Supreme Leader supports Parliament in dispute with Ahmadinejad over a bill
Iran’s parliamentary procedure requires each bill passed by MPs to be submitted to Guardian Council, which consists of several Ayatollahs as well as lawyers, and its approval is a must for enacting the bill of interest. This council checks every bill to be consistent with both Constitution and Islamic Jurisprudence. Approved by Guardian Council, President is legally required to implement the bill.
Last week, in an unprecedented event, Ahmadinejad rejected the approved bill and sent a letter to Iran’s Parliament Speaker, Gholamali Haddad Adel, informing the parliament that ‘the bill passed by parliament is in conflict with Constitution’, implying that he would refuse to implement it.
Therefore, Parliament Speaker sent a letter to Supreme Leader and asked of his opinion or decree in this case. Supreme Leader’s office informed the parliament of His final say: The government must follow parliament’s bills.
*****
Moral Result: Probably Iran’s Supreme Leader is going to set a line between him and radical administration of Ahmadinejad.
Join the Conversation
What was the bill concerning?
Iran’s Parliament would pass an act called “Development Plan” once every 5 years, which paves the way of development for the next 5 years in various economic, political and cultural grounds. the last plan of these series, “4th Development Plan”, was passed by the previous Parlimanet (majority of which were reformists). Ahmadinejad claims that this plan is based on “western principles of liberalization”, thus trying to avoid it as well as any requirements based on it, as much as possible.
more exactly, the bill itself was to change some of the details of the 4th Development Plan, which would supposedly set more limitations for Ahmadinejad administration with regards to funding some Oil and Gas projects, one parliament member said.
Thanks very much.
I don’t know much about Iranian politics, but I would guess that Ahmadinejad has this job because at one time he found favor in the eyes of the ruling religious elite, including the Supreme Leader. The trouble is, that it is not easy to keep an extremist in check, even if it is other extremists who are trying to do so.
Nissim, from my understanding, which is naturally inexact and flawed, Ahmedinejad was not the candidate of choice or endorsed overtly or tacitly by Kameni. Indeed, Katami was certainly not supported by the clerical elite that coalesses around Kameni. Indeed, it is worth noting that Ahmedinejad is the fist non cleric president of Iran. It appears that he had support from if not all at least a major faction within the Revolutionary Guard who helped him first into Mayor of Tehran and then into the Presidency. His political party did not support him in the 2005 election; they supported Larijani. I see Ahmedinejad as part of a powerful self helping cell of conservatives who are the second generation of the revolution and have taken control of a reasonable amount of the state.
Thanks James, for that clarification. So if there is a disconnect between the religious leaders and the conservatives, does that point to some sort of de facto system of checks and balances, even if it is not written into the constitution?
Nissim,
Ahmadinejad had few methods in making himself appealing in the eyes of thosewho voted for him. Many mayors and statesmen were finacially corrupt and he did not have a background like others so far. A a mayer you can see his picture of wearing the orange clothes of the laborors working for municipality. There were mayors who made a difference for the workers but they did not wear orange. There are few techniques that make one look better, then later on when the person is in the office would show how he supports his own slogans.
When he was a candidate he said he had nothing to do with the dress code of women, that he would make women watch the football matches inside the studion ( it is forbidden). In the fist case he merely lied, because rules became stricter and more people got caught for not observing, in fact if we wore some thing not appropriate in their eyes we had to fill up a form and sign that we promise we won’t break the laws again.
About women and football studium, what he said was objected by the clerics and he gave in right away. I find the whole thing propaganda. His remarks and his choice of words and his unpredictable uncomprehensive speeches and acts really made it much worse for Iranians.
Thank you, Elinor: I remember reading that he was a very anti-corruption candidate. Although different media portray him in different ways to suit their agendas, my impression was that he also received much support for his economic policies, and that he was actually pretty popular among moderates and even reformers.
Am I right in thinking that he has turned out to be much more conservative than he appeared during the elections?
Thanks Elinor. Acutally, we are going through a similar process here in the States. Candidates are promising the moon in the Presidential election. Once in office, it’s often a different story. We don’t always know who we’re really voting for. It’s often an image that we pull the lever for, only to realize later that the image is just that, an image.
..What? Because Iran’s Supreme Leader is such highly celebrated liberal isn’t he?! what are you talking about?
