Statements in Meeting with Central Supervisory Board Members for the Fourth Islamic Parliament Elections

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

Welcome, and thank you for coming. I also thank those who have taken on the heavy burden of overseeing the elections, including Mr. Rezvani and other members of the Guardian Council, as well as those collaborating in this particular matter. Indeed, it is a heavy burden, and as you mentioned, the integrity and precision in this task, adhering to the duty—whether within the details of the law or beyond—are essential. These are very challenging tasks; God willing, may God reward you, and may your efforts be accepted by the Almighty.

Regarding the three issues Mr. Rezvani raised, I will offer my opinion; however, this meeting is important and valuable. I have noted some general points about the supervision issue to present. Of course, what I will say is undoubtedly clear to the esteemed members of the Guardian Council and those collaborating at this high level, and it will add nothing to their knowledge; yet, for those who may later hear these words or learn of them, I offer these remarks as a reminder.

What I wish to say can be summarized in four points:

The first point is that the Guardian Council is the most reliable body that the revolution has provided to the country's system. To ensure the overall health of the system, the most important, effective, and active entity is this Guardian Council. In our constitution, the Guardian Council has an even more significant role than the 'First Class' established at the beginning of the constitutional era. Firstly, the 'First Class' did not deal with constitutional issues; it only dealt with religious matters. Secondly, those in the Guardian Council today are more aware of the country's issues, the revolution, and the challenges facing the revolution than those who wanted to act as the 'First Class' back then. We saw that the enemies of Islam and Iran's freedom could not tolerate the 'First Class' and quickly removed them from the scene; first, they rendered their presence ineffective, and then they completely eliminated this body! Without the 'First Class,' the constitutional era continued for decades and became what it became: a constitutional monarchy turned into a dictatorship of the highest order, surpassing the despotism of Naser al-Din Shah! No one can say that Reza Khan's despotism was less than Naser al-Din Shah's; rather, it was undoubtedly more. Naser al-Din Shah retreated when he saw the people's movement in the tobacco issue; however, Reza Khan suppressed the people's movement and arrested the scholars in 1935 when he saw the people's and scholars' movement, leading to the Goharshad Mosque incident! We believe all these resulted from the absence of the 'First Class' there; otherwise, if the scholars foreseen in the constitutional amendment—the same 'First Class'—had been present and could play their role, we would be much further ahead today. Fortunately, the presence of Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified) in the revolution, with his decisiveness, insight, prudence, and wisdom, did not allow the enemies to do to the Guardian Council what they did to the 'First Class.'

Today, thanks be to God, the Guardian Council is at the peak of legal and moral authority; both in the matter of laws and in subsidiary issues—such as the one you are dealing with today—it is accepted by the people and trusted and supported by the institutions and the system. Anyone who does not favor this position for the Guardian Council and opposes it, knowingly or unknowingly, is on the same path as those who, before Reza Khan and during his time, took steps to eliminate the 'First Class,' resulting in consequences. The Guardian Council, in its words, actions, and work, is trustworthy and reliable, and everyone is obliged to view it as such. Even a fair judge, when judging, may have someone object to him in their heart—since there is no infallibility among us—and that objection may be justified; however, the judge's ruling is that of a trustworthy and reliable person and must be trusted in practice. Today, the Guardian Council is in such a position; both in laws and in executive and quasi-executive actions—like what we observe in elections—it must be trusted and accepted by the people, and thanks be to God, it is, and no one should allow themselves to undermine this lofty moral position that the law has determined for the Guardian Council.

The second point is that supervising elections is a very important task because the health of the elections ensures the health of the parliament, and the health of the parliament ensures the health of the laws and the foundations of work in the country. An executive body, no matter how efficient, if the laws it is given are not effective, healthy, and correct, will eventually deviate. The health of our system lies in maintaining the Islamic direction and adhering to the constitution, which is ensured by the Guardian Council. If the health of the system depends on having correct laws and adhering to Islam, if, God forbid, the parliament cannot provide laws that conform to Islam, and its actions are not good and correct, it will undoubtedly affect the government and the country's executive administration. Therefore, the health of the system depends on the health of the parliament. A healthy, strong, efficient parliament with faithful members adhering to the rules will be able to legally support the system correctly. Therefore, you, who are now on the verge of adhering to these rules in the elections, are doing a very important job; hence, you must carefully adhere to the rules.

