legitimacy

One of the important discussions in political science is the discussion of "sovereignty and the role of the people" in it. The importance of this issue is that it is possible to determine the type of political system of each country by considering the influence and role of the people in the emergence of sovereignty and political power. Today, most established governments claim to be democratic and popular, but the extent to which this is consistent with reality is worth considering and examining. The type of research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of collecting materials is library studies. The results showed that in Imam Khomeini's thought, in the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is a popular system based on the will and will of the people and relies on their votes, the door to criticism, advice, conflict and complaint against the ruler and protest against the agents is open, and the people are observers of the functions of the government and statesmen. Also, since the Imam's thought is the point of support for many political groups in political actions and he himself is the founder of the modern political system of Iran, firstly, a correct understanding of his thought seemed necessary to influence the disputes in this regard, and secondly, since this thought is defined in the comprehensive form of Islamism, it found a considerable comprehensiveness for detailed examination.

The acquisition of legitimacy has always been an important matter for the establishment and continuity of a government, and the Mongol Empire was no exception to this rule. Among the Mongol Khans, the sanctity of Genghis Khan's ancestors, his divine legitimacy, and his affiliation with the Chinggisid family were considered foundational elements of legitimacy. In the Mongol political system, in addition to the Khans, the Khātūns also held extraordinary power. During the tribal period or pre-empire era of the Mongols, women held a special significance. After the establishment of the empire, they, as the Khātūns of the court, attained a higher status than before. In fact, Khātūns played an active and influential role in many of the decisions of the government in political, military, social, religious, and other areas, and they easily exercised power in any field. It must be said that behind this influence and authority of the Khātūns, there were certainly important and powerful foundations that enabled them to wield power and exert influence across various domains.

Literature Review:

In some studies and articles, general information about the Mongol Khātūns and their exercise of power can be found. These include: the book Women in Iran during the Mongol Era by Shirin Bayani (2018), and articles such as "The Political, Social, and Cultural Status of Women during the Mongol and Ilkhanid Periods" by Elham Malekzadeh (2006), or the article "Examining and Studying the Status of Women and Khātūns in the Mongol Era Based on Historical Evidence and Archaeological Data" by Yadollah Heydari et al. (2012), as well as the article "The Administrative and Political Role of Mongol Khātūns" by Ahmad Faroughbakhsh (2010), the article "Evaluating the Legitimacy of the Mongol Tribes" by Morteza Nouri (1993), and the article "Power and Legitimacy during the Ilkhanid Period" by Hassan Ansari Qomi (1999). Furthermore, the book Mongol Women in Iran: Khātūns by Bruno di Nicola (2017), the thesis Women among the Mongols by Somayeh Melik Onjel (2019), the article Women in the Mongol Empire by Mark Cartwright (2019), and the article Women in Mongol Society by Per Jange Ostermun (2000) are relevant. This study aims to discuss the sources of legitimacy and power of the Khātūns, as well as their actions and decisions.

The considerable power and authority of the Mongol Khātūns led the authors of this study to conduct a thorough and in-depth investigation into the origin and source of such power, as well as to discuss the nature and details of their actions and the factors related to them. The goal of this research is to identify and examine the origins and foundations of the Mongol Khātūns' power. The study aims to provide substantiated and reasoned answers to the following questions: What were the foundations of legitimacy and the exercise of power by the Mongol Khātūns? How did they use these foundations in the advancement of their goals? The research methodology is descriptive-analytical in terms of execution and fundamental in terms of purpose. The study utilized documentary (library) data collection methods, with the tool being note taking.

The findings of the research indicate that, in addition to secondary issues, there are at least three main sources of legitimacy for the exercise of power by the Khātūns. These are: the sacred status of women in Mongol traditions, lineage and tribal base, and the role of motherhood or marriage. According to the sources, women held a special place and significance among the Mongols, and one of the reasons for this is the story of the Mongols' ancestor, Alankua. She became pregnant by the will of God without a husband and gained a celestial and virtuous sanctity. In some historical texts, Alankua is considered to have the same sacred status as the Virgin Mary. Therefore, powerful Khātūns also regarded this issue as an important basis for obtaining and maintaining their position. The preservation of lineage and having a clear family tree held particular importance among the Mongol tribes. This important concept was also a strong foundation for the powerful Khātūns. Any Khātūn who came from a famous and important tribe had a solid backing for exercising power. The role of motherhood or marriage was also an important basis, and Khātūns who played the role of mothers were highly influential and significant.

