the presidency and shifting to a parliamentary system of government that is remarkably Shah-like.
Most commentary within and outside Iran has seen this proposal as an attack on President Ahmadi-nejad.
But some interpret the proposal as an effort by Khamenehi to consolidate power in his own hands. The irony is that the proposal would likely return Iran to the form of governance under the Shah—sort of a monarchy without a monarch, but still with an all-powerful leader-for-a-lifetime.
Khamenehi has not firmly proposed abolishing the presidency. He has merely mused openly about doing so at some point in the future. He didn’t provide any details about his thoughts. He merely dropped a few sentences about it into the middle of a lengthy speech on other topics. It looked to many like he was raising a trial balloon.
“In the present situation,” he said, “under the political system of the country,… the president is directly elected by the people, which is a good and effective approach. However, probably in the distant future, the parliamentary system is better for the election of executive officials. There will be no problem to change the current structure.” The reference to the “distant future” made his remarks sound to some like theoretical musings. But others saw it otherwise.
Most political figures, including Ahmadi-nejad, have been silent—at least in public.
But Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani has said he sees merit in Khamenehi’s musings. Lari-jani’s view is important because it is widely expected that he has been planning to run for the presidency in 2013 to succeed Ahmadi-nejad, who cannot run again under Iran’s constitutional two-term limit. It is thus Larijani who potentially stands to lose the most under Khamenehi’s concept.
Only a single major figure has thus far spoken out against abolishing the presidency. That is Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Raf-sanjani, 77. In an interview with the daily Sharq, he disapproved, saying the proposal to abolish the presidency would limit “the influence of the public.” He avoided criticizing Khamenehi, saying he was sure the Supreme Leader did not wish to limit the influence of the people over the government.
Deputy Mohammad Deh-gan was among those who jumped on what might become a bandwagon for change. “The Supreme Leader is the only unchangeable part of our system,” he said. “Our presidential system in its current form is not effective.” Others echoed Dehgan in arguing that abolishing the presidency would abolish the debilitating political squabbles that have prevailed under Ahmadi-nejad, although the squabbles are largely due to the fact that Ahmadi-nejad clearly likes to squabble and often picks fights.
Mohammad-Reza Abbasi-Fard, a cleric and former member of the Council of Guardians, said it was Ahmadi-nejad’s overbearing style that prompted Khamenehi to raise the idea of abolishing the presidency. Like all others, Abbasi-Fard avoided any suggestion that the proposal would have the effect of concentrating power Shah-like in Khamenehi’s hands.
While the common wisdom sees Ahmadi-nejad as the target of Khamenehi’s proposal, that doesn’t hold much water. Ahmadi-nejad will be gone in just 21 months when his second term expires in August 2013.
To abolish the presidency would require a constitutional amendment and that would require a national referendum, which would take time and leave even less to Ahmadi-nejad’s term remaining.
The Islamic Republic is reluctant to hold too many ballotings, as it fears that tends to depress turnout—and turnout is very important to the leadership, which views it as an endorsement of the system itself. So the norm is to hold a referendum at the same time as a regular election.
The next election is for the Majlis next March 2. A referendum then could abolish the presidency immediately or at the end of Ahmadi-nejad’s term. The next regular election after the Majlis balloting will be in the spring of 2012 for Ahmadi-nejad’s successor—a rather odd time to hold a referendum on abolishing that very post.
If Khamenehi is serious about his idea, one would expect his supporters to begin organizing a call for a constitutional referendum in the next month or two in order to get it on the March 2 ballot.
As outlined by Khamenehi, the presidency would disappear completely. The Majlis would still be elected by the people. A prime minister responsible to the Majlis would be the repository of executive power under the Supreme Leader. No real political parties exist under the Islamic Republic, so a key question is how a prime minister would be selected. Most likely, he would be nominated by the Supreme Leader and sent to the Majlis for approval.
All of this sounds very similar to the old monarchy, but with the Supreme Leader replacing the Shahanshah. Ultimate power would remain in the hands of the man on top. He would pick the prime minister who would handle day-to-day affairs while being responsible to the Supreme Leader.
A key question is how free elections to the Majlis would be. Under Mohammad Reza Shah, they were free in the early years of his reign in the 1940s but later dissolved into little more than mere formalities. Might that be repeated under the Islamic Republic?
Ironic footnote: The last constitutional referendum held in Iran was in 1989. That amended the constitution to abolish the prime minister and make the ceremonial office of the president into a real power center running the government. The last prime minister, who lost out in the referendum, was Mir-Hossain Musavi, now under house arrest, and the last ceremonial president was Khamenehi, who often clashed with Musavi. Khamen-ehi advocated the strong presidency. Khamenehi that year moved up to the post of Supreme Leader and Rafsanjani became the first occupant of the strengthened presidency.