The representative who enters the parliament must be a righteous person; now, at what level of knowledge, science, and ability they are, these are things that the law has determined, and the people, according to what is in their best interest, will, God willing, determine and decide; however, you, as a tool of assurance, must not allow any disruption to occur in this path. If someone is corrupt—financial corruption, various moral corruptions, or ideological and political corruption—if someone is a troublemaker, weakens the system, and reduces the efficiency of the institutions—as the popular expression goes: puts a stick in the wheels of the system—they really cannot be present in that great tribune; they should not enter the parliament. Those whose behavior, actions, and words truly indicate that for any motive—whether political or personal and characteristic—they oppose the system, should not enter the parliament; this must be carefully observed.

This issue of financial corruption, moral corruption, and troublemaking that I mentioned is a serious issue. One sees people who, when they are in a tribune, use it for troublemaking; for them, speaking falsely and lying, rather unjustly inciting the people, presenting falsehood as truth and truth as falsehood, is of no importance! If there are such people, they must be stopped and not allowed to enter the parliament.

Your Excellency referred to the issue of smuggling. Smuggling is a broad and extensive title and a spectrum. For example, sometimes a person has gone abroad and now has returned with a tape recorder, which is considered smuggling; or, for example, when leaving the country, they took a certain item with them. Although the entry and exit of those items were not according to regulations, and of course, this is a violation of the law, it is not clear that this is very important to disqualify someone; especially after the signs of repentance and remorse appear. But sometimes a person is connected with a smuggling gang, and their job is to prepare the groundwork and facilitate the ways for smuggling; these are not the same. One must really look, determine the limits, and understand that the mere title is not enough. Or, for example, a person has a small violation in a transaction, but another person is corrupt and exploitative in their financial dealings; they acquire unjustly, spend unjustly, and give unjustly to others; these are financial corruption. Therefore, the work is important, and the rules must be strictly observed. I also mentioned to the gentlemen in the matter of the Assembly of Experts elections that, in my opinion, the letter of the law is very important. Of course, you are people of law and know that the law has a language; the language of the law must be understood, and the limits of the law must be discovered. Sometimes words and phrases are not sufficient to express the true essence and content of the law; a law expert like you can understand what the law is really saying.

The third point is the ethical considerations that are necessary in this work. Of course, at your level, these words do not even come close to your domain; but when the work becomes extensive, this issue must be carefully observed and adhered to; it must be constantly stated so that all the factors and individuals involved adhere to it.

Ethical considerations must be observed; one of them is that personal issues of individuals should not be mixed with major issues; for example, political and factional issues should not be mixed with real revolutionary and anti-revolutionary positions. A person may have a political taste; they are someone who supports the revolution and is interested in the revolution and also makes efforts; but now in the revolution, they accept Zayd and do not accept Amr; while we accept Amr and do not accept Zayd; or we accept both Zayd and Amr, but they do not accept one of them; this is not a crime. If the members of the supervisory boards become involved in issues that are today called factional issues, this is really important; this is similar to factionalism and tribalism and nepotism. Accepting someone because they are part of a group; rejecting another because they are part of another group; we should not allow such things to enter our domain of work. Likes and dislikes are the same; sometimes a person likes someone, dislikes another; we must really ensure that this issue does not interfere at any level. Some people are very vocal; without there being any troublemaking in it. In contrast, some people make trouble without making noise! These must truly be distinguished from each other. Recognizing individuals and identifying instances of troublemaking and instances of political and factional work and distinguishing these from each other seems very important.

What I have previously mentioned and now emphasize and confirm—although you have previously told me that this aspect has been resolved—is that in no place across the country, in rejections and acceptances, these factional and political aspects and what position someone has towards someone else should absolutely not interfere. Individuals should not be accused without investigation. One should not judge the existence of a crime in someone based on very preliminary appearances; for example, it has now become common to call some people 'anti-Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist' for the slightest thing! It is not clear if someone once said a word somewhere, this is opposition to the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. Of course, opposition to the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist means opposition to the most fundamental and core principles and pillars of the Islamic Republic system—there is no doubt—but opposition has a meaning. For example, there is someone who writes or speaks against these meanings, or with the positions and stances taken by the leadership or by the leadership, which form the main policies of the system according to the constitution, they openly and frequently—though not always—oppose, or they oppose in critical moments; these are opposition. But someone who once said a word somewhere, or, for example, reacted to something, this is not considered opposition.

