Statements of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in the Meeting with the Central Council of the Centennial of Constitutionalism

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

First of all, I thank you gentlemen very much. Both topics are truly deserving of the attention of the critical thoughts of researchers and experts.

I have several points in mind regarding the issue of Constitutionalism, which I will present. Mr. Najafi rightly said that if we correctly identify the perspective of the past, it will be very effective in outlining the perspective of the future; and indeed, knowledge and understanding of movements is only possible through this work. Therefore, let us take a look and see what happened in the Constitutional movement. Of course, discussions were held with friends two years ago on these matters, and I am generally aware of the thoughts and actions of the gentlemen, which are completely correct in their orientations; however, now I will express what comes to my mind:

In the Constitutional movement, the role of the clergy is not comparable to the role of others. In the years preceding the Constitutional movement - that is, during the reign of Mozaffar ad-Din Shah - secret societies were formed, and there were various gatherings that included both clergy and non-clergy, and their effects were reflected in the Constitutional movement; however, what brought the Constitutional movement to fruition was the popular presence that could only be realized through the activity and influence of the clergy; that is, if there was no fatwa from Akhund, no fatwa from Sheikh Abdollah Mazandarani and the likes of them, this movement could not have materialized externally. In addition to this, even in the collective actions of the elites - not the masses - the clergy had a dominant role. Look at the time when the Constitutional societies - that is, the societies formed after the decree - were established; the most influential people in the most important centers of the country were the clergy. Look at the Tabriz Society, look at the Mashhad Society, look at the Rasht Society; these are sensitive places where their main and effective elements are the clergy. Therefore, the role of the clergy in the Constitutional movement is, firstly, a role that cannot be denied, and secondly, cannot be compared with the roles of others who were present; the intellectuals, and subsequently, some of the powerful and influential figures in the government.

When we look at the clergy, we see that their history of activity is much longer than the period of the Constitutional movement. The hallmark of those previous activities was "anti-foreignism." The anti-despotism aspect of the clergy's activities was inherently tied to the anti-foreign and anti-colonial aspect. For example, the fatwa of the late Mirza Shirazi, the action of the late Mulla Ali Kani regarding the Reuter issue, and similar matters, prior to them in the struggles against the Russians, the essence of the movement of the late Akhund in threatening the Russians for the occupation of Iran and the rest of the actions you see, were the dominant and main aspects, and of course, in the matter of Constitutionalism, the anti-despotism aspect in the movement of the clergy became clear and evident, which I will now explain how this issue took shape.

What conclusion do we draw from this introduction? The conclusion is that if someone overlooks the anti-foreign domination aspect in the Constitutional movement, it is as if they have overlooked the essence and identity of this movement. This alone can interpret and analyze the disputes that the clergy involved in the Constitutional movement had with others; primarily the late Sheikh Fazlollah and those like him; subsequently, the late Seyyed Abdollah Behbahani and the late Seyyed Mohammad Tabatabai and the rest of those who were also clergy and later turned against the Constitutional movement. As a result, the issue of anti-foreign domination must definitely be taken into account.

Now I will take a look at the Constitutional movement; that is, from the year 1285 Shamsi to 1299; it is fourteen years. Mr. Haddad said: nineteen years; in terms of the reign of Reza Shah. While you should not count that at all. The government of Reza Shah did not start with his reign; it started with the coup of 1299; indeed, despotism began at that time. It was Reza Khan who was able to place that overwhelming despotism of Reza Khan - he was the commander of the army - like a ripe fruit in his lap; otherwise, it would have been impossible. So, place the beginning of the second despotism in the year 1299.

This British movement that was the active agent in the Constitutional movement and post-Constitutional movement occurs during what period in Western history and British history? From the time when the Westerners and Europeans were at the peak of their civilization and scientific and political progress; that is, they had a vigorous, hopeful, and aggressive movement towards the whole world, which you see the era of colonialism reaching its peak; that is, everywhere, in fact, all fertile regions of the world were under colonial rule, and one of the places that needed to be colonized was this oil-rich region. At that time, the role of oil was just beginning to become clear to the Westerners, and perhaps more important than oil for them was the issue of creating a buffer for India; because India was very important for the British, and the regions of Iran and Iraq were buffers to prevent the Tsarist Russia from reaching India. Therefore, Iran was one of the certain targets and objectives of the British.