This, even at that level, is basically the game that this dictatorship is playing for you. Is anyone really that easily fooled?! Ahmadinejad bad, Khamenei good? Wow.. this propaganda must be aimed at the least educated class of people, I hope.
Elinor & Nissim:
Elinor’s explanation of what led to Ahmadinejad’s unexpected victory is, to a fair extent, true.
Subsequently, Ahmadinejad, during nearly 3 years of his presidency, failed to fulfill some of his well-known slogans, such as those mentioned by Elinor. One might even doubt if he really were determined to do some of those slogans, i.e. they were just some slogans to win the election,
But, its worth noting that Ahmadinejad distributed a very huge amount of money between people, a fair part of it distributed in non-metropolitan populations; this would lead to a short-term convenience for people though followed by a long-term inflation. He built (or at least began to build) several hospitals in small cities which have been mostly neglected areas during previous administrations; he paid visit to almost every part of this country, while some of these people have not ever graced to meet a provincial governer during previous administrations; to conclude, he has done several things (either real action or just propaganda) to win the hearts of the people out of metropolises… and, to mu knowledge, he has been successful to reap some short-run benefits (in the terms of increaed popularity and else) in the expense of long-run national benefits (for examle, during his current term, the amount of money in this country got almost doubled, an unprecedented event which will cause a great damage to the economy of this country in the next years).
MyTwoCents:
lets be more specific:
1- Hijab Crackdown – police rally against those who dont observe strict Islamic Dress Code, happened during his presidency. BUT police is an independent department under the full control of Supreme Leader. then, it was not Ahmadinejad Government who directed the whole thing, and even some of his spokesmen publicly objected to that event. I think, if Ahmadinejad were to decide about Hijab Crackdown, he would avoid it not because he is not such a religious person, but due to the fact that it might destroy his popularity.
2- in the case of Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance – every new/old book should be submitted to the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, and they should decide whether the book is allowed to be published/re-published or not. ‘Chaotic’ best describes this part of the Ministry’s activities: “Memories of My Melancholy Whores” of Gabriel Garcia Marquez got the permission and appeared in bookstores, but just to be banned and gathered one month later. in the same time, some previously published books are now suffering a ban from this ministry. in another unprecedented event, a special part pf Fajr Music Festival (sponsored by Government to much extent) was dedicated to Women Singers, who indeed sang for female audience; but the event itself was shocking.
3- With regards to Ahmadinejad’s economic policy: Conservatives of Iran follow a kind of economic strategy known as Bazzar Economy, somehow based on exploiting and gathering the opportunities/resources as much as possible, then administring redistribution of these resources in the market in order to impose their might as the final say. Liberals and Right wingers also do exist in Iran, who try globalizing, privatizing and liberalizing the market. Left Economy is almost missing in the scene. Ahmadinejad’s economic policy is somehow Populist, but not exactly conforming to a left version of Populism. Privatization of most important governmental assets (such as Steel Companies and else) began 2 years ago. though some high ranking officials accuse Ahmadinejad of setting barriers to the way of privatization, I think he indeed prefers to do it to gather some more money. Privatization might be assumed a symbol of Right Economy in Iran, but the way he spends the money is a well-known left (not conservative) approach.
4- In the case of politics: this is that part of his agenda most conforming to a conservative approach. no need for further explanation, as you all know very well the whole story: anti-American slogans, anti-Zionism, etc.
therefore, Ahmadinejad is a mixed phenomenon, I think.
City boy:
(IV) today, there is enough evidence to support this (previously stigmatized) guess that “even in the modern world, Democracy is not necessarily a kind of prerequisite for Progress”. I love Democracy (what a clichet!) and I admire Progress; but if in a certain situation, they are found to be in conflict, I would prefer progress.
(III) what kind of approach to the current regime of Iran would I support? exactly that kind of approach more consistent with SWOT analysis; and such an analysis would never lead to overthrowing this regime right now, I think. the idea of “Instant Democracy” is dead, I believe.
(II) I would prefer to make a gradual progress here in Iran, and that should be started with finding exact qualities of Leading Personals, Parties, etc.
(I) Iran’s regime might be far away from a democratic system compared to that of siitzerland, but he is a closer thing to democracy compared with the leaders of the region’s regime.