An Analysis of the theory of Election by a majority in the thoughts of Shiʻi Jurists

The theory of election by [an overwhelming] majority or majority vote is considered to be one of the most famous and widely accepted theories in political philosophy and political thought of the West and as a factor of legitimacy in the thoughts of Muslim Sunni thinkers and intellectuals. This theory that emphasizes on the legitimacy of majority vote, with its principles having undergone some changes in the course of time, have attracted the attention of some ShiÝi jurists. The theory in question in ShiÝi jurisprudence is taken to be a rival for the theory of ‘divinely appointed ruler’ – a theory which considers the political legitimacy of a Muslim ruler as something divine and thinks that it can find its exemplar in the Period of Occultation in a competent Muslim jurist (faqih-e jÁmiÝ al-sharÁyiÔ). Unlike the theory of divine appointment, the theory of election [by an overwhelming majority] and its background has not been subject of discussions so much. Accordingly, the present research, focusing on the historical background of the theory at issue, seeks to show that this theory has not gained the favor of anybody before the Persian Constitutional Revolution. And even during the Constitutional Revolution, the same theory has been proposed by certain Muslim constitutionalist jurists as a theory which could merely put some restrictions on the functions of the corrupt rulers. However, when the Islamic Revolution of Iran gained victory and the Islamic Republic was formed, certain contemporary Muslim jurists accepted it as a condition for the legitimacy of the political ruler. Therefore, the theory of election is an emergent theory that has no significant historical background in the literature 0n ShiÝi jurisprudence.