Is a Referendum Possible in the Islamic Republic?

Hassan Rouhani, at the first conference on 'Iran's Economy, Solutions for Achieving Sustainable and Job-Creating Growth,' states: 'In our country, for years and decades, the economy has subsidized politics. That is, our economy subsidizes both foreign and domestic policy, and it would be good to act the other way around once and provide subsidies to the economy from domestic and foreign policy to see what life and livelihood of the people and youth employment will be like. It is good to implement this constitutional principle after 36 years and instead of passing a law in parliament for important economic, social, political, and cultural issues, to put a legal article or program directly to the people's votes and referendum.' (ISNA, January 3, 2015) Rouhani refers to Article 59 of the Islamic Republic's Constitution, which states: 'In very important economic, political, social, and cultural issues, the legislative power may be exercised through a referendum and direct reference to the people's votes. The request for a referendum must be approved by two-thirds of the total representatives of the parliament.' Both the title and the subject of this session and the content of Rouhani's speech indicate that his aim in proposing a referendum is to solve the political problems that have jeopardized the country's economy. One of these, and perhaps the most important in today's conditions, is the issue of nuclear negotiations, which has become a serious challenge in the country's domestic and foreign policy, and the government wants to pave the way for an opening in the economic conditions of the country, which economists refer to as stagflation, through negotiation and reaching an agreement. In this speech, Rouhani attempts to separate the negotiations from the issue of values, ideals, and principles, relating it solely to interests so that decisions regarding it can be made with more calmness and rationality. Reformists in the late 1990s and early 2000s proposed a referendum as a method to solve problems and obstacles such as supervisory oversight or the limited powers of the president—after the rejection of related twin bills in the Guardian Council and the lack of practical possibility to present them in the Expediency Discernment Council—and their request went unanswered. But is there even a possibility for a referendum in the Islamic Republic to solve urgent economic problems? For four reasons, the practical possibility of a referendum in the Islamic Republic, despite its proposal in the Constitution, does not exist, and this principle, along with other principles related to people's rights, is idle and ineffective: The official and accepted reading of the Constitution by the ruling power is that in disputes and critical issues of the country, it is the Supreme Leader who makes the final decision, and other officials must obey it; otherwise, they are labeled as instigators, ignorant, hypocrites, and new hypocrites. When the Supreme Leader is seen as the pillar of the country's tent, there is naturally no need to refer to the votes of the tent dwellers to resolve fundamental disagreements in the country. The issue of a referendum fundamentally has a different ideological basis. The basis of a referendum is the sovereignty of the people and prioritizing the majority's perspective on issues that must be decided at certain times. For example, in today's Iran, there are two opposing views on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program; one view states that any cost must be accepted to advance this program, and juxtaposing costs and benefits is not an appropriate way to address it. Within this view, not only is tens of billions of dollars for a program that other countries have achieved at much lower costs (as claimed by officials) unimportant, but also the approximately 100 billion dollars in losses due to sanctions in the past two years are insignificant. However, the opposing view argues that if this program is for peaceful use, it should be evaluated based on its costs and benefits, and decisions should be made regarding it. In a society where the people have sovereignty, it is natural to resort to a referendum for such an issue that directly relates to their fate and livelihood. But in a society where a representative of God claims sovereignty, there is no place for a referendum. Currently, the second basis prevails in the Islamic Republic, and a referendum is practically impossible under these conditions. Both types of referendums considered in the Constitution ultimately encounter the barrier of the Supreme Leader's authority: the referendum of Article 59 is rendered void by the composition of the parliament appointed by the Guardian Council, and the referendum for constitutional amendments is decided by him through the use of governmental decrees. Thus, the referendum process is aborted from the outset. Policy-making: Expediency Council or Independent Experts Even if an issue becomes a problem for the regime, there is no need to refer to public votes formed from the confrontation of experts in free media (if they exist) because there is an institution called the Expediency Council, whose members are all appointed by the leader, and it prioritizes the regime's interests over the interests of the country and people, as well as the results of scientific research and expert studies. Therefore, the authority to determine the 'important' clause in Article 59 of the Constitution is not independent experts and the public whose views are considered in free media, so that their votes can be referred to in a referendum. The authority to determine the 'important' clause is held by the leader's appointees, who provide their advisory opinions to the Supreme Leader so that decision-making occurs within the framework of the governmental caste and based on the interests and needs of its members. Legislation: Supervised or Elected? One can expect a parliament that emerges from free, healthy, competitive, and fair elections to prioritize public interests and concerns and refer to public votes in highly contentious issues because its members need public votes for re-election. However, a parliament whose members are appointed in every way by the Guardian Council, military and security institutions, and state radio and television propaganda places its eggs in the basket of the Supreme Leader's household, not in public votes and will. In the past thirty-six years, apart from the first and sixth parliaments, where some of their members were not complete imitators of the then-leader in daily politics, we have not heard any members of parliament speak about a referendum, but many of them have spoken about consulting the leader and the leader's household in contentious matters. From such parliaments, it is impossible to produce a proposal with a two-thirds majority regarding a referendum. In this regard, Rouhani's words are merely dreams and nighttime illusions. Power or Livelihood? Even with the basis that Rouhani presents, a referendum in the Islamic Republic seems unlikely. The officials of the Islamic Republic have shown over the past 36 years that whenever there has been a choice between consolidating political power and ambition on one hand and improving people's livelihoods on the other, they have preferred the former. In the four major crises of the Islamic Republic—namely the hostage crisis of U.S. embassy members, the continuation of the Iran-Iraq war after the liberation of Khorramshahr, responding to public demands during the reform movement, and tensions in foreign relations and sanctions due to the nuclear program—the officials of the Islamic Republic ultimately prioritized the preservation and consolidation of power and regional ambitions over improving people's lives. When Hassan Rouhani spoke about the need for the wheels of people's lives to turn alongside the wheels of centrifuges during election campaigns, he knew better than anyone that sometimes both wheels may not turn according to the desires of the government and the people, and if a decision is to be made, the wheels of the centrifuges will turn faster than the wheels of people's livelihoods. In this case, there is no need to refer to public votes because people may express a different opinion. A referendum is not an insurance company, but the leader's household and its institutions can guarantee any outcome for themselves.