Assessing the Allegations of Irresponsibility of Religious Rulers

Throughout history the governance of prophets, saints and religious leaders of society has faced all kinds of a opposition from power seekers. but in the contemporary period especially after the victory of the Islamic revolution some dissidents have put the Republican government against the Divine government and believe that these two are two political systems and two types of government that have a different nature. By rejecting religious sovereignty they’ve accepted the Republican government because in the Republican government the ruler considers himself responsible to the people in the accountability of the ruler for the sake of the people is obvious, but in the religiousgovernment, since he has wilayah over the people and believes that his government is Divine, he doesn’t feel any responsibility toward the people and is not accountable to them. In other word, he’s not on there their control and the people cannot control his power. This article considering some experiences and reviewing library resources and descriptive analytical method seeks to examine weather the nature of religious government is such that its rulers do not what is consider themselves accountable to the people and therefore religious government must be abandoned or when the government is a religious one it considers itself obliged to carry out the religious orders and most of the people have accepted it and consider themselves accountable to the people. Right is the second view and it’s most important evidence, in addition to the manners of the wise, is the narrations and statements of great religious men.