The results of the paper show that Khātūns were one of the key and influential elements in the Mongol political system, and through their decisions and actions, they brought about fundamental changes in the Mongol government system. They were able to make generals, nobles, princes, and even Khans subordinate to them by exercising power, and with the influence they gained, they could even change the succession process in favor of themselves and their family. Although the Mongol Khans were very powerful, sometimes the Khātūns were the true rulers of the state and engaged in political activities behind the scenes. The influence that the Khātūns had over the Khans and their entourages is evident in the significant actions that took place. Dismissing and appointing ministers, transferring power from one family to another, ordering the execution or exile of enemies, and appointing relatives and co-religionists to important governmental positions were some of the actions of the Khātūns, backed by the foundations of their power and legitimacy. The status and position of women in Mongol beliefs and traditions reflected the power of the Khātūns in political matters, and this position and value had a significant impact on the political, social, and religious dynamics of Mongol society. Furthermore, with the establishment of the Ilkhanid government in Iran, the status and importance of Mongol Khātūns continued and even influenced the position of women who were not of Mongol origin, leading to the governance of powerful women in areas under Mongol domination.

With the end of the Cold War, a new chapter in relations between governments began. Among other things, the criteria that existed around the recognition of a newly established government were changed. Emphasis on concepts such as peace, democracy, self-determination and human rights caused democratic legitimacy to be proposed as a new element for the recognition of a government. This article aims to examine the place of democratic legitimacy in the field of government recognition. The hypothesis of the research is based on the fact that the criterion of democratic legitimacy has to a large extent been able to challenge the “exercise of effective power” which was the basic criterion for the recognition of a state in classical international law. The findings of the research indicate that with the passage of time, international actors, including countries and international organizations, have implicitly always included democratic legitimacy in identifying new governments more than in the past. The results of this study also confirm the fact that currently the position of democratic legitimacy in the identification institution is surpassing the criterion of effective control and the international instruments and mechanisms in this field, although implicitly, are trying to support it as much as possible. This article has been compiled by collecting and reviewing the documents and literature produced around the topic under discussion in a descriptive-analytical method.

Every government needs authority in addition to force and power for its survival. Legitimacy is the guarantor of the government's authority and legitimizes the right to command and forbid the rulers and the necessity of obeying them. Relying solely on military power, without the support of legitimacy, is not possible in the long term. The political systems that rule Iran have also relied on the support of legitimacy and have relied on reasons to legitimize and justify their rule and rule. This article seeks to analyze the developments of legitimacy, find its turning points and the similarities and differences in the perception of legitimacy in Iranian governments from the Achaemenid Empire to the Islamic Revolution. Therefore, by referring to historical documents and using the method of qualitative content analysis, the main changes in the legitimacy of the political system and its ups and downs in Iran from the ancient period until now will be expressed. In the end, it becomes clear that the governments ruling Iran from the ancient times to the Islamic revolution - except for the Pahlavi dynasty - have relied on the divine theory of legitimacy, and despite all their differences, they have this in common.

Replacement, as one of the neglected ways in the field of the revival of endowments, has long been the center of debate among the early and late jurists. Islamic jurisprudents, both popular and Imāmiyyah, have commented on this. In the authoritative sources of jurisprudence and civil law of Iran, in exceptional cases, the sale of the endowment property is allowed, including when the endowment property is damaged or there is a strong dispute between the endowments. The endowment property cannot be bought and sold, and it is not permissible to carry out any legal act that causes the same endowment to be transferred to others, but sometimes there are circumstances and conditions that are necessary to preserve the endowment institution and the interests of the endowment, the sale of the endowment property becomes necessary, therefore, in the reliable sources of jurisprudence and civil law of Iran, in exceptional cases, the exchange of the endowment property is allowed. The present research, which is practical in terms of its purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of its method, has studied jurisprudence books and examined the opinions of jurisprudents collected, and based on the opinion of the proposed opinions and the rights, it comes to the conclusion that the replacement of the endowment property despite the opinion Some opponents believe that it is possible to revive endowments under certain conditions, and it can be inferred that the source of the argument for not replacing endowment property by jurists was due to the establishment of a tyrannical government, and currently such a category has no relevance. And it is possible to use them optimally by accepting substitution.

