IRAN CONSTITUTIONS: From Islamic Monarchy to Republic! (I & II)

Share/Save/Bookmark

IRAN CONSTITUTIONS: From Islamic Monarchy to Republic! (I & II)
by David ET
29-Dec-2008
 

“….The official religion of Iran is Islám, according to the orthodox Já'farí doctrine of the Ithna 'Ashariyya (Church of the Twelve Imáms), which faith the Sháh of Persia must profess and promote….

…..At no time must any legal enactment of the Sacred National Parliament, established by the favor and assistance of His Holiness the Imám of the Age (may God hasten his glad Advent !), the favor of His Majesty the Sháhinsháh of Islám (may God immortalize his reign!), the care of the Proofs of Islám (may God multiply the like of them !), and the whole people of the Persian nation, be at variance with the sacred principles of Islám or the laws established by His Holiness the Best of Mankind ((on whom and on whose household be the Blessings of God and His Peace!)….

….It is hereby declared that it is for the learned doctors of theology (the 'ulamá)—may God prolong the blessing of their existence!—to determine whether such laws as may be proposed are or are not conformable to the principles of Islám; and it is therefore officially enacted that there shall at all times exist a Committee composed of not less than five mujtahids or other devout theologians, cognizant also of the requirements of the age, [which committee shall be elected] in this manner. The 'ulamá and Proofs of Islám shall present to the National Consultative Assembly the names of twenty of the 'ulamá possessing the attributes mentioned above; and the Members of the National Consultative Assembly shall, either by unanimous acclamation, or by vote, designate five or more of these, according to the exigencies of the time, and recognize these as Members, so that they may carefully discuss and consider all matters proposed in the Assembly, and reject and repudiate, wholly or in part, any such proposal which is at variance with the Sacred Laws of Islám, so that it shall not obtain the title of legality. In such matters the decision of this Ecclesiastical Committee shall be followed and obeyed, and this article shall continue unchanged until the appearance of His Holiness the Proof of the Age (may God hasten his glad Advent !) ….“

From the text of monarchy constitution of Iran 

Part I - Summary :

The 1906 Iranian constitution and its amendment in 1907 although very progressive and revolutionary at the time, because of the extreme powers that it assigns to the Royal and Religious authorities (Shah and Clergy), can not be considered as an alternative, not even a temporary one for the present Iran.

 The 1979 constitution of the Islamic Republic also had some progressive articles buried within it but again due to its religious intent and the ultimate powers assigned to the supreme leader (Vali Faghih) and clergy, it can not reflect the demands of Iranians.

 In fact putting the forms aside, the two constitutions fundamentally have much in common. Although they both intend to divide the powers among the three divisions of legislative, judiciary and executive powers but all three branches remain to be under full control and supervisions of the clergy and/or royalty. Any laws passed in either parliament had to first be reviewed by a group of clergy for compliance with Shia Islam and then still the ultimate veto and approval powers remain with the Monarch or the Faghigh.

 They both consider Shia as the official religion of Iran and require Monarch and Faghih to protect and even expand the Shia Islam thought the land.

 In fact under the Monarchist constitution if the Shah happens to be a Muslim fundamentalist, he could hardly be distinguished from its Vali Faghih counterpart except in the difference between a crown and a turban.

 In case of 1906 constitution some of the powers of the shah were taken away and assigned to the parliament but by the time of completion of its amendment in 1907, the Shia clergy had taken much control over the form of the constitution and its lawmaking process.

 The same was true with the revolution of 1979 which was participated by people and groups of different views, but by the time it reached the formation of constitution, the clergy formatted their own will within the texts of the constitution.

 What is obvious is that neither of the two constitutions is secular nor present the needs of Iran and Iranians today. Today we can not and should not recognize any title or power who claims its legitimacy based on either of the two constitutions.

 However, putting aside the influence and power of the Shia Clergy in both constitutions, one can not deny the evolutionary trend from the ultimate Monarchy to constitutional Monarchy in 1906 to a Republic in 1979 with the past 100+ years of Iranian history.

 In next sections I have posted only some of the flaws of the both constitutions which range from discriminatory by gender, age, religion and title to giving ultimate powers to the King or the clergy.

 It should be reiterated that the 100+ year old monarchy constitution was the result of heroic struggles of many respected Iranians and it contained many progressive articles but its historical and revolutionary aspect is not the subject of this article which is only studying its present applicability.

