The symbolic appointed leader of the critics of the Islamic Republic and the phenomenon of hereditary guardianship (Velayat).

A Note by Mohsen Kadivar

The political guardianship of the jurist (Wilayat al-Faqih) lacks valid Sharia documentation. The establishment of justice and the defense of rights are not dependent upon the political guardianship of the jurist. Imamate is not inherently linked to political governance. The guardianship of the jurist is nothing more than the monarchy of the jurist, and a monarchy—whether by a jurist or a non-jurist—is contrary to both reason and tradition.

The fact that we are afflicted today by nested mega-crises is the achievement of the Absolute Guardianship of the Jurist. The Absolute Guardianship, and specifically the slain leader, through stubbornness, obstinacy, autocracy, and dogmatism, stood as a barrier against freedom, democracy, the rule of law, the realization of national interests, and the satisfying life of the majority of the Iranian people.

The majority of the Iranian people do not give the slain leader a passing grade. Fifteen years ago, in July 2010, in an open letter to the then-head of the Assembly of Experts, I called for the leader's impeachment.

I repeat once again: the issue of Iran is not the election of a future leader. The issue of Iran is the selection of a replacement system for the Islamic Republic. With a leader of the same mold as the slain leader and under his direction, our problems and public dissatisfaction will only intensify.

On March 8, the Assembly of Experts promoted Mojtaba, the son of the slain leader, to the title of Ayatollah and introduced him as the third leader of the Islamic Republic. Apparently, the IRGC contacted every single member of the Assembly of Experts and impressed upon them that there is only one option for defending the country in this state of war, and that is the son of the slain leader.

Numerous quotes have been circulated from the slain leader stating that he did not consent to any of his sons succeeding him. However, even assuming these quotes are true, they cannot be taken as an indication of his real will. It is highly improbable that the Experts—who, without exception, are "melted" in the Guardianship and were carefully handpicked by the Guardian Council appointed by the Leader—voted against the Leader’s wishes.

If an elected Assembly of Experts had been the decision-maker instead of the appointed one, it would certainly have looked for someone meeting two conditions: first, having executive experience equivalent to two presidential terms, and second, being an experienced individual recognized globally who could rationally steer the country away from the brink of war and protect national interests.

It appears that what was announced as the decision of the appointed Assembly of Experts is actually the decision of the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC). It is neither a "discovery" nor an election. The IRGC commanders have appointed the leader's son to this position.

The appointed leader certainly does not enjoy physical or mental health; does he possess the necessary alertness? In such circumstances, has he even been spoken to regarding the leadership, and has he declared his consent? It is unclear. The published message attributed to the Leader is very close to the views of the Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC, unless it is said that they are one soul in two bodies.

The message, overall, was a complete continuation of the status quo without the slightest reference to the implementation of the Constitution, the prosperity of Iran, or the freedom of those under house arrest or political prisoners. At the very least, this message does not carry the scent of a "Ben Salman-style" role.

The new leader is a symbolic leader, meaning that until further notice, he plays no active role in managing the country, and the IRGC commanders will manage the country and the war as they see fit under his name, and there is no institution for auditing, oversight, or questioning.

The IRGC has contacted all Maraji (Grand Ayatollahs) for an oath of allegiance (Bay'ah). Mr. Javadi Amoli, in a message without an addressee, wrote exactly this:
"In the name of the Almighty. The system of Imamate and Ummah is among the best revelatory achievements; it is hoped that the departed leaders are joined with divine leaders, and that what the honorable Assembly of Experts has chosen protects the past and encompasses the affairs of the future. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance."

The Shiite religious authority (Marja'iyyat) has not only not welcomed the symbolic appointed leader so far but has expressed its dissatisfaction in the specific language of the Seminary.

If the election of the slain leader’s son does not serve as a temporary "legalizer" (Mohallel), and if he survives the assassination plots of Mossad spies, whenever he becomes aware of his role as a symbolic appointed leader and accepts being the heir to his father’s position, I remind him of these few words as a matter of "advice to the leaders of Muslims":

If you want the good of this world and the hereafter, speak to the world with a different language by immediately concluding a non-aggression pact. You can be the opener of a new chapter in Iran's history. Hear the voice of your country's people before it is too late, and after the end of the cessation of aggression, step down from power in the manner of Nelson Mandela and provide the prerequisites for holding a referendum on the future system of the country. Rest assured that by such an action, you will have gained the satisfaction of the people and the Creator and left a good name for yourself.