 Two of the most important philosophers who rejected the originality of modernity from a theological perspective, Karl Schmidt and Karl Levitt, benefited from the concept of secularisation in their critique. In political theology, Schmitt saw all the concepts of modern state theory as secular versions of theological concepts, and in the sense of history, Levitt saw the philosophy of progress and thus modernity as a grounded narrative of Christian-Jewish eschatology. Hans Blumenberg, first at the Montser Conference and then in a more extended way in The Legitimacy of Modernity, made the concept of secularisation the target of the most severe attacks and considered Levitt's book to have had a "condemnatory effect" on the German intellectual atmosphere of the second half of the 20th century - and especially the 1950s. In a paradoxical way, Blumenberg both defended modernity as an absolutely new beginning in history and saw the philosophy of modern progress as an attempt to answer an essentially theological problem - and in his own words a "residual" problem - that modernity would eventually lose. from that decade onwards, secularisation has generally been regarded as a concept used only in the critique and negation of modernity. To understand Levitt and Blumenberg's discussion, it is necessary to understand these different aspects and Levitt's powerful metaphorical use of it. In this article we will first try to provide some historical background to the concept of secularisation, then explain Levitt's secularisation thesis and Blumenberg's critique, and finally, by extending some of the views of Robert Pippin and Elizabeth Brint, raise critical considerations about the basis of Blumenberg's critique.

This article uses a descriptive, analytical and inferential approach to examine the issue of secularization: the dispute between Karl Levitt and Hans Blumenberg over the legitimacy of modernity. The article will first provide a historical background to the concept of secularization, then explain Levitt's secularization thesis and Blumenberg's critique, and finally, by extending some of the views of Robert Pippin and Elizabeth Brint, raise critical considerations about the basis of Blumenberg's critique.

two main findings of the article are the following:1 unsurpassiblity of Tradition in west
 As we will see, both the critics of the modern age, löwith and Schmidt, and the sole defender of the atuthencity of modernity, Hans Blumnbebrg, admit that the elemnts of the western tradition, Greco-Roman and Judaic-Christian ones, can not be surpassed. For example, even Blumenberg claims the modernity becomes unthinkable wihouth Chtirsitniaty.

2 locality of the legitimacy debate:

Following the first finding, if the elements of wsetern tradition are unsurpassable, so logically no universal claim can be made regarding the legtitimacy and the nuances of this debate are restricted to the western world and can have no realtion with e.g Islamic world.

Ananlysis::

Modern age is not an epoch in the strict sense, but a botched construct of reason and faith. First in Müntser Congress and the in an expanded way in the Legitimacy of the Modern Age, Hans Blumenberg attacked the secularization concept in the most severe way and remarked the Löwith's work has had a "dogmatizing effect" on the German intellectual milieu in the second half of the twentieth century and particularly of the 1950s.As has been said, Blumenberg considered the core of the secularisation thesis to be the negation of modernity's originality and self-righteousness. Thus, he made every effort to establish modernity's break with previous ages and to confirm its independence. On the other hand, he wanted to provide an explanation of modernity that would lead to the criticism of the historicists. They argued that no epoch could stand apart from context and time, and that the modern claim to be an absolute beginning in history, with no connection to the past, was a false and mistaken claim. Blumenberg accepted this criticism to some extent, seeing the lack of attention to historicity as one of the defects of modernity, which, according to the popular explanation, stems from Descartes' desire to break free from time and place and to prove the universal truths of mathematics. Blumenberg's clever response to the historicists was to leave their critique half-baked and use it only to reject modernity.

Concussion:

 Bulmenberg defends modernity as a quasi-absolute beginning in history and at the same time treats the philosophy of progress as an effort to answer the authentically theological –and in his own terms as a residue- question which will finally be abandoned by modernity. Following a phenomenological method, which is more devoted to Husserl instead of Heidegger, Blumenberg refused all versions of the secularization thesis as crypto-Platonic statements on modernity which presupposes some transcendent substance and treats all the subsequent forms as the pale copies of it, and therefore divesting all the other ages of authenticity. From the phenomenological-historical standpoint of Blumenberg, neither modernity nor christianity enjoys that so-called zero point of departure. He shows that even the allegedly properties of christianity, e.g. providence, is in fact borrowed ones from stoicism in the almost forgotten formative periods of christianity and presented from the middle ages on as the revelatory cache of christianity to create a façade of a-historicality. Moreover, Blumenbergs suggests that this transcendent substance is not available to theory and hence is an article of faith which cannot be properly examined in a scholarly way. And because of this unavailability, scholarly surveys have already been brought up to close.

