Note: Political Regimes Are Not Overthrown by Referendums

Hassan Rouhani's remarks on February 11, 2018, regarding a referendum to solve some of the country's problems sparked a wave of reactions and discussions about referendums in Iran's political landscape. These reactions can be categorized into three distinct groups: 1. A group that considers the Islamic Republic irreformable and seeks a non-violent method to transition to a secular parliamentary democracy. A statement by 15 political activists both inside and outside the country falls into this category, calling for a transition through a referendum. 2. The regime's propaganda outlets, which labeled Rouhani's referendum proposal as a fantasy of the enemies and a sign of dissatisfaction with the February 11 demonstrations, among other criticisms. This group views any recourse to public votes, even within the framework of the regime's constitution, as a security threat. 3. The reformist faction within the government, which sees a referendum as a tactically unproductive move that would harm Rouhani's government. Members of this group, while forgetting the failure of dual proposals from Khatami's era, urge Rouhani to utilize the presidential powers outlined in the constitution, powers they have previously complained about lacking. The rope of Rouhani and the well of the referendum No dictatorship in the world has been overthrown by a referendum, and the Islamic Republic is not an exception. The shift of opponents from public arenas and streets to the ballot box for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic after the protests of December 2017 and the actions of the girls of the Revolution Street is a strategic error in political struggles and perhaps a deviation in political and social movements. Rouhani's suggestion regarding a referendum in the current conditions of the Islamic Republic is as weightless and irrelevant as his statement two days later about the referendum on April 1, 1979, claiming that 'the same over 98 percent who voted for the Islamic Republic then would vote today.' No one would enter a pit with such a person, let alone a well. Rouhani has already indicated the outcome of a referendum under the regime in 2017, and there is no need for such an action. Oversight by the UN or any other international organization will not change the engineered electoral structure in Iran, just as the presence of foreign journalists at the February 11 demonstrations does not reveal any more reality of the engineering of demonstrations in the country than what is already apparent. Two clear confusions Beyond the fact that Rouhani's intention was a referendum on issues of disagreement among factions within the framework of the regime and not on the regime as a whole, and that from a constitutional perspective it seems impossible under current conditions (due to the need for approval by the Guardian Council and the Leader), this writing will focus solely on the position of the first group, which considers Rouhani's remarks a suitable context for raising an old topic and believes a referendum could be a method for transitioning from the Islamic Republic to a parliamentary and secular democracy. In the positions of this group, there is a confusion between a referendum as a method for 'determining the nature of a political regime' and a method for 'resolving disputes among factions within a political regime,' and subsequently between 'determining the nature of a political regime' that is being formed and 'transitioning from a political regime' or 'dissolving a political regime.' In no case do we have evidence of a political regime being dissolved or overthrown by a referendum. Authoritarian regimes do not hold referendums in this regard, and democratic regimes have left the door open for referendums under any circumstances, as there is no need for their overthrow. Even if we consider the first confusion a deliberate mix-up to use the speech of a political figure to draw public attention to one issue to raise another, the second confusion stems from a disregard for the mechanisms and processes of political transformation in real systems, not legal systems. Referendums are for potential changes in the legal systems of emerging governments or democratic governments, not for changing authoritarian and totalitarian political regimes in reality. In conditions where the coercive powers of authoritarian and totalitarian governments dominate a country, they will never accept such a subject. No dictatorship in the world has been overthrown by a referendum, so the Islamic Republic is not an exception. The shift of opponents from public arenas and streets to the ballot box for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic after the protests of December 2017 and the actions of the girls of the Revolution Street is a strategic error in political struggles and perhaps a deviation in political and social movements. No political regime has been removed through the ballot box; rather, authoritarian political regimes have been overthrown by social and political movements (violent revolutions in Russia, China, Iran, Nicaragua, and Cuba, or color revolutions in Eastern Europe), foreign invasions (Nazi Germany, Mussolini's fascism, Taliban and ISIS Islamism, Saddam's Ba'ath, Gaddafi's dictatorship), or military coups (in Latin America and Africa). A non-social and non-institutional understanding of political regime transformations has led to misunderstandings in this regard. Interestingly, most signatories of the 15-person statement have experienced the 1979 Iranian revolution closely and have been part of its stages, with some being political activists rather than just legal experts. Khomeini did not call for a referendum regarding the Pahlavi regime from the second half of the 1970s; rather, he said, 'the Shah must go.' After the Shah's departure, a sham referendum was held with only one question favorable to Khomeini and two very ambiguous options to silence the opponents forever and allow anti-imperialist and Islamist forces worldwide to claim that this regime was desired by the people. These political activists know how political regimes fall. The eternal matter and the referendum No corrupt, fraudulent, or tyrannical government in the world points the barrel of a tank at its own power palace and participates in a process whose outcome is not predetermined. In the legal system of the Islamic Republic, the rule of the jurist and the Islamism of the government are considered eternal matters, and eternal matters are not subjected to a referendum. Dictatorships are, by definition, eternal until they are removed from power. A referendum is held in a system where no framework or structure is eternal (a democratic customary system) and people have the ability to change everything. It is enough to collect a specific number of signatures on any issue for it to be put to a public question. In systems with eternal principles, a referendum can only be held when the government has fallen, and opponents wish to legitimize the new system through this means and peacefully resolve their differences among themselves. The art of leaders like Churchill was that they knew one could not negotiate with Hitler. His very beautiful expression against the peace seekers of that time (Chamberlain and Halifax) was that one cannot reason rationally with a tiger with one's head in its mouth. While today the fate of each Iranian is in the hands of a rogue and wolf-like government, one cannot ask the same rogues to hold a referendum. The suggestion of a referendum to these regimes is akin to advising those who consider advising others to be their exclusive domain. Such advice has not led anywhere for four decades, with tens of thousands of letters and political notes, tens of thousands of statements, and millions of street slogans and social media posts. Those who believe a referendum is an alternative method for violent overthrow, velvet revolution, military coup, or civil war between the opposition and the regime in authoritarian regimes still fall short in understanding these types of regimes. The darkest hours If Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, Gaddafi, and Ceaușescu could have been removed from power through a referendum, then the commanders of the IRGC and the ruling clergy in Iran, whose existence is now tied to the government, could also be removed from power through a referendum. Today, Iran is experiencing one of the darkest hours in its history, similar to Britain in 1940. The country is on a downward spiral economically, socially, and morally collapsing, environmentally destroying vital resources, politically fracturing, and internationally facing various threats (due to expansionism and threats to another country of being thrown into the sea). Some may naively think that this ship can be saved through dreams and without cost. The art of leaders like Churchill (whom we are currently witnessing in a brilliant film about his appointment as Prime Minister in Britain in May 1940: The Darkest Hour) was that they knew one could not negotiate with Hitler. His very beautiful expression against the peace seekers of that time (Chamberlain and Halifax) was that one cannot reason rationally with a tiger with one's head in its mouth. While today the fate of each Iranian is in the hands of a rogue and wolf-like government, one cannot ask (through intermediaries like Benito Mussolini or Hassan Rouhani) the same rogues to hold a referendum, adhere to international standards, accept international observers, and then remain faithful to its results. A nation that can impose such things on a government is a nation that has twenty to thirty million of its members sitting in the streets for a week demanding the fall of the regime. In this case, there is no 'previous regime' in power to ask for a referendum.