In those fourteen years, what did they do? First, they took advantage of the opportunity, and as soon as they sensed this movement for justice in Iran through their agents, they very skillfully seized this movement and took control of it. One of the first things they did was to eliminate the main pillars of the other aspect of this movement, which was its religious and national aspect, from the scene, and then, taking advantage of the chaos that arose in Iran - it can be assumed that many of these chaotic events (the events in Azerbaijan, the events in the northwest of the country, and the issue of Urmia) were instigated by them, which has its indications. Incidentally, "Kasravi" describes the events in the northwest of the country very well, and one can see what happened there - they prepared the ground for an absolute despotic government, that is, the very thing that the Constitutional movement came against, and then in 1299, they brought this despot to power; that is, it took fourteen years for the despotic society that was being dissolved by the national and Islamic movement of the people, with the preparations they made, to be transformed into an indissoluble despotic society.

In the meantime, World War I also occurs, which, with the victory of the front in which the British are, gives the British a new power, and they can do whatever they want freely. You know that they conquered Iraq during these years; that is, between the years 1914 and 1920; in fact, from 1333 Qamari to 1338 Qamari. They initiated a series of actions regarding Iraq that one understands were, firstly, backed by their victory in the war, and secondly, due to their dominance over Iran. They were able to seize Iraq in 1920, where the "Revolution of 1920" - the Iraqi revolution - was completely suppressed, and they established the government. In that same year - that is, approximately within a year; now perhaps in terms of the months of the Gregorian calendar, there might be some variation - Reza Khan came to power; in 1299 and in 1920 or 21, King Faisal I came to power in Iraq, and the monarchy was completely in the hands of the British and was established by them; that is, the British executed a very well-calculated and precise movement.

Of course, I do not want to overlook the importance of the Constitutional movement - which you gentlemen mentioned - in the history of our country, which is correct; this is a very important thing and cannot be denied; like many of the actions that the enemies of a nation have taken, but that action gradually turned into something beneficial for that nation. Now, the Constitutional movement, which our nation initiated, was utilized by them! But for example, consider that the Indian National Congress was created by the British, yet India's independence was achieved through the Congress! That is, this gradually turned into a base against the British. This is possible and there is no objection to it.

You should take pride in the Constitutional movement and consider it one of the turning points in the history of Iran; but the truth of the scene and what actually happened outside is this. Now let us see what the movement of the clergy was. In my opinion, much work has not been done on that, and one of the points that must definitely be emphasized is this; what was the movement of the clergy?

The first point is that the slogan of the clergy was "justice-seeking." Specifically, what they wanted was a "House of Justice." Is that correct? This was not merely a moral expectation; because the demand for justice was not something that would require so much uproar. If it were a request and moral recommendation, this is something that has always existed, and the clergy and the elders have always encouraged the people towards justice or the rulers towards justice; but this uproar that arose and the sit-ins, the stand-offs, and then the confrontations with the despotic apparatus and the sacrifices that were made were not merely a request for moral rectitude, but they wanted something else that was beyond a mere moral request.

The second point is that the justice they sought was precisely and directly related to governmental issues; because their audience was the government. You know the issues began with the actions of the governor of Tehran; that uproar in the Seyyed Azizollah Mosque and the Grand Mosque, apparently. Of course, all of these have historical backgrounds and are evident; but this was the sore that burst and exploded here. Therefore, the audience of this justice-seeking was the government and the state, not the masses - merchants, and the rest of those who commit injustices in society - but rather the main and central focus was the government.

The third point is that what they wanted was a foundation to ensure justice, which they called the "House of Justice." Now, how this House of Justice was interpreted may not have been clear even to them. We do not claim that they had a clear and operational version of Constitutionalism in mind as it was a clear operational version in the eyes of Europeans and Westerners; we do not say that in the eyes of the clergy and the religious, the version of the House of Justice was as clear; no, but in general, it was that they wanted a legal apparatus that could place the king and all levels of government under its control and supervision, so that they would not commit injustices; so that justice would be ensured; that is, they wanted a device like this. Now, this could be interpreted as the National Assembly or the Islamic Assembly; it could be interpreted as something else. What they wanted was a practical institution and a legal reality that had the power to restrain the king; because the king had weapons and soldiers, and if they wanted to restrain him, naturally, this apparatus would have to have power beyond that of soldiers and barracks. These must be considered; that if they wanted to pursue this, they must have thought about this as well; that is, naturally, financial and military resources would be made available to him, so that he could enforce justice and impose justice on the government and on the king.

The last point is that the criterion for this justice was Islamic laws; that is, they wanted Islamic justice; there is no doubt about this, and they had repeatedly stated this. What the people demanded was this, which also included Islamic texts and Islamic rulings and Islamic laws. The British, just as you clearly know the external established formula, came and seized this opportunistic wave and took it and directed it from Shah Abd al-Azim to the British Embassy, and then said, "Constitutionalism!" Constitutionalism was also clearly understood by its inspirers! Those who were influenced by them were primarily the Westernized intellectuals, who of course were also influenced by power-seeking; that is, it was not the case that we assume that the intellectuals of that time, such as those individuals whose names you mentioned who wrote histories and participated in societies, merely wanted the Western version of Constitutionalism to be realized in Iran; even if they themselves remained aside; no, they did not want that at all. They wanted to be in power; just as they made efforts for this, and those who joined them; such as Taghi Zadeh and others, wanted to be present in the government. Thus, the active intellectuals were like this. In addition, some powerful figures and government officials gradually entered this affair. Therefore, the truth of what happened on the scene is this.

