The Islamic Republic of Iran provides a contemporary example of a theocratic government whose constitutional duty is to ensure, at all costs, that the people act in accordance with the Shia version of the Sharia: “Today, however, the success and failure of the country is in our hands, the authorities: and it is we who can take proper actions or make good decisions, thus paving the way for the people to achieve prosperity and end up in heaven.” The Iranian government, however, is distinguishable from other Islamic theocracies on at least two fronts. First, it is the only Islamic government that embraces the Shia Sharia as the source of religious authority. The Shia Sharia is uniquely placed among Islamic denominations, for its doctrines of Imamate and Infallibility obviate the need for divine revelation or exegetical interpretations to govern the affairs of humanity. That said, since the Shia Sharia is doctrinally against the governance of a fallible leader, it is paradoxical that the Iranian government draws its legitimacy from the Shia Sharia. In fact, by naming itself a Shia government, the Islamic Republic of Iran is inherently at variance with the very same principles that it claims to hold dear.
Second, the Iranian government has an inconsistent constitutional structure. Democratic authority and the rule of Shia Sharia are two fundamental—but colliding—values endorsed by the Constitution. On one hand, the Constitution holds that the Infallible Imam and his delegates have exclusive divine right to govern the country, and, on the other hand, it endows the citizens with the sovereign right to make social, political, and economic decisions. Thus, on its face, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Constitution may be interpreted to support the idea that democratic and religious authority may coexist, each with jurisdiction over different aspects of societal affairs. However, as this Article will illuminate, such an interpretation conflicts head-on with the Shia Sharia.
This Article begins with a comparative analysis of the role of religious authority in Christianity and Islam, concluding that all Islamic governments, unlike their Christian counterparts, lack the potential for recognizing secular authority and human rights. It continues by focusing on the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its unique feature that distinguishes it from other Islamic governments: the Shia ideology. This Article seeks to uncover the conceptual and structural dissonance in Shia ideology by demonstrating how the doctrines of Infallibility, Imamate, and Occultation have transformed Shia from a Sharia-based religion to a jurisprudence-based cult. It further sheds light on the dilemma of the Islamic Republic of Iran by exploring the friction that exists between the republican aspect of the Iranian Constitution and the authority granted to the religious aristocracy. This Article concludes that the Shia Sharia is doctrinally antithetical to any notion of democracy: both the Constitution and the theocratic nature of the Iranian regime are by-products of the Shia Sharia, and do not necessarily emanate from the will or whim of its powerful rulers.