Part II: Some of the flaws of 1906/1907 Monarchy Constitution:

(photo)

Part II - Some of the flaws of 1906/1907 Monarchy Constitution:

Scripts from constitution are in  [italics]

Discriminatory electoral laws:

[ART. 3. The persons who are entirely deprived of electoral rights are as follows: (i) women : (ii) persons not within years of discretion, and those who stand in need of a legal guardian: (iii) foreigners: (iv) persons whose age falls short of twenty-five years: (v) persons notorious for mischievous opinions: (vi) bankrupts who have failed to prove that they were not fraudulent: (vii) murderers, thieves, criminals, and persons who have undergone punishment according to the Islamic Law, as well as persons suspected of murder or theft, and the like, who have not legally : (viii) persons actually serving in the land or sea forces]The persons who are conditionally deprived of electoral rights are as follows: (i) governors, and assistant governors, within the area of their governments: (ii) those employed in the military or police within the area of their appointments. ART. 4. Those elected must possess the following qualifications: (i) they must speak Persian: (ii) they must be able to read and write Persian: (iii) they must be Persian subjects of Persian extraction: (iv) they must be locally known: (v) they must not be in government employment: (vi) their age must be not less than thirty or more than seventy: (vii) they must have some insight into affairsART. 5. Those persons who are debarred from being elected are: (i) women : (ii) foreign subjects : (iii) those who are actually serving in the land or sea forces : (iv) fraudulent bankrupts : (v) persons who have been guilty of murder or theft; criminals ; persons who have undergone punishment conformably with the Islamic Law; and persons suspected of murder, theft and the like, who have not legally exculpated themselves: (vi) those whose age falls short of thirty: (vii) those who are notorious for evil doctrine, or who live in open sin. ]

Parliament Oath was only to Quran, not allowing options for other beliefs. Also all members of parliament must believe in monarchy and if they support any other form of government such as republic etc that is considered an act of treason. Naturally if this applied to parliament members it also expanded to normal citizens which was a ground for political imprisonments that followed thereafter:

[ART. II. Members of the Assembly, on taking their seats, shall take and subscribe to the following form of oath: "We the undersigned take God to witness, and swear on the Qur'án, that, so long as the rights of the Assembly and its Members are observed and respected, in conformity with these Regulations, we will, so far as possible, discharge, with the utmost truth, uprightness, diligence and endeavor, the duties confided to us; that we will act loyally and truthfully towards our just and honored Sovereign, commit no treason in respect of either the foundations of the Throne or the Rights of the People, and will consider only the advantage and well being of Persia." ]

The following sections gave the ultimate veto power to Shah which provided the constitutional grounds for future dictatorship:

[ART. 15. The National Consultative Assembly has the right in all questions to propose any measure which it regards as conducive to the well-being of the Government and the People, after due discussion and deliberation thereof in all sincerity and truth; and, having due regard to the majority of votes, to submit such measure, in complete confidence and security, after it has received the approval of the Senate, by means of the First Minister of the State, so that it may receive the Royal Approval and be duly carried out. ART. 17. The National Consultative Assembly shall, when occasion arises, bring forward such measures as shall be necessary for the creation, modification, completion or abrogation of any Law, and, subject to the approval of the Senate, shall submit it for the Royal Sanction, so that due effect may thereafter be given to it. ART. 33. New laws which are needed shall be drafted and revised in the Ministries which are respectively responsible, and shall then be laid before the Assembly by the responsible Ministers, or by the Prime Minister. After being approved by the Assembly, and ratified by the Royal Signature, they shall be duly put into force]

Half of the Senate members were HAND SELECTED by Shah!  and also constitution gave 50% of power to City of Tehran regardless of population percentage versus the rest of the nation:

[ART. 45. The Members of this Assembly shall be chosen from amongst the well-informed, discerning, pious and respected persons of the Realm. Thirty of them shall be nominated on the part of His Imperial Majesty (fifteen of the people of ִTehran, and fifteen of the people of the Provinces), and thirty by the Nation (fifteen elected by the people of Tehran, and fifteen by the people of the Provinces). ]

THE SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF OCTOBER 7, 1907:

The next few articles of the monarchy constitution are almost as if are the same as the Islamic Republic Constitution!

