Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist in the Balance: Roots of Ideology and Scenarios of an Unknown Fate

Recently, questions have been escalating regarding the future of the power hierarchy in Iran, especially with recurring reports about the health status of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. These questions go beyond the personal dimension to touch upon the essence of the 'Leader of the Revolution' position and its pivotal role in formulating the country's supreme strategies, at a time when Tehran faces increasing international pressure.

The position of Supreme Leader is not merely a transient political function; rather, it is an entity formulated according to complex religious requirements consistent with the doctrine of the awaited Mahdi in Twelver Shiite thought. Although this position represents the highest authority in the country, the structure of the Iranian system is characterized by institutional entanglement that may absorb the shock of the absence of any personality, no matter how significant.

Historically, the problem of governance among Shiites began with the 'Major Occultation' in 941 AD, which created a vacuum in political and religious leadership. Initially, the idea of deputyship was confined to minor religious and social affairs, while major powers and the establishment of the state remained exclusive to the awaited Imam according to the traditional perspective.

The Safavid era witnessed a fundamental shift, as jurists began to lean towards accepting the legitimacy of the existing authority as a fait accompli to serve the community. The scholar Sabzevari in the 17th century represented this trend, emphasizing the legitimacy of political authority for non-Imams, which marked the beginning of a separation between temporal and religious authorities.

The theory of general deputyship developed in the 16th century by the Second Investigator, who granted authorization to rule in the name of the 'Deputy of the Imam'. By the early 19th century, jurists such as Ahmad al-Naraqi called for jurists to take direct control of affairs under the title of 'Grand Imamate', rejecting the idea of passive waiting.

In contrast, early 20th-century Iran witnessed the 'Constitutional Revolution' which called for an end to royal despotism and the establishment of the rule of law. This revolution represented a break with traditional Imamate thought, advocating for the necessity of a constitution to govern the relationship between ruler and ruled, away from absolute divine authorization.

Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Na'ini emerged as one of the most important theorists of the constitutional state, considering that authority should be a trust in the hands of the people and not an individual possession. Na'ini warned that the absence of 'infallibility' from the jurist makes the concentration of power in his hands a gateway to injustice, suggesting that the constitution should be the alternative to the infallibility of the absent Imam.

Despite these liberal ideas, the current of absolute Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist re-emerged in the 1960s led by Khomeini, who argued that the jurist possesses all the powers of the infallible Imam. With the success of the revolution in 1979, this theory was constitutionally codified, making the final say in state affairs in the hands of the Supreme Leader.

The Iranian system created a unique blend that combines absolute guardianship with democratic mechanisms such as the election of parliament and the president. However, these institutions ultimately remain subject to the supervision of the Leader and the Assembly of Experts, ensuring that strategic decisions remain within the narrow religious circle.

This model has faced severe challenges in recent decades, manifested in waves of widespread popular protests that shook the foundations of the regime. Despite the severe repression these movements faced in 2009 and 2022, the roots of popular discontent remained dormant, awaiting the moment of explosion.

Current political readings indicate that Iran is experiencing a state of suppressed tension due to the decline of its regional influence and the economic consequences of wars. Observers believe that the end of current military crises may open the door to a popular explosion that will not be limited to livelihood demands, but will call for a radical change in the structure of the regime.

Historical experiences confirm that military defeats or existential crises often lead to the collapse of major ideological narratives. In the Iranian case, the erosion of the legitimacy of 'Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist' in the face of a young generation aspiring to citizenship and law may accelerate the end of this unique model of governance.

The conflict between the constitutional state and religious guardianship still exists in the Iranian political consciousness, a conflict fueled by successive crises. With the increasing gap between the aspirations of the people and the rigidity of the ruling establishment, it seems that the system is approaching a historical crossroads that will determine the country's fate for decades to come.

In conclusion, the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist remains a controversial political experiment, combining religious sanctity and political pragmatism at the same time. While the ruling elites try to preserve their gains, the question remains about the ability of this system to withstand the winds of change sweeping the region and within Iran.

The reduction of power to the person of the Guardian Jurist may lead to injustice instead of justice, which prompted historical thinkers to demand the guardianship of the nation over itself.