By Selim Celal
- Selim Celal is a Turkey-based writer and expert on Iranian foreign policy and domestic politics.
ISTANBUL
Statements and counter-statements between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani against one another are not a new phenomenon.
Prior to the May 19, 2017 elections, these could be interpreted in the context of the vote. Rouhani needed to show boldness in order to mobilize supporters.
On the other hand, Khamenei's statements seemed to be viewed as an attempt to undermine the performance of President Rouhani, thereby indirectly helping the establishment-backed candidate, Ibrahim Raeesi.
Quarrel between Khamenei-Rouhani
The election is over, but the quarrel is still going on, in a more straightforward way. It was June 7, 2017 when the Supreme Leader, in an address to a group of handpicked devoted university students, criticized President Rouhani’s government and issued his “fire at will” order.
Five days later, on June 12, the Supreme Leader, in the presence of Rouhani, warned against polarization of the country, and referred to the polarization of the Iranian society during a quarrel between Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, and the then president Abul Hasan Banisadr in 1981, which led to the removal of the latter.
In the meantime, the Supreme Leader’s devotees have also openly joined the race.
They made their first appearance on June 23, 2017 during the Quds rally to show that they had taken their Leader’s so-called “fire at will” order seriously.
In the Islamic Republic, the last Friday of the fasting month (Ramadan) is declared as Quds (Jerusalem) Day to show solidarity with the people of Palestine. Every year on this day, state-sponsored demonstrations are held in every nook and cranny of the country and all officials also participate in them.
May your marital bond be happy
During the rally, demonstrators usually chant slogans such as “Death to America, Israel and Britain!” But this year during the Quds rally in Tehran, a new slogan made the headlines.
A group of protestors, upon seeing President Rouhani, began chanting “Banisadr Rouhani! Paywandetan mubarak”, which literally means, “Banisadr–Rouhani! May your bond be happy.”
However, when evaluated in the context of Persian culture, it is a typical well-wishing phrase said to newly-wed couples -- specifically used for this purpose -- so it really means “May your marital bond be happy”.
The incident received wide criticism from the supporters of President Rouhani.
Given the far-reaching implications of the slogan, some attempts were initially made to attribute the incident to a small group of unknown rogue elements (though one can safely say that there is no rogue element in the Islamic Republic, and all of those viewed as so-called rogue elements are but cronies of the establishment).
But despite that, this attempt failed two days later, on June 25, through another wave of attacks on the president on the occasion of the Eid al-Fitr prayer in the presence of the Supreme Leader, who also led the prayer.
At Iranian state gatherings, it is a quite common practice to start the program with madhe Ahl e Bayt (a eulogy of the household of the Prophet Muhammad upon him be peace and blessings).
During this opening stage, a professional maddah (eulogist) heaps praises on the household of the Prophet in a very typical and emotional way.
But, the part of the eulogy about the Eid al-Fitr ceremony turned into a declamatory episode, in which the eulogist read a piece of facetious poetry against Rouhani and his government.
The peak of the episode was the moment when the eulogist read the hemistich “Oh! The one who is sitting in the front row”, while stretching his hand toward Rouhani, who was sitting at the front row.
Iran's political system
That said, the key question is: what are the sources as well as the nature of the quarrel between the Supreme Leader and the president?
To answer this question, one would need to look at the Iranian political system.
The system, though constitutionally branded as an ‘Islamic Republic’, is described as a ‘theocracy’ in which religion and politics are integrated.
Therefore, the Islamic Republic, in essence, practices a ‘two-tiered sovereignty’. It has a republican feature and a theocratic one.
The republican feature claims to be the representative of the people’s will, while the theocratic feature is based on the view that it represents God’s will.
At the top of the republican institutions is the ‘Presidency’.
However, in terms of function and mandate, the republican institutions are significantly different from the practices of modern democracies.
The major portion of power is concentrated in the theocratic institutions, which it is claimed are based on a divine mandate, and which operate under the Supreme Leader.
Structural problem
Therefore, the dispute between the Supreme Leader and the president is in essence not an issue between two individuals, but rather a structural problem rooted in the very nature of the Islamic Republic’s theocratic political system.
So much so that this structural problem is not a recent one that has emerged during President Rouhani's tenure. It is a chronic problem that arose right after the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979.
Traditionally, all Iranian presidents have been on the defensive, trying to protect their domain, while the Supreme Leader has always been on the offensive, trying to expand his orbit of power.
Although it has been an unfair game between a powerless president and a powerful Supreme Leader, the rules of the game, by and large, have been observed by both sides.
To put it another way, there has been an unwritten agreement between the president and the Supreme Leader that the former reserve the right of self-protection and the latter the right of encroachment.
Yet, each and every president has adopted a different defense strategy.
For instance, the late former President Ali Akbar Hashimi Rafsanjani relied on his strong and healthy relations with the Supreme Leader, trying to protect his domain through informal channels.
On the other hand, former President Ahmadinejad, in his second term, went for confrontation, and in one case when he was forced by the Supreme Leader to reinstate his intelligence minister, he childishly went on strike by sitting at his home for 11 days.
It is also necessary to note that the Supreme Leader does not harbor personal enmity against any president.
His customary way has been to try and encroach in a professional way without bringing the issue to public attention. The current problem emerged when President Rouhani broke tradition and became a revisionist.
He has adopted this strategy in order to strive to reclaim certain areas which have already been lost to the Supreme Leader during the incumbency of his predecessors.
For instance, Rouhani has desperately been trying to limit the role of the Guardian of the Islamic Revolution (GIR) in the economy, while the GIR already consolidated its leverage over the Iranian economy during the late Rafsanjani’s presidency.
That's why the more Rouhani becomes revisionist, the more he provokes the Supreme Leader.
The solution to this problem lies in the following piece of wisdom by Sheikh Sadi Shirazi, the famous medieval Iranian poet, in his book Golestan (The Rose Garden), which reads: “It has been said that ten dervishes may sleep under the same blanket but that one country cannot hold two sultans.
When a pious man eats half a loaf of bread, he bestows the other half upon dervishes.
If a sultan were to conquer the seven climates, he would still in the same way covet another.”
On that account, any permanent and proper settlement of this issue requires restructuring the entire political system of the country in which the Iranians should be able to decide whether they want to be ruled by their own representative or the so-called representative of God.
Yet, this seems impossible at least in the near future. And if it is going to be realized one day, it would definitely be accompanied by pain and bloodshed.
* Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu Agency.
