Conflict of Interest in the Political and Judicial Realms of the Islamic Republic

The membership of the Minister of Education in Rouhani's first government on the board of a clothing import company during the 2017 presidential election made headlines. His daughter was cleared of smuggling charges, but the issue of 'conflict of interest'—the clash between personal and public interests in the activities of officials in the Islamic Republic—remains pertinent. What does 'conflict of interest' mean? 'Conflict of interest' is a technical term in criminal law and also in political culture. Open, rule-of-law systems that oppose privilege establish procedures to combat the abuse of power by mixing personal interests and public concerns. These procedures include public access to information from public agencies, guaranteeing media freedom, the possibility of public protest, an independent judiciary, and legal restrictions on officials to maintain personal businesses or involvement in specific issues while holding public and governmental jobs and making public decisions. First, I will mention two relatively well-known examples of this issue for clarity. The first example is Trump's presidency and his personal business. The likelihood that Trump would use the power of the presidency to advance his business interests is very high, and it is reasonable to argue that he should place all his assets and businesses in the hands of a trust without personal involvement from himself and his family (although the law in the United States exempts the President from this, presidents have traditionally done so. Other U.S. officials are required by law to do so). Trump distanced himself from his business after his presidency but handed it over to his sons. The other case is the involvement of police officers in collecting evidence against a suspect who has simultaneously filed a complaint against the police, such as in the case of Steven Avery in Wisconsin, who was investigated by the Manitowoc County police for the murder of a woman while the suspect had a lawsuit against the police in that area, and ultimately, the court was unable to convict him partly for this reason. In Iran, 'conflict of interest' does not prevent political and judicial officials from intervening in any case because the law does not impose such a prohibition on them. In this writing, I will refer to several obvious cases of this in the existing processes in Iran. Nothing limits Islamic Republic officials from pursuing personal interests and concerns, including law and religion. When they obtain a position, they continue their personal businesses and use their political connections to advance them. They often pursue part of the business in the name of family members to avoid individual mention, but their family ties to these businesses are evident. This is a well-established political and economic tradition in Iran, and the view of obtaining a political job inherently involves acquiring such benefits. A very interesting example of this is the business of Mohammad Reza Nemat Zadeh and his family in the petrochemical industry while he was the Minister of Industry in Rouhani's first government. The Court of Audit confirmed Nemat Zadeh's membership in the boards of over 14 private companies during his ministry. The minister's influence in the special economic headquarters led to the exit of petrochemicals from the stock market in one case, while it was supposed to be sold on the stock market as a commodity. The back-and-forth movement of Islamic Republic officials between the quasi-public (state allocated to insiders) and public sectors creates a conflict of interest after returning to public office. Nemat Zadeh, who was the deputy minister of petrochemicals, goes to the private petrochemical sector and then returns to the public sector, and he and his family still own dozens of companies in areas under the minister's supervision. Seif moves from the CEO of Kargozar Bank to the head of the Central Bank, and Parvizian goes from the Central Bank to the CEO of Parsian Bank. In these movements, the conflict of interest is not resolved. Of course, Article 141 of the Constitution prohibits some activities of executive branch officials (and not other military, judicial, legislative officials, and institutions under the leader) from membership in the boards of private companies: 'The President, Vice Presidents, Ministers, and government employees cannot hold more than one government job, and holding any other job in institutions whose entire or part of the capital belongs to the government or public institutions, and membership in the Islamic Consultative Assembly and legal counsel, as well as presidency and executive management or membership in the boards of various private companies, except for cooperative companies of offices and institutions, is prohibited for them.' However, Islamic Republic officials constantly ignore this principle by moving between the public and quasi-public/private sectors and have not faced any consequences. During the years of nuclear sanctions, the government used various methods to circumvent sanctions for selling oil. One of them was assigning oil sales to various agencies, including the police force and especially its commanders. One clear case of this was the sale of $170 million worth of oil by this agency. An agency that is itself involved in clandestine oil transactions and deals with brokers cannot naturally pursue their violations. This is one of the clear cases of conflict of interest and assigned responsibilities. After Judge Saeed Mortazavi was accused of the murder of Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian journalist, the head of the judiciary, who was complicit with Mortazavi, appointed himself to investigate this case. Various sources in the parliament and Khatami's government reported on Mortazavi's involvement in this murder. Can one trust the head of a judiciary whose very close judge (recommended by the office) is accused of murder to pursue his case? In such cases, in open and democratic societies, independent commissions or parliamentary committees investigate these matters, and ultimately the case is referred to the Supreme Court or a panel of independent judges. In nearly four decades of the Islamic Republic, it has never been heard that a judge has recused himself from a case due to personal interests or the involvement of family members and close associates in that case. In the judiciary of the Islamic Republic, there is fundamentally no legal principle that individuals should recuse themselves from a case when they have personal or group interests and a conflict of interest exists. Judges in the Islamic Republic consider themselves just in all circumstances (claiming the mantle of justice) while bribery is rampant in the judiciary, and this institution is one of the most corrupt in the Islamic Republic. The Guardian Council of Interests In nearly all decisions of the Guardian Council regarding the disqualification of candidates, the issue of 'conflict of interest' arises because the members of the Guardian Council are positioned within a political faction that competes with the faction whose candidates are being disqualified. For example, in the 2009 presidential election, seven members of the Guardian Council officially declared their support for Ahmadinejad, and after the challenge to the results due to fraud, they quickly confirmed the validity of the elections. In the 2017 election, Mohammad Yazdi, a member of the Guardian Council, was part of an institution that supported one of the candidates. Interestingly, in the decisions of the Guardian Council regarding disqualifications, the disqualified individuals must complain to the council itself about their disqualification. In one period, candidates did this, and when they saw it was futile, they completely gave up on it. Many political activists, after three decades of struggling with the Guardian Council, generally do not pursue candidacy because they know the outcome. Members of the Guardian Council, while playing the role of judges, also play an active political role. For this reason, the outcome of the (pledge-like) elections in Iran is always under a big question mark. Oversight of the Leader Oversight of the leader in the Islamic Republic is entrusted to an institution that, if its members fulfill their duties, will violate their personal interests in the system, namely disqualification by the Guardian Council for the next elections and the use of system privileges (under the supervision of the leadership and government). The public and personal conflict of interest in the functioning and formation of the Assembly of Experts prevents the members of this institution from fulfilling their assigned duties. Therefore, when you hear that the Assembly of Experts considers its duty not to oversee the leader but to support him, you should not be surprised. The conflict of interest prevents them from acting according to their defined role. The notes, opinions, and views of the authors express their own views and do not necessarily reflect a viewpoint from Radio Farda.