A Forum on Human Rights and Democracy in Iran - Gozaar: Political Parties in Iran

Political Parties in Iran
================================================================================
karm on 05/05/2010 14:47:00

Two of Iran’s main reformist parties now find themselves up against a force
that is  above-the-law that is bent on dissolving them within the framework of
the law.  The two parties are the Islamic Iran Participation Front and the
Mujahideen of the Islamic Revolution, both of whose charters state the need for
reform and which were able to pass through numerous security filters and be
registered legally. The measures against these parties are occurring despite the
fact that the Iranian Constitution, which the Islamic Republic of Iran refers to
with the holiest of words, does not easily allow the dissolution of registered
organizations and parties.
By reviewing the laws regulating political parties, we can shed some light on
the modus-operandi of this above-the-law force that has assailed legal
organizations. Article 26 of the Constitution specifies the conditional freedom
of organizations and parties as follows:
The formation of parties, societies, political or professional associations, as
well as religious societies, whether Islamic or pertaining to one of the
recognized religious minorities, is permitted provided they do not violate the
principles of independence, freedom, national unity, the criteria of Islam, or
the basis of the Islamic Republic.  No one may be prevented from participating
in the aforementioned groups, or be compelled to participate in them.
Among lawyers, the wording of this article is open to two possible
interpretations. According to the democratic interpretation, Article 26 does not
require registration of parties and organizations. Those political activists who
happen to be among the founders of the Islamic Republic and the old supporters
of this order have for years struggled to protect their interests and save their
political organizations under this interpretation.
Ebrahim Yazdi is the most distinguished of such figures. He has been able to
keep the Liberation Movement of Iran organization, founded in the 1960s, going
without having the permission of regime conservatives to register it legally.
However, it appears that because this unregistered-- and as it is customarily
referred to, illegal--organization, became involved in the incidents following
the disputed presidential election in June 2009, there has been a desire to put
an end to its limited operation once and for all. Taking advantage of its never
having been legally registered, force and pressure tactics are used to make this
organization’s leaders  promise they will avoid any activity, even so much as
criticizing or giving an opinion. At the moment, Ebrahim Yazdi, the leader of
the Liberation Movement organization, someone who came to Iran with Ayatollah
Khomeini in 1979, is languishing in prison and is said to be in terrible
condition due to his advanced age and having cancer. In any case, that same
above-the-law force, which is set on obtaining complete control of political
power, will show no mercy to the Liberation Movement which played such a
significant role during the years leading up to the 1979 Revolution in making
the political movement against the Shah a religious one. This above-the-law
force is just as intent on wiping out anyone who represents moderate Islam.
Because the Liberation Movement is not a registered organization, no need is
felt to bother with formal dissolution to put an end to its political life. So
business is carried out by resorting to beatings and solitary confinement and
scaring away any of this organization’s supporters, large or small. Therefore,
the democratic interpretation of Article 26 of the Constitution has turned, as
described above, into an unwritten invitation to crime for which many are
suffering torture, inflicted to make them give up all thoughts of this
interpretation forever.
Now we turn to the other interpretation given to Article 26 which is the
interpretation of choice for abusive, extremist rulers. According to this
interpretation, parties and organizations are not allowed to be registered
legally without passing through every manner of inquisition, security filters
and extensive background checks going back to generations before the founders
themselves. In addition, once an organization is registered, it should take
great care not to make the slightest criticism of unofficial and official
policies because if it does, either its license will be revoked or it will be
dissolved altogether. Despite the insistence by the heads of the regime on this
interpretation, now that they have set out to dissolve the two registered
organizations mentioned at the beginning of this article, organizations which
support the establishment, those lawyers remaining in the fray offering critique
and opinion have engaged in legal disputes and are talking about legal hurdles
standing in the way of dissolving the Islamic Iran Participation Front and the
Mujahideen of the Islamic Revolution. Of course, these criticisms and opinions
will only work when the judge has independence and uses his own understanding of
the law, and not when he follows other people's bidding. So although reviewing
the laws has no effect on the decisions made by above-the-law strong-arm
faction, it is helpful as it discloses the truth and includes some of the
forgotten features of people's rights.
What does the law say?
Unlike the accommodations that Article 26 has to some extent provided in the
framework of religious rule, in 1982 the Law of Operation of Parties and
Associations (governing  societies and professional, political, and Islamic
associations and the associations of recognized religious minorities) was passed
by the Majles. This law defines a party, society, association, Islamic
association or association of religious minorities and specifies the procedure
for registering and issuing permits for them. With this law, the free formation
of a political party is made more difficult and a tightening of the political
sphere and removing parties from it is made easier for those in power. With the
passage of this law, the legal opportunity was taken away from those supporting
the idea of separating religion from state and from the secular-minded of any
political group or persuasion.