The point that I am paying attention to alongside this issue is how the Westerners, specifically the British, succeeded in this matter; what tricks they used to succeed. While the people, who are the main population, could have remained under the clergy's control and not allowed Sheikh Fazlollah to be hanged before the very eyes of these people; the rule of the matter was this. In my opinion, the problem arose from the fact that they managed to deceive some members of the justice-seeking front - that is, the religious members and mainly the clergy - and kept the truth hidden from them and created divisions. When one looks at the statements of the late Seyyed Abdollah Behbahani and the late Seyyed Mohammad Tabatabai in confronting and opposing the words of Sheikh Fazlollah and his faction, one realizes that the main discussions revolve around this. These statements were also reflected in Najaf, and you see that these statements - one sees them in the work of the late Akhund Najafi Quchani, in that book and in the discussions that were taking place in Najaf - and the words that were said by the intellectuals and by the agents of the government and the promises that were made were taken at face value. They would say: you are hasty; you have suspicions; they do not have bad intentions; their goal is also religion! These matters were reflected in the correspondences, letters of the Prime Minister, etc., to the late Akhund. One sees that their sensitivity towards deviation was diminished; however, the sensitivity of some, like the late Sheikh Fazlollah, remained; they remained sensitive; insisted and included the issue of five qualified jurists in the amendment and opposed it. A group from this front lost this sensitivity and fell into naivety and perhaps a kind of negligence. Of course, one suspects that some personality weaknesses and moral weaknesses and desires played a role; now, even if not in the likes of the late Seyyed Abdollah or Seyyed Mohammad; but in the lower classes, undoubtedly, it was not without effect, the clear example of which is figures like Sheikh Ibrahim Zanjani. These were ultimately among the clergy. Sheikh Ibrahim was both educated in Najaf and a virtuous man; but he was influenced by their words and became negligent, and some desires affected them, and the division started from here.

When I look at our own revolution, I see that the great art of the Imam was that he did not fall into this negligence; the essence of the Imam's work is this. The Imam did not make the mistake of losing sight of the words he had said and the goal he had adopted in the shadow of the admonitions and superficialities of the slogans of others. This was the essence of the Imam's success, that he moved directly towards the goal; he placed it clearly and openly before his eyes and moved towards it. Unfortunately, the clergy leaders and the Constitutionalists did not do this and became negligent; therefore, divisions arose. When the power fell into their hands, nothing could be done. I saw the same issue in the matters of Iraq. In the matters of Iraq, the clergy also initially entered seriously, then interpretations and justifications began: perhaps they are right! Perhaps they do not have bad intentions! The British spread slogans among the people of Iraq: "We have come as liberators, not colonizers!"; we have not come to colonize you, we have come to free you from the Ottomans! The same words that the Americans have recently been saying to the Iraqis: we have come to free you from Saddam, we have not come to dominate you! At that time, they pressed Iraq from 1920 to 1958 or 57, thirty-eight years, in such a way that when one looks at these long years and reads, one is moved to tears by what they have done in Iraq, and of course, mostly through these very Iraqi elements: from the massacre of people, from the plundering of people, from the looting of the country, from holding back the country, and the humiliations imposed on the Iraqi nation.

Here too, it is the same; here too, they came and raised shiny slogans and deceived some, that if we want to learn from the experience of the Constitutional movement, we must not allow this mistake to be repeated; that is, we must keep the goal that the Islamic Revolution has outlined in mind, clearly and without any compromise. Of course, observing the requirements of the time is different from these matters; it is different from forgetting and losing sight of the goal and relying on the slogans of others.

What I insist on is the issue of the historiography of the Constitutional movement, which I have discussed with various friends for years. We truly need a strong, clear, documented history of the Constitutional movement. We must correctly elucidate the Constitutional movement, which, of course, when this history is elucidated and prepared at various levels - whether at the student and university levels, or at the research levels - it will be disseminated and published. The truth is that we still do not have a comprehensive complete history of the Constitutional movement; this while the writings related to the Constitutional movement, such as the writings of Nazem al-Islam or the rest of the things written from that time, are available to the people; they are reading and making interpretations of the Constitutional movement, which these interpretations are often not correct.

God willing, may you be successful.