the right to vote. Second: The votes of opponents of the Islamic Republic and supporters are also considered 'public rights' that no one has the right to alter. Khamenei stated on the day of the presidential election on June 14, 2013: 'I have a recommendation for these respected gentlemen who are responsible for the ballot boxes and those responsible for counting and reading the votes: They should know that the people's vote is a trust in their hands and is a public right; that is, preserving the trust in this matter is a public right. As you know, one should observe public rights more than divine rights, and it is harder to breach public rights than divine rights. Therefore, they should pay close attention to this matter.' Opponents Lack Citizen Rights The issue with the Islamic Republic and the guardianship of the jurist is that we all live in a modern era. Democracy, human rights, and citizen rights are the most important constructs of the modern era that have imposed themselves on everyone. Autocratic rulers must also legitimize themselves against these constructs. Khamenei not only does not oppose these constructs but seeks to consider the Islamic Republic superior to the West in these matters. The Islamic Republic is a patchwork garment that is constantly torn and mended again. Contrary to Khamenei's claims, the Islamic Republic, like communist regimes, stands against the discourse of democracy, human rights, and citizen rights. Khamenei seeks to combine 'republic' with Islam as Khomeini did, and to combine democracy, human rights, and citizen rights with Islam. This construct, full of contradictions, is, despite its aggressive appearance, entirely defensive and retreating. For example, it enacts retribution, but when faced with protests from human rights defenders, it modernizes this tribal construct. They say that retribution has nothing to do with the state/government; it is a 'right of the people.' People can use this 'right' or not. However, new human rights do not accept that if a criminal splashes acid on someone's face and disfigures them, the punishment for the criminal is for the 'victim' to splash acid on the criminal's face and disfigure them as well. This approach, First: Conflicts with human rights due to high violence. Second: Places the responsibility of the impersonal state's construct on the shoulders of the individual victim. It is as if we are still in the era of personal vengeance. Labeling opponents as malicious, outsiders, enemies, and seditionists, and depriving them of political rights does not constitute 'citizen rights.' The way to prove the superiority of the democracy of the Islamic Republic over Western democracies is very simple: Look at the fate of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Zahra Rahnavard, who have been under house arrest for nearly four years without the right to even a word of defense, let alone a public trial with a jury.