How the Judiciary Became the Stability Front?

Defending the independence of the judiciary by anyone is morally and justifiably appropriate. When this defense is made by the officials of the judiciary, one becomes increasingly pleased. Sadeq Larijani stated on July 2, 2017, at a nationwide judicial conference: "The independence of the judiciary is separate from the independence of the judge, which, of course, are related but not the same. The independence of the judiciary does not end with our country; this issue has become a concern among all thinkers in the world because it leads to issues such as freedom of expression, and we must recognize this independence. If a judge lacks independence, his ruling will certainly conflict with justice and will be influenced by political, social, and economic pressures." These words are defensible; however, anyone looking at the performance of the judiciary and the continuation of his speech will see that Sadeq Larijani's claim fundamentally contradicts the reality of the Islamic Republic. What is the meaning of judicial independence? The main meaning of judicial independence is that the government, in the sense of the political system—whether democratic or non-democratic—interferes in the lives of citizens and restricts their freedoms. It imposes a value system and a specific way of life on them as the best value system and superior way of life (good, virtuous). Liberals, by separating the two domains of rights and limiting the political system to the realm of rights, and entrusting the choice of a happy life (good, virtuous) to each citizen, have constructed one of the fundamental protective shields for defending citizens' rights against the intervening power of the political system. The political regime—whether democratic or non-democratic—interferes in the private lives of citizens. For this reason, an independent institution is needed to defend citizens against unjust interventions—namely, domineering ones: according to arbitrary desires—of the political regime. An independent judiciary is one that defends citizens' rights against the unjust interventions of the political regime. When the judiciary (courts) becomes a defender of the political regime against citizens, judicial independence is destroyed, and talking about it becomes unjustifiable. Why is independent judiciary impossible in the Islamic Republic? Iran lacks an independent judiciary. There are several fundamental and essential problems in this regard: First, officials of the judiciary have repeatedly stated that they do not recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, democracy, freedom, gender equality, and UNESCO's 2030 document because these are Western constructs, liberal, and have materialistic assumptions. The judiciary enforces jurisprudential rulings—tribal constructs of Arabs before Islam or the so-called "signature rulings". Achievements of modern humanity are rejected and denied in the name of being Western, while constructs of Arabs 1400 to 2500 years before Islam are accepted. Modern West is rejected, and pre-Islamic Arab is accepted. The punishments that Arabs before Islam constructed for their tribal life were completely compatible with that violent patriarchal way of life of the tribal chief, but fundamentally conflict with human rights and democracy. An independent judiciary is one that defends humans as "free and equal citizens", while none of these three—citizen, freedom, equality—existed in the ancient world. Those criminal punishments only did not conflict with freedom and equality; they enslaved humans to the tribal chief. Second, the theory of Velayat-e Faqih is nothing but a tribal chief's rule that desires to turn all citizens into the slaves of the king. Officials of the judiciary and judges have always declared that they follow the wishes of the Supreme Leader. Ayatollah Khamenei constantly engages in creating enemies, instigating strife, infiltrating, and imposing his erroneous views. Whenever he invents a new criminal title, the officials of the judiciary and judges repeat them in unison and begin to suppress the victims. For example, Sadeq Larijani in this speech states that the leadership has repeatedly issued orders regarding the danger of infiltration and infiltrators. Internal infiltrators have extended a hand of friendship towards America, while America supported the 2009 unrest, and we punished the rioters. According to him, America seeks to change the regime from within, and "internal throats" repeat the same words. Opponents, critics, and internal rivals: "If they have weapons, they are recognized as combatants, and those who do not have weapons but play a role in disrupting the entire regime are considered corrupt on earth." The judiciary, through its performance, has violated and destroyed judicial independence and citizens' rights. If the officials of the judiciary and judges defended the rights of "free and equal citizens" against the domineering rule—according to arbitrary desires—of Ayatollah Khamenei, then talking about judicial independence would have meaning. Third, judicial independence means the independence of the judiciary and courts from political parties and political positions. However, the heads of the judiciary have not only always been extremists but have now turned that institution into the Stability Front. In other words, if the weekly speeches of Sadeq Larijani and Mohseni Eje'i are followed, one feels that the Secretary-General and spokesperson of the Stability Front are expressing their positions. For example, Mohseni Eje'i on July 9, 2017, harshly criticized Hassan Rouhani and compared him to Banisadr, implicitly reminding of his removal from the presidency. He said that America and Hassan Rouhani pursue a common goal: the destruction of the judiciary, the Guardian Council, the IRGC, and the Basij. He also added that based on the experience after the revolution, whenever these institutions are attacked, a new strife and conspiracy are ahead. These positions of the Stability Front spokesperson were so destructive and accusatory that moderate conservatives like Mohammad Reza Bahonar (former Deputy Speaker of Parliament) and Ali Larijani (President of several recent Parliaments) were compelled to criticize and reject his statements. Sadeq Larijani, Mohseni Eje'i, Montazeri (Attorney General), and other heads of the judiciary are giving speeches and political/party interviews every day and every week. However, their political positions are the same as those of the Stability Front. While the leaders of the judiciary in none of the democratic and non-democratic countries do such things. Even if they have political party positions, they keep themselves away from daily political disputes. One cannot point to a country in the world where the head of the judiciary gives at least one political/party speech per week—of the Stability Front type. Fourth, the officials of the judiciary and judges are defenders of criticism and freedom of expression. However, they limit it to criticism and destruction of electoral institutions that have a viewpoint different from Ayatollah Khamenei. For example, not only do they themselves, but they also constantly incite other "fire to the order" forces to destroy Hassan Rouhani and his like-minded individuals. However, they do not consider criticism of appointed institutions (leadership, judiciary, IRGC, Guardian Council, etc.) as the right of citizens, but rather as a conspiracy of the enemy and the strife of its affiliates. Sadeq Larijani in this speech stated that members of parliament do not have the right to protest judicial rulings. He then said: "As a cornerstone of the system, we stand against these assaults and do not bow down, and you saw how over all these years they have carried out their destruction against the entire system from the leadership to the judiciary and the Quds Force." The leadership that does not tolerate judicial independence and "free and equal citizens" Ayatollah Khamenei after these disputes, on July 2, 2017, in a meeting with the heads of the judiciary told them that defending "public rights and supporting the legitimate freedoms of the people" is their duty and they must "confront opponents and adversaries of public rights in any position." However, when he mentioned examples (scholarships, dust storms, electoral violations, etc.), it became clear that his intention was to defend the freedom to criticize the executive branch and intervene in citizens' freedoms. He defended the legality of enjoining good and forbidding wrong and stated that the judiciary must be a full supporter of "those who enjoin good." It has been narrated from the Prophet of Islam and Ali ibn Abi Talib that the greatest jihad and enjoining good is to speak harshly against the tyrannical sultan in his presence. However, "those who enjoin good" in the Islamic Republic do two things: a) intervene in the private sphere of citizens. b) attack elected rulers who have a viewpoint different from the leadership (such as Hassan Rouhani). Ayatollah Khamenei and all appointed institutions under his command consider criticism of the tyrannical sultan as strife and an American conspiracy and imprison critics. Ayatollah Khamenei praised Sadeq Larijani and other leaders of the judiciary extensively in this meeting and said that preserving the dignity of the system takes precedence over preserving the dignity of individuals. This claim indicates that he sacrifices real individuals with flesh, blood, and bones—who are ends in themselves—for the abstract concepts of the system.