During the time of Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified), we saw that he would say something, but not everyone in the parliament would vote for it; it cannot be said that these people are against the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. I remember once regarding radio and television, there was an opinion that the heads of the three branches should be the supreme council of radio and television; the same supervisory council that existed before. I had personally spoken with him and knew that his opinion was that the president, the speaker of the parliament, and the head of the judiciary should form the supervisory council. The rule was that when they say the three branches should supervise—which was the expression in the previous constitution—a council with this composition should be formed; the easiest way is this. When this proposal came to the parliament, Mr. Hashemi presented it; but it was rejected by an overwhelming majority! Even though he said this is the opinion of the Imam, only a few voted for it! It really cannot be said to that majority that you are against the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist; no, all of them were devoted to the Imam and interested in the Imam and sincere to the Imam; many of them were also front-line fighters; but they did not accept this opinion; therefore, these things must really be distinguished from each other. At the same time, we knew people who went to a certain center and spoke and questioned the validity of the opinion of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist! These words are not related to today that someone might think some people are saying these things today; no, they were saying them at that time; we were aware and knew the individuals; now, certainly, their effects and tapes and words exist. In short, accusing someone of 'opposition to the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist' is not an easy thing that we, upon seeing the slightest thing from someone, immediately stamp this label on their forehead; opposition to the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist has evidence and criteria.

In any case, these ethical aspects must be observed with great care. Of course, the gentlemen who, thanks be to God, are at the head—whether the gentlemen of the Guardian Council or those who collaborate—their purity and integrity are so evident that no one needs to say anything about it or make such recommendations; but this meaning exists at the general level.

The fourth point, as a summary and supplement to these words, is the same thing I once mentioned in person to Mr. Rezvani and some of the gentlemen, and that is the selection of individuals. Those we select as supervisors across the country, what kind of people are they? This is very important. There should be no excuse for anyone to make a complaint or objection. Pure, clean individuals, preferably without a clear inclination towards a faction or trend, should be selected as supervisors. Some people are good people; but it is clear that their movement is factional; factional movement is not a good movement. Factional movement is different from accepting positions in a documented manner. Factional movement means tribalism; it means accepting someone who is part of a group just because they are in this group.

In 1983, when a very deep dualism emerged in the Islamic Republican Party, and we had organized a detailed congress at the Martyr Motahari Higher School, I spoke and referred to these two trends as two tribes and two clans! It is not at all a matter of group and party; because two parties are separated from each other by their ideological positions; but these two groups are separated from each other by the individuals in the group, not by their positions; because there are people in this group who do not accept the positions of this group very much, but they are part of them; there are also people in the other group who do not accept all the positions, but they are part of them; it is as if the discussion is about family and tribal biases! In other words, when someone is part of that group, this group does not look at what their moral characteristics are and how much the criteria apply to them; they reject them; that group also does not care what the criteria and standards are; they accept them; this is wrong; some act this way; even if they are not bad people in their personal actions. The less these divisions are brought into these groups, the better; people should come who are not known for these meanings, to create assurance.

The final sentence is that ultimately, the Guardian Council, as it has truly been a means of public trust, must also be a manifestation of this trust. The more people from different directions and factions participate in the elections, the better it is for the system; it is also better for the Guardian Council. We must ensure that this opportunity and means for the entry of more individuals is provided. It should not be such that a trend, even in a specific city, feels that it is not involved in these elections; it should be such that everywhere everyone feels that they can truly freely choose the individual they want; that is, the Guardian Council and the movement it makes at this stage must be a manifestation and mirror of public trust. Of course, I personally have the highest level of trust in the gentlemen. I consider you morally and scientifically just, pure, and virtuous, and I am confident that the interest, as it is, truly exists in the minds of the gentlemen, and the rules will be fully observed; however, in any case, these are generalities that need to be stated so that there is a clear situation for action and cases of doubt.

Regarding the issue you mentioned, where there is no evidence or documentation, but one knows, I say that if a person knows, they must act according to their knowledge—as in the case of the judge's knowledge—but the rules must truly be observed. We do not say rules mean the explicit and implicit law; but we say the rules that are religiously and legally valid must be observed. Now, if with those rules, a person truly gains knowledge, naturally, they will act according to their knowledge; this is a natural thing.

May God, God willing, preserve the noble existence of the gentlemen.

Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings