Active reformist criticism of the new presidential election law

“Dariush Ghanbari” described the plan to amend the presidential election law as a ground for restricting the people’s choice and said: “This plan contradicts the principles and frameworks of democracy.” The basis of democracy is that people have the right to choose and can put themselves to the vote. There should be no specific condition for the selection of individuals, but the selection of individuals should be done by the voters.

The former representative of the people of Ilam in the parliament said: the legislator should not turn his idea and thinking into law and in some way restrict or destroy the frameworks of democracy according to his taste. In fact, the difference between democracy and aristocracy is that aristocracy is a group government, and democracy is the government of the people and all people have the right to vote.

The constitutional criterion for candidates is literacy

He pointed out: The Constitution of the Islamic Republic has made literacy a criterion for presidential candidates and has not considered the condition of having a high degree. This is not a constitutional defect, but one of its strengths.

The former member of parliament continued: “The criterion for reading and writing for presidential candidates is the minimum conditions set by the drafters of the constitution in order to provide the basis for the people to rule over the people. Restrict the rights of voters by stipulating conditions.

Ghanbari said that any restrictive conditions of the people are in conflict with the constitution, adding that the laws passed by the legislators should not be in conflict with the constitution and the deputies are not allowed to change the constitution.

Ordinary law should not limit the constitution

The expert on political issues said: “The Guardian Council is expected not to approve the cases that restrict the rights of the people, which are also specified in the constitution, and not to allow the constitution to be limited by ordinary law.” Of course, ordinary law can in no way limit the constitution.

The reformist political activist noted: “The conditions of the presidential candidates are mentioned in the constitution, and this means that there is no need to formulate an ordinary law to change the constitution and determine the conditions of the presidential candidates.” In fact, the importance of the presidency is such that the conditions of the elected are specified in the constitution, and any ordinary law seems superfluous.

Ghanbari said that the reform of the presidential election law has become a complex problem for the parliaments, noting that in each term of the parliaments, the delegates have a mission to change the election law, but I do not know what the purpose of this is.

The political activist stated: In no country like Iran, the election laws do not change in this way. Electoral law in other countries is considered an organic law and has a status and status between ordinary and basic law, ie the main authority of the election law is different from the authority that approves the ordinary law.

The quality of legislation has not changed with the application of the master’s degree requirement

Ghanbari, referring to the previous parliamentary resolutions on amending the election law, said: “In previous periods, we had resolutions in the parliaments that created unnecessary restrictions for entering the parliament.” For example, they considered the condition of a master’s degree for the deputies. Now the question is, has the quality of legislation in the country changed since the application of the condition of a master’s degree? Certainly not. Therefore, a degree cannot be a good measure of political ability. That is why I think this condition is also in line with certain interests.

The former representative of the people of Ilam in the parliament said: the expectation from the deputies is to remove the special redundant conditions that have been considered for the elections in the previous periods, and not to add conditions that are beyond the constitution.

He added: “The spirit of the constitution considers the minimum conditions for presidential candidates as a whole in line with the sovereignty of the people, and the application of any restrictive conditions will cause serious damage to the body of democracy and the sovereignty of the people.”

It is not clear where the age requirement of 40 years and 70 years came from.

Ghanbari said: “Considering that the parliament did not back down in amending the presidential election law, it is expected that in the final stages, the rights of the elected authorities and the people will not be allowed to be undermined in the general sense of the word.”

The university professor described the application of the age requirement in the draft amendment to the election law as a kind of restriction and added: “It is not clear where the age requirement of 40 and 70 years for presidential candidates came from. Maybe people would like to choose someone over 70 or under 40.” If the criterion is youth, why less than 40 years, and if the criterion is experience, why can not more than 70 years be present in the competition.

He said that determining the age criterion for volunteers is unconstitutional and said: “The population under 40 and over 70 are citizens of this country and have rights. In our country, an 18-year-old reaches the age of political duty, but 22 years to be elected.” We are postponing him.

The reformist political activist said: “In addition, in many cases people over the age of 70 have both political maturity and good physical strength.” Are those in the parliament more intelligent than the people? In fact, they decide for the people, at what age, to run the country instead of the people. This restricts the choice of the people and it is not accepted by the rules of democracy that one wants to decide for the people.

We should not add a condition beyond the constitution to the conditions of the candidates

The former representative of the people of Ilam in the parliament said: making conditions for the candidates is a violation of the rights of the people and is considered a kind of violation of public rights. Constitutional rights, which play the role of mother of public law, and the constitution sets out the conditions, and we do not need to add any other condition to the conditions of the candidates.

Ghanbari, stating that betting on candidates is in the dignity and position of the people and should be put to the people’s vote, added: “It is beyond the authority of the parliament to decide on the conditions of the elected, which are mentioned in the constitution.” This action means changing the constitution, and changing the constitution must be done through a referendum and a referendum, and the deputies are obliged to legislate within the framework of the constitution, and not beyond that.