Speech [Characteristics of the heads of Islamic government]

Of the transformations that should take place and which you gentlemen must endeavor is that you should not be overtaken by pride by the term, `governor'. This term belongs to a time when there is governor and subject, when there is no fraternity and there exists a taghouti and the other people are their subjects whereas this has no place in Islam. Those who governed the length and breadth of the Islamic territory, that too a territory so vast that it extended from Hijaz to Egypt, Africa, Iraq, Iran and all these Muslim countries that you see. Even some parts of Europe was under its rule, nevertheless it was not that their communication with the wage earners was of one that gave orders and one who obeyed them. The Noble Prophet (s) himself behaved with the people like one of them; he was like one of the rest of the people; he was one of them. He neither had a governor's residence nor in social gatherings would he sit at the top and the people below. These issues were not of consideration at all. Some of the Arabs who would come from other regions and enter the mosques would see the Prophet seated with the rest such that it would be difficult for them to identify who the Prophet was from among the people who were seated and who were his companions. They would ask who among them the Prophet was. This is because they would sit in a circular fashion whereas even now in this place you see that a blanket has been spread here and some individuals are sitting on it in such a manner that if an outsider comes in, he can distinguish. Hadrat Amir (`a) on the very day that people swore allegiance to him- allegiance to the successor of the Messenger of Allah- he took his hoe and shovel and went to a place where he was working. He himself would work and the palm of his hands had callus formed on them. The position of the governors, the governors that governed the lands in those times, vis-a-vis the people was not one of `governor' and `subject'. The condition was that of service and that the governors were servants of the people. This differentiation that you saw during the rule of the former taghouti regime between the governments of the land and the provincial governors of the homeland, on one hand, and the people, on the other hand, was a separation between enemies.

The people would consider them as enemies even though they were also civil servants but the people would not accept them because the regime had such a standing.

Monarchial and taghouti regimes wherever they are, their standing is such that through certain protocol and tumult, they scare and drive away the people from around them and therefore the people are not supportive of them. When I was a child, in Khomein there was a governor who had arrested and imprisoned one of the khans of the area. Later, a few individuals from among the khans arrived with guns and took away the governor while the people showed no reaction whatsoever, or rather they even rejoiced! Most of you do not remember that when the Allied Forces- America, Britain, Russia, and others- came to Iran and occupied it; everything of the people was in danger. Nevertheless when they took away Rida Shah, the people celebrated it as if all their sufferings had ended with the departure of Rida Shah. With regard to Muhammad Rida also, you all witnessed that when he went away from here- I was not present in Iran, but I was told- Iran was full of joy. This was something that you all witnessed. Why? This was because they- in your parlance, `the governors'- were removed from the people. In those days it was common that when a government would be deposed, the governor would run away to another place. This was an issue that frequently occurred in those times. Perhaps, this did not happen during the period of these people but previously this issue existed that when the governor of a certain place, when the government of a certain place would be deposed, he could no longer remain in that place and would run away, runaway during the darkness of the night lest the people loot him or attack him and the like because they were alienated from the people. When the power was in his hands, he would behave rudely with the people such that the people were alienated from him and he was alienated from the people. When he would be deposed, he had to run away. Had this Muhammad Rida listened to what was being prompted to him that the person who thinks he is at the top must get along with the people so that they support him; if the nation had supported him, well then these happenings would not have occurred. The taghoutis do this and they do this because they are afraid of the people. They were traitors. They have betrayed the people. They have done injustice to the people and thus were afraid of them. As they were afraid of the people, they would resort to establishing a force to protect themselves and also to intimidate the people with it. The fact that the disciplinary forces during the rule of the taghouti regime and during the reign of any taghouti regime is a force for repression of the nation- now also it is so in other places- now, praise be to God, it is not so anymore in Iran. I hope it does not happen anymore. But even now if you notice and set foot abroad, wherever you go, you shall notice that the disciplinary forces are a force for repression of the people. This is because the government is not of the people; it is alienated from the people. Not only is it alienated, but also the government regards the people to be opposed to its interests; it regards them as its enemies; not only it does not regard them to be supportive, rather it also regards them as its enemy. If an enemy is to surface, they shall cooperate with it.

