According to the practical and theoretical life of Imam Khomeini, one can realize that he believes in two main structures within Islamic society which their proper relation would lead to the creation of national discipline. Imam Khomeini states that: “We did not want the Islamic Republic in word. The reason why we are continually saying that, with the government having become Islamic, its substance should also be Islamic is that the country claims to be a Muslim one and its people claim to be Muslims, but in many places, it is seen that they do not abide by Islamic principles. Many people claim to profess Islam: It is merely a claim because, on observation, you will see that it is not so in practice; there is no sign of Islam. We say that just as the government is Islamic; its substance should also be Islamic. That is, you should see Islam and its injunctions everywhere that you go: every ministry, every office, every street and locality, every bazaar and every school and university. This is because we had wanted an Islamic government; we did not want an Islamic Republic only in name. We wanted the rule of God to take effect in our country and, God-willing, in all the other ones as well.”
Any failure in these constructions or change in their relationship means disrupting the national discipline which will lead to instability and ultimately insecurity. These two constructions, in the eyes of Ayatollah Khamenei, a few months before the outbreak of Sedition of 2009, are the actual and legal constructs upon which the Islamic Republic of Iran would survive:
“What is important is that the Islamic Republic has a legal and formal structure which is comprised of the Constitution, the Majles, the administration and elections. These are the things that can clearly be seen. Preserving this legal and formal structure is necessary and obligatory, but it is not enough. There is always a real structure and identity in the heart of this legal structure. This real structure should be preserved. The legal and formal structure is the body and the mould, and the real structure is the soul and content. If the content changes, then it has no value and it will not survive, even if the formal and legal structure is preserved. It will be like a decayed tooth that is seemingly healthy, but which is broken with the first contact with a solid object. Therefore, this real, true and intrinsic structure is important because it plays the role of the soul of this body.”
In the eyes of Ayatollah Khamenei, the central construct is the actual construct and the structures around the legal structures which represent economic, political, cultural, and military structures: “What is this real and intrinsic structure? It is the ideals of the Islamic Republic such as justice, people’s dignity, preservation of values, the effort to promote brotherhood and equality, morality, and resistance against the influence of the enemy. These are the components of the real and intrinsic structure of the Islamic Republic.
If we drift away from Islamic morality, if we forget about justice, if we isolate the slogan of justice, if we play down the significance of officials adopting a populist outlook, if – like many officials in other countries – the officials of the country look at responsibility as a means and a center for gathering wealth and gaining power, if the issue of rendering services and making sacrifices for the people is erased from the minds and the actions of officials, if populism, simple living and presence among the masses of the people are sidelined and erased in the minds of officials, if resistance against the transgressions of the enemy is forgotten, if certain considerations and personal weaknesses dominate the political and international relations of the officials of the country and if the outstanding personalities and the main parts of the true identity of the Islamic Republic are destroyed or weakened, then the formal structure of the Islamic Republic will not be very helpful and influential.
If these things are ignored, then the prefix “Islamic” before the words “Islamic Majles” and “the government of the Islamic Republic” cannot do anything on its own. The essence of the issue is that we should take care not to lose and forget about the soul and the spirit. We should not be satisfied with preserving the form and the mould. You should pay attention to the soul, content and spirit. This is the basis of the issue.”
The interpretation provided by Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei regarding the political system in Islam and the Islamic Republic faces two threats when it comes to its implementation:
The first category is the threats that target the efficiency and effectiveness of the system and somehow try to undermine its capability. The enemies’ actions in assassinating key and central figures of the system in the early decades of the Revolution and disrupting the network of constructive relationships between the structures and institutions can be considered an act of influencing the efficiency of the system.
The second category is the threats that threaten the credibility and the true identity of the political system. This would result in disregarding the basic principles and rules of these institutions, failing to comply with the rules of communication governing them, and ultimately, the weakening of rational-emotional communications which are based on accepting and loving them. In the words of Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei, such threats which are being addressed by the words such as problem, flaw, etc. can be called the “soft threats.”
The Normative Soft Threats from the Perspective of the Leaders of the Islamic Republic
Since religious values in Islamic society are the main guides and guidelines of political thought and practice, any failure in this regard can lead to the corruption of the structure of the ruling system. In this case, although the body and face of the political system look good, the system collapses from within. The supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei says: “This cultural ambush the implications of which human beings can see in different parts of the world, seeks to take away the religious and Islamic content as well as the revolutionary spirit from the Revolution.”