In Shia political philosophy in general, the legitimacy of the government depends on the divine appointment, but considering that the influence of the will and opinion of the people in finding the legitimacy of a government can indicate the position of the people in that government, investigating the effect of popular acceptance in legitimizing the government in the beliefs Shia has been important in different eras and can indicate the relationship between Shia political philosophy and concepts such as democracy. Shia jurists have given different opinions about the legitimacy of the government during the absence. The present article, using the descriptive-analytical method and using library sources, has investigated the effect of popular acceptance in the falsification of legitimacy for the government and its continuation from the point of view of Mirza Nayini. Mirzai Nayini does not consider popular acceptance to be effective in falsifying legitimacy for the government because he considers the establishment of the Shura Majlis to be legitimate if this Majlis includes a number of jurists, who have general appointment, or persons authorized by the jurists. But people's acceptance can be considered effective in the continuation of the government's legitimacy; Because he considers it the right of the general public to be consulted and supervise the Majlis Shura. Considering that he considers the issuance of permission to intervene in political affairs for the members of the Shura Assembly to be subject to the existence of conditions in them that their enjoyment of these

The purpose of this study is to identify the link between artificial intelligence and public policy and its role in improving the quality of governance. Using review and comparative method, this paper studies the experience of countries that have used artificial intelligence in policy-making and public service delivery processes, and from this point of view, draw an initial analytical framework that can help explain the role of artificial intelligence in the quality of governance. The results show that artificial intelligence affects the quality of governance from two dimensions: 1) increasing the dynamics and interaction of the public policy cycle in different stages and 2) improving the quality of government services and the efficiency of the administrative apparatus.

The field of human rights studies is shaped by various ideas based on conceptual and theoretical developments. The issue of human rights has been of utmost significance for both Iran and Saudi Arabia in recent decades. Iran and Saudi Arabia, as Islamic nations, have different perspectives on human rights within the international context and the framework of human rights driven by Islamic principles. Such that this can be considered a major factor influencing their relations with each other and with entities such as the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, and national/international powers. Research question: In view of constructivism, what are the effects of human rights policies on governance in Iran and Saudi Arabia? Research hypothesis: The human rights policies and their monitoring mechanisms in Iran and Saudi Arabia have significantly influenced their behavior in adhering to and accepting human rights norms. Therefore, their similarities and differences in this regard can be identified by comparing the state of human rights in these two countries. Findings Research findings indicate that Iran demonstrates a more flexible stance on human rights issues compared to Saudi Arabia, which can be attributed to differences in their government type and civil society structure.

The Safavid era can be divided into two distinct periods. The first extends from the inception of the Safavid dynasty to the 1639 Peace Treaty of Zuhab, while the second period spans from the Peace Treaty of Zuhab to the fall of Isfahan at the hands of Afghans. During the first period, Safavid kings exhibited warlike tendencies, and religious authorities were not allowed to interfere in political matters. However, in the second period, Safavid kings embraced Sharia principles more openly, elevating clerics to top positions in the religious structure. The present research aimed to explore the impact of Sharia tendencies on the Safavid military spirit and army. The study addressed the following question: How did Sharia tendencies and the close relations between Safavid kings and clerics influence military responsibilities and duties?