This alienation of the governments from the people is the source of all troubles that occur in a country. If in the manner that Islam has proposed about government and about the people, the rights of the people on the government and the rights of the government over the people are observed and the people act on it, then all shall be at ease; neither the people have to fear the government because the government is not oppressive that they should fear it; all are supportive of it; neither the government wants to be the ruler- the government wants to serve; the question is of civil service- nor the government wants to subjugate the nation. This condescending attitude shall alienate you from the nation and the nation from you and it shall become the source of many corruptions. It should be such that when the head of the government, the prime minister or the president come to meet with the people, there should be no distance between them in the manner that is present in a taghouti regime. The governors should not be alienated from the people such that when they come to their offices they are made to wait outside and not allowed to meet with them and so forth. Of course, they must allow them to see but not that there should be commotion and every person that comes along rushes in ahead of others. A criterion which you all know is to be observed. But the people should feel from your actions that you are one of them and wish to serve them; you do not want to be the master giving orders and do not want to pressurize them and you do not want to do injustice to them. These things should not exist. It should not be like before when they would give a province on rent officially. How much could he pay and how much must he earn to pay the rent and how much should be put aside for them? It was a fief! They would give a place to a person on rent as a fief. This person would have to go and milk the people so much in order to pay the specific sum to, for example, the prime minister or president, or for example, the overlord and the person who was in charge. Well, certainly he who was undertaking this task needed to secure his own future, too! When the situation changed such that the person who was the grand vizier- in those days the grand vizier was the head of government- of the government would give the provinces on rent to their respective fiefs in the manner that for example, this province of Kerman has low level of income so lesser the rent! Khorasan province was wealthier so higher rent; likewise Azerbaijan province was wealthier and so forth. The rent was fixed on the potential of income of that province; how much benefits could be derived from their wealth! As the fixation of the rent of a province was in the hand of a single ruler and he would pay something to get this job, ultimately he would have to go and drain the people to arrange the sum which he would do. Of course, it was so in the past; not during the reign of these two; at the time of these two it was in another form; we remember how it was in their regime. The former regimes prior to this one were in similar fashion.

Basically, this is how monarchial regime was from the beginning- a wrong concept. From the beginning it has been a regime that was illogical. Now I would like to say one aspect of it. Suppose that the entire nation- it is a supposition and is not a fact- gather and elect one as their king. Very well, the people have the right to elect a person and elect him. Well, these people have the right in the span of their lives to elect someone. Well, for the next hundred years when none of these gentlemen are alive, what right do they have? What right do you have to elect a king for your children and your grandchildren who are not in existence right now? The monarchy was an inherited monarchy. Let us suppose that we attested to the selection of a monarchial government; what right does the nation have to place a guardian for its future generations? They have the autonomy and so must themselves elect. For this reason monarchy was wrong from the very beginning.

Republic is a correct concept because every country has set a period of four to five years; and after four to five years they again get elected. It is no longer passed on to future generations such that if the son of a person whatever he may be must be the ruler. Now, it was Rida Khan and then it is the turn of Muhammad Rida and then again his son Rida Pahlavi and then again another Muhammad Rida followed by another Rida and continues till eternity! Therefore a monarchy in this context is not at all logical in the context of its being inherited. If a republic is by inheritance, it is not logical. That which is logical is that the people should themselves be responsible. The nation elects someone; that too in free elections; and elects someone as president; the nation has the right to elect someone as its president. After four years have passed, once again it is this same people and the same circumstances; once again another person is elected or if the incumbent does a good job, he is reelected. You and I cannot determine the destiny for a hundred years from now. We have the right for our own selves; it is like we appoint someone as a lawyer on behalf of a deceased person! Or who is yet to be born! What connection does it have with me? This regime was basically an illogical one. Now also, wherever it is in place, it is illogical. However, the type of monarchy that the others have is not of the variety that we had; at any rate, it is an illogical concept.

Now that you want to supervise the elections, you must pay attention to the fact that this regime is a humane-Islamic regime; it is not the oppressive taghouti regime. You must not speak a word that tarnishes its name, for example, by doing a certain thing. People should freely elect as they did in the referendum. People must be free to elect. Yes, you furnish the means; supervision over them lest there is misuse and cheating in such things. It should not be like in former times when they would carry away the ballot boxes and fill them up with whatever they wanted and then bring and put them back in place! There should be supervising of the ballot boxes such that no person can cheat. The ballot boxes should be in trustworthy hands; the trustees should be from the people so that later there is no utterance against you that such and such governor, for example, had interfered in the affairs.