Not only the Official Religion of Iran was recognized as Shia Jafari of 12 Imam but Shah had the duty to promote it:

[ART. I. The official religion of Persia is Islam, according to the orthodox Já'farí doctrine of the Ithna 'Ashariyya (Church of the Twelve Imáms), which faith the Sháh of Persia must profess and promote. ]

This part is almost the same as the Islamic Republic!:

[ART. 2. At no time must any legal enactment of the Sacred National Consultative Assembly, established by the favor and assistance of His Holiness the Imam of the Age (may God hasten his glad Advent !), the favor of His Majesty the Sháhinsháh of Islám (may God immortalize his reign!), the care of the Proofs of Islám (may God multiply the like of them !), and the whole people of the Persian nation, be at variance with the sacred principles of Islám or the laws established by His Holiness the Best of Mankind 1 (on whom and on whose household be the Blessings of God and His Peace!)]

This is similar to Guardian Council (Shoraye Negahban) of Islamic Republic :

[It is hereby declared that it is for the learned doctors of theology (the 'ulamá)—may God prolong the blessing of their existence!—to determine whether such laws as may be proposed are or are not conformable to the principles of Islám; and it is therefore officially enacted that there shall at all times exist a Committee composed of not less than five mujtahids or other devout theologians, cognizant also of the requirements of the age, [which committee shall be elected] in this manner. The 'ulamá and Proofs of Islám shall present to the National Consultative Assembly the names of twenty of the 'ulamá possessing the attributes mentioned above; and the Members of the National Consultative Assembly shall, either by unanimous acclamation, or by vote, designate five or more of these, according to the exigencies of the time, and recognize these as Members, so that they may carefully discuss and consider all matters proposed in the Assembly, and reject and repudiate, wholly or in part, any such proposal which is at variance with the Sacred Laws of Islám, so that it shall not obtain the title of legality. In such matters the decision of this Ecclesiastical Committee shall be followed and obeyed, and this article shall continue unchanged until the appearance of His Holiness the Proof of the Age (may God hasten his glad Advent !) ]

This section gives power to Shria:

[ART. 15. No property shall be removed from the control of its owner save by Sharia sanction [mojvez Shar’ee] and then only after its fair value has been determined and paid. ART. 18. The acquisition and study of all sciences, arts and crafts is free, except in the case of such as may be forbidden by the Sharia law (Shar’an)]

Publications construed as anti-Islam are illegal:

[ART. 20. All publications, except heretical books and matters hurtful to the perspicuous religion [of Islám] are free, and are exempt from the censorship. If, however, anything should be discovered in them contrary to the Press law, the publisher or writer is liable to punishment according to that law. If the writer be known, and be resident in Persia, then the publisher, printer and distributor shall not be liable to prosecution.]

Any public association and assembly that is considered mischief to Islam is illegal :

[ART. 21. Societies (anjumans) and associations (ijtimá'át) which are not productive of mischief to Religion or the State, and are not injurious to good order, are free throughout the whole Empire, but members of such associations must not carry arms, and must obey the regulations laid down by the Law on this matter. Assemblies in the public thoroughfares and open spaces must likewise obey the police regulations. ]

Legislative power must comply with Shria law and with Sharia tribunals :

[ART. 27. The powers of the Realm are divided into three categories. First, the legislative power, which is especially concerned with the making or amelioration of laws. This power is derived from His Imperial Majesty, the National Consultative Assembly, and the Senate, of which three sources each has the right to introduce laws, provided that the continuance thereof be dependent on their not being at variance with the standards of the Sharia law, and on their approval by the Members of the two Assemblies, and the Royal ratification. The enacting and approval of laws connected with the revenue and expenditure of the kingdom are, however, specially assigned to the National Consultative Assembly. The explanation and interpretation of the laws are, moreover, amongst the special functions of the above mentioned Assembly. Second, the judicial power, by which is meant the determining of rights. This power belongs exclusively to the Sharia tribunals in matters connected with the Shria law, and to the civil tribunals in matters connected with ordinary law. ]

Shah has executive power :

[Third, the executive power, which appertains to the King, that is to say, the laws and ordinances are carried out by the Ministers and State officials in the august name of His Imperial Majesty in such manner as the Law defines. ]

Shah legitimacy is given by God just as Vali Faghih is in Islamic Republic :

[ART. 35. The Kinghood (Saltanat) is a trust confided (as a Divine gift) by the people to the person of the King.]