The formative years of the Safavid state began with the establishment of the Safavid dynasty in 907 A.H. and reached it apex with the demise of Shah Abbas I in 1038 A.H. Throughout this period, the kings were prominently characterized by militarism and bellicose tendencies. The Safavids came out victorious or, at the very least, undefeated in their wars with the Uzbeks and Ottomans—except Shah Ismail’s defeat in the Battle of Ghazdewan and the Battle of Chaldiran. Even the defeat in the Battle of Ghazdewan (918 A.H.) occurred in Shah Ismail’s absence. By sword, the Shah or king could consolidate his godlike power and the authority of the Safavid king as a religious leader—a position embraced by his subjects. Consequently, during the first period (from the beginning to the end of the reign of Shah Abbas I in 1038 A.H.), the Safavid kings proved their legitimacy as religious leaders by relying on battlefield prowess and warfare, establishing themselves as figures with purely religious legitimacy who would staunchly uphold the Sharia. During this period, the clerics yielded to the sultan’s authority and power without dissent.Following the Peace Treaty of Zuhab with the Ottoman Empire in 1049 A.H. and the shift from confrontation to subjugation in dealings with the Uzbeks, the Safavid kings found themselves with ample free time as they withdrew from the battlefield, hence a limited space for engaging in warfare. The reigns of Shah Safi and Shah Abbas II, the two Safavid kings, mark a transition from militarism towards closer relations with clerics. A relationship existed between the decline of warfare and the increasing influence of clerical figures. The first notable change in the transition process was the withdrawal of the kings from participationin battles, ultimately resulting in the Peace Treaty of Zuhab. The king’s participation in wars had bolstered the Safavid authority, with religious leaders yielding to the conquering king. However, Shah Safi would not show any desire for war.Shah Abbas II stood out as the last warrior king, renowned for his ambition and valor in taking extraordinary measures. He was the last king to personally lead the Iranian army and capture Kandahar. Notably, during his reign, following the peace treaty withthe Ottomans and the decreased hostility from the Uzbeks, the number of wars significantly diminished compared to the early Safavid period. Consequently, even a king like Shah Abbas II could not fully demonstrate his royal and martial capabilities in a time characterized by relative peace.

During the first Safavid period, the active involvement of Shah Ismail, Shah Tahmasp, and Shah Abbas I in battles allowed them to assert their authority over military commanders, state officials, and clerics. However, this dynamic shifted following the Peace Treaty of Zuhab in 1049 A.H. and the subsequent withdrawal of kings from the battlefield. The diminished military preparedness along the eastern and western borders resulted in a void in the king’s responsibilities regarding military affairs, thus granting the kings more free time. As the kings withdrew from the battlefield, their relationships with military and state officials underwent transformation. The cessation of battlefield activities necessitated a redefinition of the king’s role and obligations, a process which took place during the long period of peace with the Ottomans. The last Safavid kings, namely Shah Suleiman and Sultan Hussein, openly embraced the Sharia by engaging in dialogue, consultations, and meetings with clerics and religious scholars. This approach resulted in the legitimization of the king and his court in the eyes of clerics and the broader religious community. However, this shift in focus left the kings unbalanced and significantly reduced their military efficacy and performance. Therefore, the king’s attention shifted away from military, political, and governmental duties, leading to neglect of the army, drastic reductions in troop numbers, and a decline in military training. This trajectory persisted for several decades and contributed to the eventual fall of the Safavid dynasty.

Since the spread of COVID-19, the United Nations and the World Health Organization have become the focus of global attention. The WHO, in accordance with the International Health Regulations, declared that the disease outbreak aligns with the criteria of public health, identifying COVID-19 as a common global threat. With the widespread dissemination of COVID-19 and the resulting crises, various questions have arisen concerning the legitimacy and performance of the UN system and its capacity to address this global crisis. The present study employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine the legitimacy of the actions and decisions of the UN and the WHO in confronting the COVID-19 crisis from the establishment of the Public Health Emergency to its resolution. This research seeks to answer the question of whether the UN system possessed the necessary legitimacy to manage and overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. This study argues that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, despite initial criticisms of the validity of the procedures and actions of the UN and the WHO, there has been widespread support for the necessity and importance of these institutions. This support largely originates from a deep-seated belief in their instrumental legitimacy, emphasizing their essential and irreplaceable purpose. In fact, although the legitimacy of the UN faced challenges in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the continuation of the crisis and the failure of unilateral approaches on one hand, and the performance of the UN and the WHO on the other hand, have led to the reinforcement of their legitimacy.

