AND BALANCES IN
(Religious Apartheid or so-called Islamic Democracy)
Once I wrote about some issues
with regards to the liberal doctrine that the legislative, executive, and
judicial functions of government should be kept separate, and I noted that some
political theorists of our times, such as the
The new mechanisms of checks and
balances in countries like the United States, that have been pioneers of
adhering to the doctrine of separation of power, show that this doctrine has a
lot of room to evolve, to respond to the needs of 21st Century. †In fact direct voting for ballot initiatives,
in states such as
Nonetheless, let me emphatically
note that all this discussion was for advancement of this theory of separation
of power, and by no means, would I repudiate this great theory.† In fact, I think this theory is one of the
most important advancements of political theory in history, as the result of
political movement in
Here are the issues that have been raised:
But the story of Islamic Republic is a whole different story.
Islamic Republic started by placing the close associates of clergy, wearing civil suits, at the top of the *executive branch* of government, because Iranís executive branch of government hardly had any clergy in it at the time of the revolution, but as time passed, the clergy itself, not only took the Presidentís office, it more and more was put in various ministries of the executive branch, such as the ministry of Foreign Affairs.† And all along, Vali-e Faghih, a clergy at the top of all the branches of government, has had extraordinary executive power of assigning many major executive posts, such as chiefs of police and intelligence and military.
On the other hand, since the
inception of Islamic Republic, the legislative branch of power in
There is hardly a unified executive, or a unified legislative branch of government in Iran.† But this has hardly stopped the Islamic Republic from being a dictatorship, albeit a chaotic dictatorship.
One branch of government that has always been full of the clergy in its make-up, long before there was an Islamic Republic, has been the judicial function of Iranian government.† The clergy and the laws of Islam have had a powerful strength in that function, and from first days of executions ordered by revolutionary courts, in unfair trials with hardly any attorney presence, the new judiciary of Islamic Republic, showed its enhanced injustice to the Iranian people and to the world.
One thing that has now been proven over and over again, in Iranís experience, is that separation of power, even if it has three independent consolidated or distributed executive, legislative, and judicial functions, does not mean democracy.† The issue is not so much about independence of various functions of the government, as it is about the make-up of the government, in all its functional areas.† In other words, regardless of how good this theory is applied, by itself, it cannot bring democracy to a state based on religious apartheid.
The advancements of the Lockean theory, and even its best forms today, cannot change a state of religious apartheid to a democracy.† But such advancements are great mechanism to use, for running the state in the next government, after the Islamic Religious apartheid has been abolished.
Sam Ghandchi, Publisher
* The above article was first
posted on Jebhe BB on
P.S. An interesting point about the Supreme Court by Bertrand Russell:
country where Locke's principle of the division of powers has found its fullest
application is the
Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy" Page 640