Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Mohaamad Shaabani Jahromi ¹
• Mohammad Bahadori jahromi ²
• Alireza Mazinani ³

¹ Ph.D Student, Public Law, Allameh Tabatabae’i University, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Departement of Public Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

³ Ph.D Student, Public Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

1. Introduction
Political systems can be classified according to various parameters and variables. Among the key concepts used to explain and distinguish political systems are the notions of unified government and divided government. These concepts, widely discussed in political science, are also valuable in the study of fundamental rights due to the close relationship between the two fields. Explaining political systems through the lens of unified and divided governments provides clearer insight into the relationship between the branches of power. A unified government exists when the political alignment between the executive and legislative branches is structurally guaranteed. In contrast, a divided government occurs when the processes by which the executive and the legislature come to power do not ensure political alignment between them. Furthermore, when disagreement or division arises between the president and the prime minister within the executive branch, the result is a divided government within the executive itself. Unified elections for both the government and the parliament tend to produce a unified government, whereas separate elections for these bodies often lead to a divided government. Similarly, periods of cohabitation of the president and the prime minister create a divided government within the political system. In general, parliamentary systems emerge as a result of a unified government, while presidential systems are characterized by a divided government between the executive and the legislature. A semi-presidential system results from a divided government within the executive branch. Applying these concepts can help identify the nature of the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Analyzing Iran’s political system in two periods—before and after the constitutional amendment—through the lens of political science theories provides insights that differ from those found in the works and interpretations of legal scholars.

Literature Review

Regarding the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, both Iran’s constitutional law and comparative constitutional law literature briefly refer to it as a semi-presidential or semi-parliamentary–semi-presidential model. Several scholarly articles have also characterized the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran as semi-presidential in nature. A common feature among these analyses is their focus on the parliament’s constitutional oversight mechanisms over the government. However, none of the previous studies have examined the relationship between the government and the parliament within the framework of political science concepts such as unified government and divided government. Furthermore, the present study differs from most previous works that have classified the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran according to existing typological models. Concerning the relationship between the government and the parliament, the current analysis aimed to challenge the claim that the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran is semi-presidential. Adopting the findings of this study could have far-reaching implications for the political and legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, potentially leading to significant reforms and changes in the relationships among the branches of power.

Materials and Methods

The present study used a critical–analytical approach to address the nature of the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Results and Discussion

The theoretical analysis of the relationships within the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran—prior to the constitutional amendment—revealed significant insights. For example, the incorporation of Prime Minister in the Constitution created a unified government between the executive and the legislature. However, in practice, the absence of a clear majority criterion in appointing the prime minister led to recurring conflicts in this regard. At that time, the leadership, the president, and the prime minister together constituted the executive branch. This situation changed following the constitutional amendment approved in 1989, which abolished the position of Prime Minister. As a result, and due to the lack of a mechanism ensuring alignment between the government and the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the system has since exhibited characteristics of a divided government in the relationship between the executive and the legislature. Given the constitutional division of executive authority between the Leader and the President, the application of the concept of a divided government within the executive branch itself also warrants consideration. Therefore, the characterization of the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran as semi-presidential is inaccurate.

Conclusion

In terms of the relationship between the government and the parliament, the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran more closely resembles a presidential system. To accurately determine the political type of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is essential to analyze the nature of the relationship between the positions of Leader and President, as well as its distinctions from the semi-presidential model.

Keywords

• Elections
• Unified Government
• Divided Government
• President
• Islamic Consultative Assembly

Main Subjects

• Public Law