The concept of crisis is rooted in German intellectual tradition, and has a long history that can be traced back to the reactions of Romantic thinkers to the philosophical ideas of Immanuel Kant. This enduring concept—as a byproduct of Kantian philosophy and Romanticism—persisted throughout the 19th century and reached its zenith in the early 20th century, and coincided with the burgeoning modernity and modernism. Carl Schmitt and Karl Löwith were the two prominent advocates of the idea of crisis during the 20th century, and presented a criticism of the fundamental principles of modernity and questioned its legitimacy by using the secularization thesis as their primary interpretive tool. The main objective of this essay is to reconstruct the debate between Carl Schmitt, Karl Löwith, and Hans Blumenberg on the legitimacy of the modern age and present an argument in its defense as Blumenberg might have done.The Romantic scholars’ reaction to Kant, which underlies much of the concept of crisis, was shaped by their dissatisfaction with what they perceived as Kant's overly rationalistic philosophy. Romantics championed a worldview that emphasized emotion, nature, and the sublime, which they saw as neglected by Kant's emphasis on reason. This led to a period of intellectual crisis that lingered and evolved as the result of subsequent philosophical developments and social changes. Schmitt and Löwith in their unique ways viewed the advent of modernity as a crisis. Schmitt as a political theorist and jurist saw the crisis in the transition from the traditional forms of governance and social organization to the modern liberal democratic rule. For Schmitt, the essence of this crisis lay in the perceived loss of political unity and authority, which he saw as being undermined by the pluralism and individualism of modern democratic societies.This essay will follow the intellectual journey of these three thinkers, shedding light on their debates about the legitimacy of the modern period, and will present a defense of Blumenberg's interpretation, arguing that the secularization thesis and the associated concept of crisis rely on a form of historical substantialism. This substantialism, which views historical periods as homogenous entities with essential characteristics is problematic. It oversimplifies the complex historical processes involved in the transition to modernity and neglects the heterogeneity and dynamism within each historical period. In conclusion, the authors will argue that the defense of the modern age, as Blumenberg elaborates, is not only possible but necessary. It will challenge the foundational assumptions of Schmitt and Löwith's critiques, arguing for a more nuanced understanding of modernity that acknowledges its complexity and dynamism and recognizes its unique legitimacy. This defense will proceed on the thesis that Schmitt and Löwith's discussion, which explains modernity according to the secularization thesis, involves a kind of historical substantialism which is apparently unjustifiable.

Every significant social revolution, in addition to the diverse array of physical and objective events and actions (e.g., marches, armed conflicts, exile, and slogans), also encompasses intellectual dimensions. Not an exception in this regard, the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran originated from the longstanding philosophical, historical, and civilizational tradition of Islamic Iran, particularly the Shia political thought. This philosophical tradition served as the foundation for the production of various political texts and speeches, each with distinct functions but sharing the common goal of overthrowing the oppressive regime. As a notable form of political discourse and speech during the Revolution, the disclosing discourse would critically examine the status quo in the most explicit manner possible, challenging the legitimacy of the ruling power. The present study aimed to explore the relations and characteristics of the texts belonging to different periods and harboring the disclosing discourse. It also intended to see when and by whom similar texts and speeches had been produced throughout history. The research also sought to examine the political relations and power dynamics they represented as well as the actions they celebrated and foregrounded, or condemned and marginalized.

To identify common philosophical and theological roots of the disclosing discourse, the present study used Ruth Wodak’s Discourse–Historical Approach (DHA) which inclusively analyzes the contextual similarities among texts of a specific discourse. DHA offers an in-depth analysis of the inner context of a text, employing conceptual tools for examining a text at the levels of word, sentence, and the whole structure. DHA focuses on identifying discursive strategies, as well as implicit and explicit implications of the text. Wodak’s critical and meta-descriptive approach empowers researchers to delve into the concealed and underlying layers of a text, potentially revealing the intertextual relations between various texts. Moreover, Wodak’s historical perspective and her emphasis on historicism can help overcome the shortcomings of the post-structuralistic analysis caused by overlooking historical background and context. DHA takes into account the relationship between the text and the political conditions of its production, ultimately providing a predictive description of the situation, the actors involved, and the factors behind specific actions.