According to Paragraph 6 of this law, the operation of groups is considered
free, of course, as long as they do not commit the violations specified in
Paragraph 16 of the same law. Paragraph 6 has also explained the limits
specified in Article 26 of the Constitution and has cited some examples. This
paragraph lists in ten clauses the limits on parties and groups but some of
these points are very similar to the general points made in Article 26 of the
Constitution. These limits are as follows:
Actions leading to the violation of the country's independence, exchanging
information or making (secret) plans with [foreign] embassies, receiving
financial support from foreigners, violating legitimate freedoms of others,
making false accusations, slandering and spreading false information, violating
national unity and plotting to break up the country, attempting to create and
intensify divisions within the nation; violating precepts of Islam, spreading
anti-Islamic propaganda, distributing immoral books and serials, hiding, keeping
and transporting illegal weapons and ammunition.
Up to this point in the law, if they had any intention to make reforms and rein
in the crisis of popular dissatisfaction with the regime, they could have
interpreted all the “ifs” and “buts” to the benefit of the people's
rights and could have left judges free to base their verdicts on their own
understanding and reading of the law. But from this point on the story has a
twist and paragraph 10 of the law was passed in a way that parties, associations
and organizations are all turned into appointees of the establishment as will be
explained below.
According to paragraph 10 of the law of parties, the decision as to the
competence of applicants for forming parties or other organizations and
approving the issue of permits to them and judging their violations of
regulations stipulated in paragraph 16 is left with a commission whose members
are:
1. one representative of the Attorney-General
2. one representative of the Judiciary
3. one representative of the Interior Ministry
4. two representatives chosen by the Majles who may be either from inside or
outside the Majles.
The commission, made up of the above-mentioned members, is supposed to process
within three months the cases of applicants for establishing parties and approve
the issue of permits for applicants wishing to establish parties. After that,
according to paragraph 9, the Interior Ministry is supposed to issue the permit
within ten days of it being signed by the Minister of the Interior. In cases
where the Commission set up by paragraph 10 judges that a party or association
or any other registered organization has committed one of the violations listed
in paragraph 16, this commission can revoke that party or organization's permit.
However, it also has the right to dissolve the said party or organization.
If it undertakes to dissolve an organization, it must ask the court for
dissolution by presenting evidence and documents (Paragraph 17 of the same law).
Therefore, public courts of justice are the competent authorities to process
such cases and a party or organization that is sentenced to dissolution in the
initial stage has the right to appeal for a hearing in courts of justice and
even before that, when the Commission set up by paragraph 10 has revoked an
organization's permit, the organization or party in question may file a lawsuit
in courts of justice against this decision made by the Commission (Paragraph
13).
The most important democratic aspect of this law, which would have helped us
take giant leaps towards democracy, had it been enforced thus far, is that in
paragraph 13 it is stipulated that according to Article 168 of the Constitution,
the Department of Justice is under an obligation to conduct the legal procedures
in the presence of a jury in an open session. It is not limited to just this and
paragraph 19 orders the judiciary to prepare, within six months after the
passage of this statute, the draft related to the required qualifications of the
jury members. The contents of this law appear to mean that the lawmaker has
regarded the violations listed in paragraph 16 as political crimes, requiring
the observation of the accused person's rights throughout the legal procedures.
If the trial is held in the absence of a jury and in a closed session, its
verdict is illegal and invalid.
Considering that today still, thirty years after the passage of the constitution
and 28 years after the passage of the Law of Parties and Associations, the
conditions for the jury to appear in courts which process political crimes have
not yet been specified, the threat to dissolve the Islamic Iran Participation
Front and the Mujahideen of the Islamic Revolution does not have any legal
justification and any investigation of this case without observing the
conditions listed in Article 168 of the constitution is invalid.
Once more, this threat is a warning to Iranians active in the human rights
arena, that they should demand from the establishment the enforcement of Article
168, understanding and acknowledging the rights of the politically accused in
accordance with international documents and norms. People should protest until
the day the ruling mob announces openly that the Constitution is an
insignificant document and that the political future of Iran is planned with the
kicks and punches of bullies. Of course, in that case we will be up against an
establishment which will overthrow itself and then things will be easier for
everyone.