In the Islamic government the position is such that now in the elections, you do not have any right beyond the right to supervise and make available the means to the extend that the government must make available; lest, God forbid, they accuse you of rigging in favor of one person and for example changing the ballot box. You must be very careful concerning these matters including the freedom of the electorate at polling booths and facilitating their voting as well as safeguarding the trust (votes and ballot boxes) that is under the supervision of a number of trustworthy individuals from the government and the people. The trusted persons should bear in mind that afterwards there should be no talk that well, this regime and this election is like the previous ones. This must be seriously taken into consideration by the gentlemen that God willing, basically, a transformation should take place in Iran of the spiritual kind. A spiritual transformation means that a governor should not regard himself as a governor. I do not desire to utter this word at all just as I also do not like to utter the word `monarch'. Sometimes I get very angry when, for example, they call the Imam of the Age (`a) "King of kings". He is the trustee of God. In any case, the main thing is action; now the titles are not very important even though it is better that it is changed; the main thing is action in that through your action, you show that this election is a free national election. Every person anywhere can cast his vote for whoever he wishes. When they get the majority of votes- of course the people will vote for pious Islamic individuals- the gentlemen should not conclude that now eyes are focused on engaging in disputes; on finding faults. If a governor of a province does something that is against the principles of the Islamic Republic, this will affect everyone. Then they will say that the administrators are such and such type of people; the provincial governors are so-and-so, and basically the government is also this sort.

I hope that all of you are healthy and happy and all of us are in the service of this people, especially of the poor; of the weak. Your focus should mostly be on these strata that are in need. It should not be like in the former regime where for the upper class everything was made available to them in addition to filling their pockets while a group of shanty dwellers on the outskirts of Tehran who are even now just as before- these people must be transformed. There must be a difference between a government that calls itself Islamic and an oppressive taghouti regime. One difference is the greater attention that you governors or civil servants should pay to these weak strata instead of the upper classes. Let it not be such that one day a person who is affluent and wealthy be given precedence over a person of the weak strata although it was the right of the weaker who must have been attended to earlier. I do not imply to give priority to the weaker; I say there must be justice. However, when they need to refer to a governor, it is not possible to accept everybody all at once; but it must be based on justice in that even the weaker person is attended to; the one who is affluent should also be attended to. Hadrat Amir (`a) in a trial at the time when he was the Caliph of Allah and the caliph of the Muslims and would determine the verdict himself; there was a legal dispute between Hadrat Amir and a non-Muslim- apparently a Jew- and the judge summoned him (`a). When he went in, the judge called him by his epithet [kunyah]. «1» Hadrat `Ali forbade him and told him that they must be treated equally; «2» in seating, in everything they must be equal. When he delivered the verdict against His Holiness, he accepted. He was the true Caliph of God and you all must also toe his line; all of us must follow his line. However, none of us have the strength to be like him; but at least to the extent that when they take our letter there, they say that these too are Shi`ah; they too are followers. When they take our letter of deeds to the Imam of the Time (`a) which, as it is quoted in the narrative takes place every week, twice a week; «3» when they take our letter it should reveal our deeds in such a light that make us disqualified as followers; it is not that we follow our vain desires in performing a deed.

I hope, God willing, these elections and the subsequent elections that are about the Consultative Assembly, with your supervision and earnestness, not that you disallow anyone from interfering, but the interference should not be misplaced and the person should not be one who wants to impose his will on the people; it should not be such. God willing, these elections will be a model throughout the history of constitutionalism- except for some instances; except a little- of a free election. That we say `except some instances' means where there is no interference of the government; otherwise the khans would interfere. At the very dawn of constitutionalism, right from the beginning, a party of people was suffering at the hands of the khans and landlords, and would also suffer at the hands of the government. It could be said that the elections throughout the era of constitutionalism were not free. The khans would gather the serfs or they would intimidate them so that the serfs would vote for them which I myself had witnessed before the reign of Rida Shah; at the time of Ahmad Shah when it was controlled by the khans; the khans would appoint legislators. When Rida Shah came to power and to some extent brought these khans under his control, not that he eradicated them; he concentrated all the powers in himself and committed all the oppressions that the khans would commit! After this, everything was in their hands and the people and the nation were not at all important anymore. Who was the nation?! Now it is not so; now the nation is important; the people themselves. God willing, your tasks shall be models for all places where free elections take place. May God bless all of you and may you all be successful.