These soft threats which are posed against the idea of the political system are as follows:
The Normative Soft Threats Against Islamism
Non-Monotheistic Orientation
Since the whole of existence is a function of the power of God, the first area that can produce a soft threat is faith, meaning that if any policy and action departs from the explicit relationship of “being from God” and “moving towards God” and, ultimately, leads to arrogance and selfishness, it will be considered a soft threat to the Islamic political system. Obviously, because of the role that the principles of Islam play in the Islamic system of governance, the negligence of people regarding these principles can cause a very dangerous breakup from within and would be a soft threat.
The Supreme Leader states in this regard: “Today, the faith of Muslims is endangered by the cultural invasion of the enemy and the spreading of corruption, oppression and unbelief within the Islamic societies... Today, the arrogant powers of the world have put all its efforts to diminish Islamic thinking by the means of thinking, culture and knowledge.”
For this reason, the enemy is trying to disable the soft power in the Islamic Republic of Iran by creating some kind of spirit of despair. “By cultural invasion, the enemy seeks to change the views and attitudes of people, to make them feel hopeless with respect to the struggle. The man… who writes... “The Iranian people have been defeated and lost in this world and the Hereafter...” Why? “Because they fought against the United States,” his aim is making people disappointed... “The result of such thinking is the slogan of neither Gaza nor Lebanon, and diminishing the actions that require having a spirit of martyrdom-seeking.
The Weakness of the Cultural Foundations of Accepting Wilayah (Guardianship)
In the Islamic discourse, “wilayah” is identified as a factor for integrating the abilities. Therefore, emerging any damage or weakness in wilayah can lead to the weakening of power from within which is the origin of many soft threats:
“Another important characteristic of Imam Khomeini’s political school of thought is protecting and guarding values whose manifestation can be seen in his establishing Wilayah al-Faqih…The role of Wilayah al-Faqih is to make sure that this movement does not deviate from its straight path.”
“The loving relationship between the leader and the nation is at the crossroads and openers of the ways. Therefore, most of the propaganda of the enemy is against the principle of the concept of the leadership of the jurisprudent, Wilayah al-Faqih and the rule of religious scholars... the enemy has targeted the leadership to fight the Revolution. “
Secularism
In the epistemic domain of Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei, secularism, despite its various readings, means the tendency of the peripheral construct to become independent from the central construct. This tendency may be accompanied by various justifications, including the principle of giving priority to the specialization that emphasizes the separation of religion from other mainstream areas such as economics or politics; the issue of organizational order which addresses the function of the construct of wilayah comparing to other structures; social transformation and change which supports the formation of modern societies and cannot accept the supreme supervision of religious institutions in particular areas. The result of such a view is that the central construct of wilayah can play a nominal role in relation to the peripheral construct. In other words, these theories conclude that the central construct can be maintained, provided that its scope is limited to being a nominal authority that is far from influencing the issue of managing the affairs of the peripheral construct. In the eyes of Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei, such a behavioural pattern is the implementation of secularism: “Separation of politics from religion is not a new subject. This question was raised in the time of the Umayyads and gained momentum in the time of the Abbasids… In recent years too, when the foreign powers found their way into our country, they also aggravated the situation. This mentality is one of the big plots of the colonialists and some ulama have come to believe it.”
“From the beginning of the Islamic Revolution and the formation of the Islamic Republic, some people have tried to portray the issue of Wilayah al-Faqih as inappropriate, bad and false. The role of Wilayah al-Faqih is that the movement of this complex system – in which different roles are interconnected – should not deviate from its goals and values. The role of Wilayah al-Faqih is to make sure that this movement does not deviate from its straight path. Guarding the general movement of the system and directing it towards its ideal and lofty goals is the most important and fundamental responsibility of Wilayah al-Faqih.”
“The enemy wants to expel the clergy through propaganda... Today, much of the world’s arrogance and planning is spent on seeing how it can divert the scholars, the bastards and the scholars from the right path of the revolution.”
The Inflexibility of Political Ideology
Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei consider jurisprudence as a factor that manages different affairs of human life from beginning to end. Thus, the special function of Islamic jurisprudence is more than just being a mere ideology and it can be interpreted as the driving force of the political system: “Jurisprudence is the true and complete theory of human and social governance from cradle to grave,” Imam Khomeini states.
Obviously, jurisprudence in such a position should continue its political and dynamic mission through the mechanism of ijtihad and the two elements of time and place. Otherwise, the inflexibility of jurisprudence and the vulnerability of ijtihad can provide the basis for political obstruction and, ultimately, the system of thought will fail to receive, analyze, and manage the changing affairs of society.
