Khamenei and the Revolutionary Transformation of Religious Institutions, the Assembly of Experts, and Himself

The Islamic Revolution triumphed on February 11, 1979, and swiftly established the Islamic Republic through the referendum of April 1, 1979, the ratification of the Islamic Republic's constitution, and the formation of powers and other institutions. The era of revolution and revolutionary fervor does not end with the collapse of the previous regime and the establishment of a new regime. As long as the new regime cannot put an end to chaos and instability, overcome its opponents, and impose a new order, it has not been established, and we remain in a revolutionary era. The Islamic Republic reached this stage in the early 1980s, and the revolution ended. Ayatollah Khomeini was the leader of the revolution and the founder of the Islamic Republic. With the Islamic Republic's constitution, he became the leader/faqih of the regime. When Ayatollah Khomeini passed away, Ayatollah Khamenei succeeded him as the leader of the Islamic Republic. However, just as he cannot be called the 'founder of the Islamic Republic,' he cannot be considered the 'leader of the revolution.' Firstly, the revolution had only one leader. Secondly, the continuation of a revolution over several decades is meaningless. A revolution is the product of a 'revolutionary situation.' In a revolutionary situation, if revolutionaries fail and the previous regime consolidates its power, there will be no continuation of the revolution (the Egyptian revolution against Hosni Mubarak failed, and the military continued its dominance that began with Nasser). However, if revolutionaries succeed and can replace the previous regime with a new one, the revolution has achieved its goal and thus ends. Khamenei, as the leader of the revolution, contrary to these historical realities, preferred to be regarded as the leader of the revolution. For this reason, after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, he was referred to as the 'wise leader of the revolution' and continues to be. In a speech on September 16, 2015, during a meeting with the commanders of the Revolutionary Guards, he called those who speak of the end of the revolution 'irrational' and defended the continuation of the revolution. However, his words and claims lacked evidence to support the continuation of the revolution and his status as the leader of the revolution. Firstly, he changed the meaning of revolution and considered it a 'comprehensive transformation in a human collective' to claim that since such a transformation has not occurred and is very time-consuming, the revolution continues. Secondly, he took the existence of the Revolutionary Guards as evidence of the revolution's continuation. He said, 'When you say we are the guardians of the revolution, it means that the revolution is alive, present, and exists. If the revolution - as some claim or wish - were dead, it would not need guardians; the dead do not require guardians; thus, the revolution is present. Therefore, the meaning of guarding the revolution implies the presence of the revolution; that is, you want to say the revolution exists.' At the beginning of the revolution, the Revolutionary Guards were established to defend the revolution and the new regime, and the term revolution was included in its name, but one cannot conclude the existence of a significant social/political phenomenon - namely, the revolution - from the name of an institution or organization, of which history has reported only a few. Another meaning of being revolutionary Ayatollah Khamenei, on February 8, 2013, during a meeting with commanders and some staff of the Air Force of the Army, severely attacked the policies and behaviors of the U.S. government regarding Iran, stating that the U.S. carried out the coup of August 19 against the Mossadegh government, supported the Shah's regime and its tortures, acted to overthrow the Islamic Republic after the revolution, supported the 2009 sedition, and assassinated Iran's nuclear scientists, imposed comprehensive sanctions against Iran, and at the same time speaks of negotiations with Iran. Khamenei did not reject negotiations but stated that the invitation to negotiate is inconsistent with these policies and behaviors. You have your weapons pointed at the Iranian people and say, 'Either negotiate or I will shoot.' After stating these words, he said, 'I am not a diplomat; I am a revolutionary; I speak clearly and honestly. A diplomat says one word but intends another meaning. We speak our words clearly and honestly; we state our words decisively and firmly. Negotiation makes sense when the other side shows its goodwill.' Here, we encounter another meaning of being revolutionary. Being revolutionary means speaking clearly, honestly, decisively, and firmly. Now we all know that through Sultan Qaboos, secret negotiations between Iran and the U.S. - with Khamenei's approval - had been ongoing for some time. Nevertheless, in this speech, he dishonestly pretended to the people that there were no negotiations and that only a few 'naive' and 'malicious' individuals within the country were advocating for negotiations with the U.S. to