نشریه حقوق اساسی
پیاپی 14 (زمستان 1389)

Electoral laws in order to ensure of candidates equality is forecasting restrictions for period, instruments and financial sources of electoral propaganda. Electoral legislator of Iran has governed law period and instruments of electoral propaganda. This legal rules lack necessary universality. Nonetheless, embargo of government equipment utilization pro some candidates and foresight of propaganda commission for supervise impart of candidates equally in government equipment and media in president and the Assembly of experts elections are including the positive effects of equality principle in Iran electoral propaganda. the lack of regulated financial sources of candidates electoral propaganda in Iran are examples of legal impediments of equality principle in electoral propaganda which concession of subvention for candidates, exercise of restriction on their electoral expenditures and incomes, and constitute specific commission for financial supervision on propaganda activities of candidates can be suggested for obviation of this impediment.

The Lebanon’s parliamentary electoral law of 2008 is considered to be the most comprehensive electoral law among the previous electoral laws and the legislator has tried to assist to an increase in health and transparency of the elections by enacting relatively comprehensive regulations and provisions. This law was passed by the parliament in 11 chapters and 117 articles in 2008 and is largely compatible with the international criteria for holding a democratic elections, especially in the field of voters and candidates’ qualifications (except in two cases: expiring ten years for those who earn their citizenship and prohibition of militants from voting) and counting votes, preparation of electoral lists and expenses, and active participation of media in the field of advertising. This law, like the previous laws, distributes 128 parliamentary seats equally between Christians and Muslims in specified polls and is centered on religious confessional system and is noted in the table attached to the law, that this has made this law and system of Lebanon’s House of Representatives electoral law to be considered as a unique system among the world’s electoral systems.

The history of ideas demonstrates that political philosophy focuses on two individualist and collectivist meta-narratives. Statism, Hierarchical system of power and social discipline, belief in positive liberty, dogmatic commitment to traditions and customs, altruism and living in a simple life are the considerable features of collectivist viewpoints. Moreover, collectivism put considerable impacts on constitutions. The most concrete effect is that collectivist constitutions are usually striven for establishing a Utopia. Populist tendencies, charismatic leadership, and one-party or dominant party system are among the main effects of utopianism. Collectivism has some manipulating impacts on the structure of constitutions such as manipulated system of distribution of power instead of a safe system separation of powers, politicized judiciary and centralist attitudes in the administration of power. The main characteristics of the individualists are conviction in negative liberty, minimal tasks for the government in all areas especially with respect to ethics and considering the individual as an end in it. Individualism has laid doctrines that ultimately resulted in real constitutionalism.

Democracy is a relationship between citizens and government which people establish government, the relationship is objectified by civil society moreover provides essential tools for democracy. Then democracy must be followed by civil society and it should be able to creat civil society theoretically and practical. Representatives of Iranian citizens legislate more than a century in the parlement; nevertheless civil society is too young even in academic level. This article tres to survey the present situation and cases of weak of civil society of Iran by a legal-historical approach, guilds and womens’ groups is studies as two examples

Few years ago, there was an Ironic wall between public bodies and private bodies. But appearance of privatization policies, collaborative Decision– Making and other Democratic requirements In one side, and efficiency, Modern Governmental Management necessities besides economic Justification In other side, Disturbed this wall. This is not as same as previous Time that public bodies were only responsible for public services or All actions of Them, recognized as public functions. Nowadays, all actions of private bodies don’t necessarily recognize as private one because of Their Sources but also they interfere in public affairs. Therefore this Duality is a false dichotomy. Present paper Is an endeavor in order to get familiar with recent establishment. Despite they creep in organizational structure of our country and their central Role, They are unfortunately forgotten in our Legal literary.

One of the main functions for public law as a shaper for political, economic, social and cultural structure in any given country is to ensure individuals’ rights and fundamental and public freedoms. In some cases, the presented interpretation of fundamental rights is in accordance with ensuring fundamental rights for the majority of people in a society; that is, fundamental rights are to support and defend the idea of the majority in the society in running the society and legislations which affect the society. It appears that this case could be mostly observed in parliamentary systems. However, it seems that this form of interpretation from this aspect of fundamental rights was acceptable and functional until late twentieth century and these forms of interpretation could not be fulfilled in the last decade of the twentieth century. According to public law scholars in the new era, although fundamental rights are to support and defend the idea of the majority in the society in running the society and legislations, it has to prevent the majority from overrunning the rights of the minority in the society; that is, it has to support the rights of the minority, as well. Hence, its realm includes supporting and defending the fundamental rights of not only the majority, but also the minority in a society. In other words, it equally supports and defends all individuals fundamental rights, both majority and minority. In fact, it supports the political equality for all individuals and does not safeguard the public interest, only.

The goal and ideal of the principle of "the rule of law" is, to restrict the governmental officials' powers to pre-determined legal rules and to create a legal framework and a foreseeable order for society members, in order to minimize the probability of governors' arbitrariness and their power-abuse in taking decision and performing governmental measures, until as a result, the utmost guaranty for people's rights and freedoms and citizens' security becomes available. The theory of "Vilayate mutlagheye faghih" as full-power Islamic state theory in Gheibat period, has provided a pervasive authority and extensive powers for Islamic Ruler (Hakim or Vali Faghih or Imam), in order to implement divine law and to manage the society and to prepare the expediencies of Islamic political system and of the Muslim Community (The Ummah). This research firstly has explored the concept and elements of the theory of "Vilayate mutlagheye faghih" and also has declared the purporst, necessity and components of the rule of law theory, and then by demonstrating the reflection of both theories in constitutional law system of of Iran, has discussed this problem that: what logical relation can be made between Vilayate mutlaghe system and rule of law principle, and has answered to this basic question that, is Vilayate Mutlagheye Faghih theory compatible with the principle of the rule of law?