From Imam Khomeini’s point of view, the intellectual bankruptcy caused by fanaticism, comparing to cultural disbandment, is far more damaging to the political system.
The Normative Soft Threats Against Iranian Nationalism
Extreme Nationalism
Extreme nationalism, by validating the identity criteria such as language, race, history, and so on, causes a partition to be emerged within the Islamic ummah activating its components to break away from the body of ummah and becoming the independent entities. The damage caused by extreme nationalism is the conflict and the outbreak of war. However, Islam is a harbinger of the unity of the ummah and affirms the geographical considerations through the framework of “loving the homeland”:
“All the races — whether Arab, or Turk, or non-Arab — has their own place in our view… We have repeatedly stated… that Islam does not have the same boundaries as other practitioners.”
The Normative Soft Threats Against Those Who Stand Against the Arrogant Powers and Independence
Being Westernized/Easternized
The tendency for Eastern and Western ideologies, whether it replaces the ideology of Islam or leads to reviewing Islam within these ideologies, is a soft threat that ultimately destroys identity and thereby deteriorates the political system from within: “Until these Western and Eastern influences are present in our nation, there is no hope for improvement. Now, we must concentrate all our efforts to free ourselves from this intellectual dependence… whether it is the culture of that side which is all immoral and whether it is the culture of the other side which is all corruption; in other words, all of these are for putting us into a trap; for putting mankind into a trap.”
“A West-bound university, a university which is based on the will and culture of others, cannot be useful for one culture... The enemy is trying to dissuade the university from the direct line of science and religion and revolutionary spirit.”
The Normative Soft Threats Against Revolutionism
Fanaticism and Sanctimoniousness
There is a dangerous tendency alongside secularism, called fanaticism and sanctimoniousness the soft threats of which are very severe and catastrophic and have no similarity among other threats. This is also due to the religious claims and arguments of the group that has a larger audience in religious communities. In the book, Ghurar al-Hikam it has been narrated from Imam Ali that he said: “Only two [types of] people have broken my back: the impudent scholar and the ignorant worshipper. One drives people away from the truth by his immorality and the other invites people to the falsehood with his devotion.”
The basis of this group is that Islam is so pure and sacred that it should not enter into the realm of practical politics and can only get involved in such an area when Imam Mahdi reappears. Imam Khomeini has responded to the threat of such thought: “The damage Islam sustains from the court clerics is worse than the damage inflicted on Islam by the United States, because the former isolate Islam with an Islamic guise, while the latter cannot act thus. The latter impels the former.”
“Today the Muslim community has become so fake that saints are blocking the influence of Islam and Muslims and attacking Islam in the name of Islam.”
The Functional Soft Threats from the Perspective of the Leaders of the Islamic Republic
The political system of Islam, due to its reliance on the concept of Wilayah al-Faqih has an effective mechanism for safeguarding the health of the system. However, the operational aspects and considerations of the system have also been addressed, and “efficiency” in responding to current needs has been defined as one of the constituent elements of the philosophy of the Islamic state. Accordingly, the main indicator of the governmental soft threats is the “efficiency of the political system.”
The Functional Soft Threats Against Islamism
Disqualification of the Leader
The most important practical threat is the disqualification of the leader. An obvious example of this threat can be seen in the issue of the leadership of Mr. Montazeri. Despite acknowledging his knowledge, Imam Khomeini believed that he lacked the specific traits to lead the Islamic system. This is why Imam Khomeini decided to oust him in order to prevent future risks: “As it has become clear that after me you would hand over the country and the dear Islamic Revolution of the Muslim people of Iran to liberals and through their channel to hypocrites, you have lost the merit and legitimacy of being the future leader of the system.”
The Functional Normative Soft Threats Against Iranian Nationalism
People’s Dissatisfaction and Injustice
People’s satisfaction and injustice, as they lead to the erosion and destruction of social relations within society as well as the destruction of social capital, constitute a dangerous threat to social cohesion. This soft threat addresses the “popular endorsement of power” and that the dissatisfaction and injustice deprive the powers of enjoying popular support. From this perspective, Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei emphasize justice as the central and guiding principle of power highlighting the strategic slogan “neither oppress anyone nor be oppressed.” The political system is bound to satisfy the public as the main benefactor. For this reason, Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei view any action that diminishes the satisfaction of the people, as being an act of harming the country. These soft threats target the popular support of the system and thereby are considered dangerous:
“Time and again, I advise the honourable officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran to… in the present conditions and the distant future and strongly shun seeking excuses, creating obstacles, putting barrier, and red tape that hinder their progress and that of the valiant nation of Iran.”