resolve the nuclear issue. Even if being revolutionary had the meaning he employed, he was not revolutionary, as his words - in his own terms - were diplomatic. The nuclear negotiations also resulted in an agreement that Khamenei's revolutionary forces considered a 'new Turkmenchay,' and Saeed Jalili told the members of parliament on September 7, 2015, 'The Islamic Republic has waived about 100 of its legitimate rights in the JCPOA and the attached documents.' The Revolutionary Assembly Ayatollah Khamenei, on March 10, 2016, during a meeting with members of the Assembly of Experts, told them, 'In my opinion, the Assembly of Experts is the most important place that must be aware of its duties. If I were to summarize in one word, that word would be that the Assembly of Experts must remain revolutionary; it must think and act revolutionarily; this is the essence of the matter.' What does it mean for the Assembly of Experts to be revolutionary? Khamenei explained his meaning by saying that the future Assembly of Experts, for selecting a successor for him, must 'set aside personal considerations, hesitations, and expediencies.' In fact, Khamenei is instructing the members of the next Assembly of Experts not to choose individuals like Hassan Rouhani and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who have sought interaction with the West and have sidelined anti-imperialism, as the next leader. The Seminary Must Remain Revolutionary Ayatollah Khamenei, on March 15, 2016, during a meeting with members of the Assembly of Representatives of Students and Scholars of Qom Seminary, also spoke about the necessity of the seminary remaining revolutionary. He said that the Qom seminary was the 'revolutionary seminary and the cradle of the revolution.' Imam Khomeini could not have advanced his work without the seminaries. The students of Qom seminary conveyed the Imam's messages to the people across the country and brought people to the streets, forming million-strong demonstrations. Since the Qom seminary was the intermediary between the Imam and the revolution, plans have now been designed for 'de-revolutionizing' the seminary. Preserving the Islamic and revolutionary nature of the Islamic Republic depends on the seminary remaining 'revolutionary.' In the face of the dangerous plan of 'de-revolutionizing' the seminary, efforts must be made with planning to ensure that the seminary remains revolutionary. If revolutionary thought and action expand in the seminary, it will remain the cradle of the revolution. Standing against the global dominance system and the U.S. is one of the ideological foundations of the revolution. If this resistance does not exist, the dominance system will have no opposition to the Islamic Republic. Hundreds of revolutionary teachers must be trained with a revolutionary spirit. Defend political Islam and the religious government of the Islamic Republic. Today, who is revolutionary? The heart of the meaning of concepts and terms has been one of Khamenei's actions. The revolution is also one of the concepts he has consciously appropriated. If in no area - for example, culture - revolution is possible, political revolution may be possible. Suppose we assume that revolution is a good method for changing a political regime. In that case, we are faced with a political regime - namely, the Islamic Republic - that has been in existence for 37 years. Being revolutionary is now said of individuals and groups that intend to replace the established regime of the Islamic Republic through revolution. Defenders of the Islamic Republic regime are not revolutionary because they defend the established regime. They defend a regime that, at least in the penal section, implements the punishments of pre-Islamic Arabs and seeks to impose the 'lifestyle' of the people of the Arabian Peninsula 14 centuries ago on modern people. Revolution is a phenomenon belonging to the modern era. However: First, we are not in a 'revolutionary situation' - in the sense that sociologists have described. Second, classical totalitarian revolutions - such as the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and Iranian revolutions - did not necessarily achieve a better situation with the overthrow of the previous regime. Sociologists and philosophers like Tocqueville, Hannah Arendt, Karl Popper, Anthony Giddens, etc., have explained that classical totalitarian revolutions did not lead to democracy and have taken away as much as possible the freedoms of citizens. Third, the mere overthrow of a regime is of no value. The important issue is the transition from the dictatorship of the Islamic Republic to a democratic system committed to freedom and human rights. Iranians must look at successful experiences of transition to democracy and learn from them. Fourth, revolution and being revolutionary should be evaluated from an ethical and epistemological perspective concerning their consequences. Revolution is not an end; it is a means to achieve a goal or goals. The main issue is: What is the goal? How and by what means can the goal be achieved? If the goal is democracy, freedom, and human rights, is revolution a method that has led a country to these legitimate ideas?