Shah’s responsibility under oath is to promote the Ja 'farí Shia doctrine of the Church of the Twelve Imáms:

[ART. 39. No King can ascend the Throne unless, before his coronation, he appear before the National Consultative Assembly, in presence of the Members of this Assembly and of the Senate, and of the Cabinet of Ministers, and repeat the following oath: "I take to witness the Almighty and Most High God, on the glorious Word of God, and by all that is most honored in God's sight, and do hereby swear that I will exert all my efforts to preserve the independence of Persia, safeguard and protect the frontiers of my Kingdom and the rights of my People, observe the Fundamental Laws of the Persian Constitution, rule in accordance with the established laws of Sovereignty, endeavor to promote the Ja 'farí doctrine of the Church of the Twelve Imáms, and will in all my deeds and actions consider God Most Glorious as present and watching me. I further ask aid from God, from Whom alone aid is derived, and seek help from the holy spirits of the Saints of Islám [Oliyaye Islam] to render service to the advancement of Persia." ]

Shah is above law and can not be held responsible for his actions!:

[ART. 44. The person of the King is exempted from responsibility. The Ministers of State are responsible to both Chambers in all matters.]

Shah SELECTS and dismiss ministers at own will!:

[ART. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.]

Shah is in charge of armed forces and can declare war or end it as he desires and parliament has no say in it!:

[ART. 50. The supreme command of all the forces, military and naval, is vested in the person of the King. ART. 51. The declaration of war and the conclusion of peace are vested in the King. ]

Shah can shut down parliament and senate:

[ART. 54. The King can convoke in extraordinary session the National Consultative Assembly and the Senate.]

Only Muslims are qualified to be government ministers :

[ART. 58. No one can attain the rank of Minister unless he be a Muslim by religion, a Persian by birth, and a Persian subject. ]

Clergy are in charge of judicial decision making on matters of Sharia :

[ART. 71. The Supreme Ministry of Justice and the judicial tribunals are the places officially destined for the redress of public grievances, while judgment in all matters falling within the scope of the Ecclesiastical Law is vested in just mujtahids possessing the necessary qualifications. ]

Judiciary head and supreme court are also controlled and selected by Shah :

[ART. 80. The presidents and members of the judicial tribunals shall be chosen in such manner as the laws of justice determine, and shall be appointed by Royal Decree.]

Shah even selects the public prosecutor which also must be approved by ruling Ayatollah:  [ART. 83. The appointment of the Public Prosecutor is within the competence of the King, supported by the approval of the Sharia judge. (Hakem Shar’ee)]

Elected officials must have been Muslims except in case of Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews. Others such as Baha'i's were not recognized.

[Section III. ART. 7. Candidates for Election must possess the following qualities and status: i. They must profess the Faith of His Holiness Muhammad the son of 'Abdu'lláh, unless they represent the Christian, Zoroastrian, or Jewish communities, in which case also they must be sound in their respective beliefs. ....]

 

Amendment to Amendment of constitution:

In this amendment, any parliamentary votes to amend the constitution required Shah’s ultimate approval and also any resulted constitutional amendments  have be approved by Shah

References: 1906/1907 Constitution:   Persian   English

Click to Continue: 

Part III - Reviewing the 1979 Islamic Republic Constitution
Part IV: Conclusion

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from David ET
 
Niloufar Parsi

Dear David

by Niloufar Parsi on

sure, will do! :)

Happy 2009 to you too...many people are now actually wishing each other a safe 2009 instead! strange times...


David ET

Dear Niloufar

by David ET on

I do agree with you. Please keep up with the article and discussion towards the "conclusion".

We are on our way to secular system and NastraDariush even predicted a deadline today;-)

Happy 2009 :-)


David ET

Dear Tara

by David ET on

In American politics I am independent

In Iranian politics I am for a secular republic (republican ;-)

Cheers :-) 


Tara

Say what?!!

by Tara on

David ET is a Republican?!!  Sheesh...


Niloufar Parsi

gentlemen

by Niloufar Parsi on

interesting discussion!

one question (admittedly a tangent, but hopefully interesting):

did we have an alternative for the separation of church and state to what has already happened? the mullahs have been central to the lives of average iranians for centuries since the Safavid period. now that they have taken over power more formally, and have lost their Shia 'oppressed' claims, isn't this the moment for truly achieving the separation, rather than previous efforts that were imitations of foreign experiences?did we not need this as an awful and painful medicine for the 'masses' to wake up to the devastation brought on by superstition?

this is not meant as a justification for the IRI. Simply a cold observation on how countries effect such major transitions in governance.

Peace!


David ET

I almost forgot

by David ET on

Here is sometimes how our discussions sound like on iranian.com LOL

 


Darius Kadivar

LOL ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

Indeed my political future is at stake now ;0)

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU MY REPUBLICAN BROTHER AND TO YOUR LOVED ONES TOO ;0)

Keep Up the good work too. Always a Pleasure and intellectually challenging.

DK


David ET

2008+13= Dec 30, 2021

by David ET on

My secular brother , NastraDariush!

Your prediction was just recorded in the pages of history right here on iranian.com forever and for the future generation to read ;-)

You're hired :-)

Cheers and Happy NEW year ..


Darius Kadivar

Nope David Only 13 years ... ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

If I may contradict you David, on your stubborn republican pessimism with My Royal Optimism ... ;0)

You drew a quick conclusion once again ... .

Remember this is a Comparative Study so You need to compare figures that make sense.  

1789-1905: 116 years for France to become Secular since the Revolution

1905-2008: 103 years since the Iranian ( Non Islamic ) Revolution and still no separation of State and Religion.

116 -103=13 years to go ....

This ain't No Abbot an Castello Math's either ...

VIVE LE ROI ;0)

LOL

    


David ET

2008-1905

by David ET on

So as of now we are 103 years behind French with implemention of seperation of Church and State and that is so far !

Indeed Iranian intellectuals followed the political progress in Europe but always faced the Islamic Clergy opposition in its implementation as un-islamic ! 

 


Darius Kadivar

FYI/France Adopted the Separation of Church and State in 1905

by Darius Kadivar on

Thank you David for the feedback. Just to note that France adopted the Separation of Church and State ONLY in 1905 as it prevails today which proves that it was a relatively new and problematic idea even for a "modern" society like France at the time that shook conservative traditions and values still deeply rooted in the country:

1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State

In America however the notion of a clear separation between State and Church was first suggested and developed by Thomas Jefferson. As you know the American Constitution is Secular but there is a ceremonial Oath on the Bible that is imposed on each President (regardless of the Presidents religion, as you know Kennedy for instance was Catholic and not Protestant like most Americans)  when he takes Office officially. That is not the case in France which is a truly Secular Republic today but that its secular nature in practice Only dates back to 1905 that is barely a year before Iran's Constitutional Revolution and the first Russian Revolution of 1905/1907 that coincided approximately with that of Iran's and prior to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

Also A note of comparison here between the evolution of the French and Iranian Constitutions is worthy and that is that Iran  adopted the right to vote for women in Parlimentary election in 1963 :

See Reference

As early as 1932, Iranian women held a meeting of the Oriental Feminine Congress in Tehran at which they called for the right of women to vote, compulsory education for both boys and girls, equal salaries for men and women, and an end to polygyny. In 1963 women were given the right to vote and to hold public office. .

Women Suffrage in France dates ONLY back to 1946

 

 


David ET

Dear Dariush

by David ET on

The link to full text of constitutions is at the bottom of the posts in both English and Persian.

It is my understanding that the first part (1906) was the original one that was drafted somewhat in a rush and then the continuation and final was drafted in 1907 which by then clergy added so much religious control to it.

In next chapter I will review the Islamic Republic constitution which will lead to interesting conclusions (in my view) in the final chapter.

 


Darius Kadivar

Interesting Comparative Study but."Absolute" is the correct term

by Darius Kadivar on

Thanks for this post. Interesting Comparative Study but."Absolute" is the correct term or rather common denominator between the two constitutions as drafted here ? Could you refer to your exact bibliographical sources. Also was wondering if the 1906 Constitution presented here and most probably adopted and drafted under the Qajars was the original text submited by the Constitutionalists in 1906 ?

From what I gather the Iranian 1906 Constitution was drafted from the Belgian Constitution of the time.

As for the Religious aspect of the constitution it is not very surprising for the King under an Absolute Monarchy is King by Divine Right unlike under a truly Constitutional Monarchy where at best the King or Queen is just a figurehead (reigns but does not rule) and at times considered as Head of the Church like in England ( Queen Elisabeth II is for instance the head of the Anglican Church). But in Belgium unlike England, The Head of the Church is the Pope and not the King or Queen so this separation is clear cut since Belgium's religious majority are Roman Catholics and the Constitution is secular and the separation of powers is clear cut.

Your "Constitutional" Comparison is one of an "Absolute" Monarchy and an "Absolute" Republic which are dictatorial by definition. That is not the case for a truly Constitutional Monarchy ( ex: England, Spain or Belgium today) nor for a Constitutional Republic ( better known as Republic and preferably when democratic which is not the case for many in the Third World from Egypt to Syria or Iran ...).

I also think that the Constitutional Revolution as such considered a clear separation of powers which was not adopted by the Qajar Dynasty and which the Pahlavi Dynasty under the two Pahlavi kings simply prolonged the "Absolute" Interpretation.