“One of the things that they are very keen on is losing people’s confidence in the efficiency of the system... All of this is in order to negatively portray the Islamic system in people’s minds and to lose people’s trust.”
The Functional Soft Threats Against Those Who Stand Against the Arrogant Powers and Being Independent
Formation of the Idea of Being ‘Dependent’ and the “Inferiority Complex”
Although the management of national needs in the contemporary world is based on interaction and cooperation, what should not be overlooked is the principle of ‘independence’; That is to say, cooperation and relations should not cause the loss of the national independence of the country’s dependency in different aspects. The basis of dependency is that it is possible to simply use other countries’ accomplishments and products at the expense of selling oils. Such view essentially weakens the political system from within making it vulnerable in the face of even a small external pressure: “I am sure that the beloved Iranian nation will not prefer a thousand years of living with prosperity, but being dependent on foreigners, over living with dignity.”
It is noteworthy that in the view of Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei dependency is not merely economic in nature but also includes epistemological, anthropological, and ontological areas. One example of this non-economic dependency is the inferiority complex and immobility, which result in weakness and failure.
“For years, they have instilled into the Iranians’ minds that you cannot and you should follow the West. They do not let us be ourselves. If a nation is inactive and does not value itself, enemies would come and plan for it.”
The Functional Soft Threats Against Revolutionism
Comfort-Seeking and Social Neglect
In Islamic political thought, the nature of power is “responsibility” rather than “benefitting.” Therefore, those who have power have “responsibility” rather than “interests.” If this relationship is disrupted for any reason and the power becomes the ability to attract the interests, then we will see people who, as Imam Ali states, usurp the public interest and property. From this point of view, Imam Khomeini and the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in analyzing the political system, regard seeking luxuries and comfort-seeking as a soft threat to the future of the Islamic Revolution that could lead to its destruction without a war because comfort-seeking and the effort to raise money would lead to neglecting some segments of society. This, from the religious point of view, will at first discredit the political system. Second, many of its main supporters, who are largely disadvantaged, and as Imam Khomeini says the barefooted, would lose their trust in the political system.
“God forbid that one day our policy and the policy of our country will not be in the service of defending the deprived people... The day our government turned its attention from people to the palace is the day we will witness the destruction of the country and the annihilation of the nation.”
“Islamic authorities should not live a luxurious life. Also, they should not live in a way that extravagant and luxurious methods become a culture. This is a point that is more important than the first point or at least it is as important as the first one... it may become a culture in the sense that others are watching and learning…”
“Sometimes we spend extravagantly in our personal life, which is a matter between ourselves and God and it may be haram, makruh or mubah in Islam. However, sometimes government officials spend extravagantly in front of the person, which is undoubtedly haram, and not makruh or mubah. This is because such moves and actions promote aristocracy and extravagance. By spending extravagantly in front of other people, we encourage such things, first among our subordinates and then among the people. We must not encourage people to do such things. There might be wealthy people in our society who live extravagantly, which is, of course, bad, but it does not concern others. However, any extravagance by government officials is unacceptable because first of all, we are not spending out of our own pockets but from what belongs to the people and second, our extravagance will encourage others to be extravagant. Indeed, it is true that “the people follow the religion of their rulers.” Here, the term “rulers” does not just refer to kings and so cannot claim that we do not have kings and that it does not apply to our society. No, “rulers” refers to us government officials: the people imitate what we do.”
Conclusion
According to what was mentioned, it became clear that the Islamic Revolution while relying on the actual construct, in particular values such as self-sacrifice, martyrdom-seeking, spirituality, justice, righteousness, and independence-seeking, was able to bring about a cultural transformation at the domestic level, revive the religious self-belief and Islamic awakening at the regional level, influence the global relations, and express its authority in terms of the software at the international arena. Hence, while it is a potential, it also may pose a threat and the enemies of the revolution covet it and are constantly seeking to prevent the survival and dissemination of the values of the Islamic Revolution. This would require that the cultural management of the country will be modified so that the soft power will be better used in the process of the Islamic Revolution. This management should have features such as planning to move forward the cultural policies, enforcing cultural policies explicitly, making coordination between the cultural policies at local, national, regional and international levels, as well as between governmental, nongovernmental or sub-governmental levels of social and cultural institutions. In addition, cultural management needs to enjoy desirable characteristics in terms of tendencies, ideas, attitudes, behaviours, practices and insights.
Archive of Ayatollah Khamenei
leave your comments