Iran - 100 Years of Constitutional Experience

Saeid Hajarian, a unique influential figure in Iranian reformist front, has published a classical article (Persian) in Emrooz, one of many political news and analysis web sites which popped up after un-elected parts of the government banned reformist papers. In this article, Hajarian, who survived an assassination (shot right in his face) calls all journalists, historians, and politicians to re-read and review the first constitutional establishment of Iran, as we reach the 100th anniversary of the event.

In addition to this important call, he puts forward his findings of the first notions of Islamic Republic and boldly strikes the current system as a backward even to the first constitutional system.

He eloquently explains that first constitutional revolution (1906) crashed the absolute power of the kingdom in favor of the emerging concept of "Citizenship Right". The new educated generation wanted to have say in government and didn't want to be subjects of the king anymore. Although some powerful clergy's agitation, he believes, were successful to insert another element in the system later: Islamic legitimacy.

"The divine right of kingdom", "Islamic legitimacy" presented by clergy's oligarchy and "limited republic democracy" were the three fundamental elements for years. The revolution of 1979, he argues, was a major step ahead towards a "Republic" in its modern definition, since it seemed to remove one of the two traditional elements of the system. Then he writes today but situation is worse than even first constitution: the whole constitutionism has been undermined by an absolute power. "We suffered the hardship to be able have a pact for governing ourselves; now 'they' claim that the pact authorizes one person to do anything, even beyond the pact!" He refers to conservatives who believe the religious Supreme Leader can do anything even beyond the constitution.

I believe he has pointed a very critical issue while the government is losing the last shrinks of its legitimacy and the prevailing frustration forces for fundamental change.

To be AND not to be!

I just figured out that according to the federal and state tax rules and regulations, I am a resident of the state Illinois and the same time, I am not a resident of the United States!

By the way, I filled out my tax return forms just now! If you expect a refund from IRS, you don't need to rush for April 15th deadline. IRS will be happy to refund you later.

An Affirmative Action!

Sandra Day O'connor sided with more liberal judges in this case.

Today before I left home for my office, I was watching the news regarding the case of University of Michigan being handled by the Supreme Court. Two white applicants (in two different cases) had sued the University Law School for racial discrimination in favor of minorities on the ground of Affirmative Action. The Supreme Court, this morning, upheld, with a vote of 4-5 with Sandra O’Connor providing the swing vote, the use of race as a factor for admission, which is a very exciting victory for U. Michigan and liberal supporters. Although, it overturned the point system which is used to apply affirmative action principle at the school undergrad program.

I am happy that public universities in US still have the chance to help minorities, which usually lack an affluent household income, to have representatives in high-quality high education. I think this is much closer to justice. Selections should be done on the base of merits. That might seem generally convincing in first place. But justice involves more complications. Why those kids who have been enjoying a comfortable, providing, easy life and, of course earned higher-standard merits should be able to go to best schools and at the same time, those who had difficulties should remain behind the doors? At U. of Michigan Law School undergrad program, even with affirmative action policy applied, only 17 percent of this year’s freshmen are minorities, which is much less than their proportion in the country's population.

In Iran, we have had a similar idea, which has been criticized for many years by the majority of the people. The war veterans and their families have enjoyed a wide quota (20-40 percent of high education overall capacity) to pass the very tough Universities’ National Entrance Exam. They are not ranked in the same pool of normal applicants, e.g. if the number of applicants of veterans' families are less than 20 percent of the capacity in a program, they all will be admitted while the acceptance rate for others is almost less than 5 percent!

I believe it is good, not only good but essential, to apply the affirmative action principle to balance the social inequalities to some extend. At the same time, I believe very subtle process should be considered for implementing such programs.

*The Supreme Court Judges' profile