The research aimed to uncover the shared philosophical and theological features among the texts produced in different periods that harbored the disclosing discourse. According to the research results, the shared features include:Applying various delegitimization methods by the speaker Adopting a holistic approach, avoiding foregrounding a specific social cast, and showcasing the diversity of regime dissidents Prioritizing rational arguments over emotionalism and mythicism Creating a historical vision and depicting the struggle between right and wrong Making political identification and setting limits or othering foreign powers Extending the struggle from the political field to the social sphere

Presenting a bright prospect:

Undermining the image of the regime’s bureaucratic and military structure Explaining the physical and symbolic violence perpetrated by the regime The words associated with the disclosing discourse would convey a definite truth, not a constructed political mentality nor a merely political conflict over power. This discourse could serve as a manifestation of the prevailing truth within the political field, representing all dissatisfied individuals across various sections of society. In the contemporary history of Iran, the same truth had partially surfaced through expressions of liberty, anti-despotism, independence, and anti-colonialism. However, it was during the Islamic Revolution that the same truth came to the forefront in its entirety.

It seems that the disclosing discourse occurs in times of erosion of political stability; when there is disequilibrium and disorder within the political milieu, primarily resulting from the collapse of one order and the failure to establish another. The identity constructed through the disclosing discourse is interdiscursive, absorbing elements from different discourses and reconfiguring them internally. Historical discourses such as independence, freedom, justice, anti-colonialism, and anti-despotism are integral to the disclosing discourse. This kind of discourse accentuates its broad acceptability and social base to socialize the constructed identity. Additionally, it does not differentiate or discriminate its diverse and pluralistic followers, urging all to unite against prevailing power structures.

Analyzing the structure of Constitutional law in the Islamic Republic of Iran can be used to identify the capacities of amending the Constitution and redefining the Iranian governance system. This article, with an institutional-normative approach, seeks to show the theoretical capacities of the constitutional movement on the one hand and the capacities of Mantaghato-laugh (Free area of Islamic regulation) on the other hand to review the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. In Iranian governance, the distortion of the national division of institutional tasks in the form of bureaucratic-tribal monarchy has been widespread in the governance structure. As such, the structural differentiation of social spaces, which leads to the logical separation of religion from public policies, has been ignored. This is while the concept of a “Free area of Islamic regulation” gives general directions to public policies that can return powers and duties to the people, to the government, and the parliament without compromising the legitimacy of the political regime. This article has several theoretical pillars that are used synthetically in connection with the main finding of the article. 1) order and power, 2) separation of powers, 3) legitimacy, 4) unity of religion and politics, and 5) constitutional orientation of public policy making. The main point of the article is that the theoretical capacities of these 5 pillars can be useful for analyzing the structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran's Constitution and revising it. First, with a normative approach, we have discussed the right to exercise power and the separation of powers (the first and second theoretical pillars). The fact that the constitution guides the operation of political societies is born from the idea that the government must protect the fundamental rights of individuals. The fundamental rights have a technical dimension that organizes the exercise of power and therefore creates limitations for the exercise of power. That is why separation of powers is considered a tool against abuse of power, prevention of tyranny, and a factor of national self-actualization, and according to Montesquieu, there will be no freedom without separation of powers. In terms of the third theoretical pillar of this article, it has been discussed that the relation of legitimacy and efficiency are closely intertwined in Iranian governance. In the Constitution, there are several principles that not only determine the direction of the policy-making systems but also lay the foundations of an interventionist government with full responsibility for the welfare of the citizens. As a result, public policies take into account the legitimacy of the political system, and in practice, the legitimacy of the political regime depends on its efficiency. This phenomenon has found an ideological facet in the shadow of the theory of Unity of religion and politics. With regards to the relationship between religion and politics in the Islamic Republic (the fourth pillar of the article), we are facing two aspects of political jurisprudence theory and legal tradition, which appear to be aligned but at the same time can be contradictory. On the one hand, legitimacy refers to the divine sovereignty over the world, and it is embodied in the Islamic Republic's Constitution. On the other hand, for some “official” theorists of the last two decades, this divine sovereignty has led to the acceptance of an approach called the theory of “discovery” and “designation”, which we call "revelation legitimacy". This revolutionist approach, in its essence, makes the legal processes of the constitution irrelevant, which means that at first, it reduces the role of experts to a passive role in the designation of Leader.  The fifth pillar of the article deals with the "basic rules of public policies" and the issues of political structure related to public policies. The importance of this article is that it allows freedom of public policy-making to the citizens.

The victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran manifests the will of the people and political participation. Active political participation has always been emphasized by Imam (RA), the Supreme Leader, and state officials in the post-revolution Iran. However, during the four decades since the victory of the revolution, we have witnessed many ups and downs in this regards. This study aimed at a comparative study between the presidential elections of 2013 and 2021 in Iran. In fact, we sought to investigate the effect of political participation on the international position of the Islamic Republic of Iran and how these effects can be explained in the context of presidential elections of 2013 and 2021. This study was conducted with a descriptive-analytical method. The general conclusion indicated that the higher the political participation, the stronger the international position of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was illustrated in the position of Iran in the case of JCPOA in the wake of the presidential election of 2013, and that the lower the political participation, the weaker the international position of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was more the case in the presidential election of 2021.

Legitimacy of the government is one of the important and fundamental issues of governance. Legitimacy makes existing political institutions find moral justification because they want to show that they are focused on providing public good. This article, focusing on the transformation of post-revolutionary political discourses, seeks to answer the question, what role did the political discourses formed after the Islamic Revolution of Iran play in legitimizing the Islamic Republic? The hypothesis of the article is that the discourse conflicts of the presidential elections have fed on the main discourse of the revolution, and for this reason, despite the factional confrontations, they have ultimately been included in the discourse of the revolution and have strengthened it. Using the Weberian legitimacy triad for five existing discourses, the article has achieved an inferential analysis for each discourse, each of which has based and focused its signifiers on one of the Weberian legitimacy triads. The findings of the research have shown that each of the discourses has turned one of the signifiers of the revolution discourse into its central signifier, so in the end they have not acted in conflict with it, but in line with the strengthening of the revolution discourse. The approach of the article is discourse analysis and library information collection

The subject of this article is the basis of political power. In any society, political power is an established matter in its civil domain and undoubtedly needs a foundation. The main question of this research is what is the basis of political power in Imami jurisprudence and Imam Khomeini's political thought and what indicators and criteria does it have. At first, this research has studied and investigated the basis of political power. Then he followed this concept in the theoretical literature of Imami jurisprudence. Further, by examining the theoretical system of Imam Khomeini's political thought, he has shown what importance this basic and central concept had in his political discourse. Then, by making several indicators and criteria, he has compared and equated these two intellectual devices with each other. This research has reached the conclusions that political power in Imam Khomeini's thought has a dual and mixed basis, in which there are not only elements of divine sovereignty, but also elements of low-to-high power theories. On the other hand, this dual and combined basis has been able to respond to the requirements of the modern world while preserving tradition and adhering to the pillars of traditional jurisprudence. The research method is comparative and the data collection method is documentary and library.

In the legal arrangements after the UN Charter, the United Nations Security Council has been considered as the only legal authority that is allowed to resort to sanctions or coercive measures, despite the fact that the performance of this Council has been political and unfair in many cases, based on the seventh chapter of the Charter, the sanctions imposed by Article 41 aimed of maintaining international peace and security, they are considered collective and coercive in nature and are binding on all member states. The opposite of collective sanctions of the UN is unilateral sanctions by which, one government tries to force another government to change its policies. In response to the main question that what is the legal position and legitimacy of unilateral sanctions of the United States, this article, which was carried out with a descriptive analytical method, takes into account the hypothesis that the unilateral sanctions of the United States violates universal human rights, international humanitarian law, and the principles and objectives stated in the charter, the principle of equality of governments, the principle of non-interference, food security, the right to health and education, the right to development, the right to life and other fundamental human rights of a sanctioned country.

This research was conducted with the aim of analyzing the phenomenological perspectives of political science students towards the factors influencing political trust (political officials in the Islamic Republic of Iran). In this study, a qualitative approach and interpretative phenomenological method were used. The target population of the study consisted of postgraduate political science students from universities across the country in 2023. Through purposive sampling, interviews were conducted with 19 individuals. Data collection was done through semi-structured in-depth interviews. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis method based on grounded theory and a three-stage coding method by Strauss and Corbin (1990). Based on the results, 10 main themes (political legitimacy; management and performance weaknesses; democracy; economic security; cultural security; agent-oriented; political security; ideological; social security and judicial security), 4 sub-themes (political, social, economic, and cultural) and 62 codes were identified. It was concluded that in order to build trust in the country’s political officials, policies should be aimed at predictability, commitment, competence, transparency, and responsiveness. Through these policies, it is possible to help reduce political distrust in society.