Mirsalim Is Right! — S. Rouzbeh S. Rouzbeh 2026-10-13 In 1358, many people voted in the hope of freedom, independence and a say in their own future. This essay asks how power over public wealth, war and peace became concentrated beyond direct public oversight, and what limits and accountability exist to protect citizens’ rights. From the people’s vote for the Islamic Republic to the rulers’ authority over wealth, war and a nation’s destiny Mostafa Mirsalim has said that oil does not belong to the people of Iran; it belongs to God and the Messenger. But why should we not be surprised by his words? Is this not the very system that was established in the name of republicanism nearly half a century ago, and then concentrated decision-making power over the country’s most important affairs in an office that the people do not elect directly? Whether he intended to or not, Mirsalim has reminded us of a truth that goes far beyond the ownership of oil: in the Islamic Republic, where is the boundary between the government’s authority and the people’s rights? Who makes the decisions, and who must answer for their consequences? From the people’s vote to the concentration of power In Farvardin 1358, people took part in the Islamic Republic referendum; what is interesting is that the final text of the Constitution had not yet been drafted. The Constitution was put to a separate referendum in Azar of the same year, and the Leader’s powers were changed in the 1368 revision. The theory of Velayat-e Faqih had been put forward before the Revolution, but until then it had not been implemented. Knowing the name of a theory is different from understanding the consequences of putting it into practice. Many people joined the Revolution in the hope of freedom, independence and sovereignty over their own destiny. Did they imagine that one day the authority to command the armed forces, set general policies and decide on war and peace would be concentrated in an office outside the people’s direct choice? Responsibility for this course of events cannot simply be placed on the voters. The leaders of the Revolution, who spoke of freedom and republicanism, also bear historical responsibility for the system they designed and established. Oil is a pretext; the issue is the government’s authority Article 45 of the Constitution places anfal and public wealth, including mines, at the disposal of the Islamic government, to be administered in accordance with the public interest. This does not mean that the Leader personally owns these resources or that the people are deprived of their rights to public assets. But this very article raises a fundamental question: who determines the public interest, and how can the people oversee that person’s decisions? What, indeed, is the people’s role? If oil is public wealth, why should citizens not be able to demand a clear account of its revenues and how they are spent? If the government administers the country’s resources on society’s behalf, why should a demand for transparency become a political and security issue? The problem is not only Mirsalim’s interpretation of anfal; the problem is that, within the structure of power, decision-making authority can be far broader than the scope for public oversight. Absolute Velayat-e Faqih: power that must be limited In a letter dated Dey 1366, Ruhollah Khomeini described the powers of the Islamic government as so extensive that, under certain circumstances, it could unilaterally revoke its religious contracts with the people. In the 1368 revision of the Constitution, the phrase ‘absolute authority of the Guardianship’ was also added to Article 57. Of course, none of this means that the Vali-e Faqih personally owns people’s lives or has the legal authority to kill citizens arbitrarily. Article 22 of the Constitution speaks of the inviolability of people’s lives and property, while Article 36 makes punishment conditional on law and a ruling by a competent court. But a law has real value only when it can restrain power. When the military and security agencies are placed under the command of a concentrated structure, what body can independently examine their conduct? Who can hold commanders and decision-makers to account for violations of citizens’ rights? Power that cannot be compelled to answer for its actions, even if it calls itself republican, has moved away from one of republicanism’s most important features. From the right to protest to responsibility for the killings These questions take on a darker meaning when we move from the text of the law to the streets of Iran. In its 2024 report, the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission presented credible evidence that up to 551 people were killed during the 1401 protests. The Mission also found that some human rights violations committed in the crackdown on the protests amounted to crimes against humanity. These victims are not figures in a report; they were human beings with a right to life and to protest. A government responsible for protecting its citizens must explain how forces affiliated with it killed citizens during the protests. Who ordered the use of live ammunition? Which commander knew what the forces under their command were doing? Which officials had the authority to stop the violence from continuing? Why has no independent and effective mechanism been established to investigate the responsibility of those who ordered and carried out these acts? Evidence is needed to attribute the direct order for any particular shot to a specific official; but command responsibility is not limited to giving a direct order. Awareness of the actions of forces under one’s command, the authority to prevent violations, and the response to those responsible must also be examined. One cannot present command as a source of authority when displaying power, then disregard its responsibilities when justice is demanded. War and peace: who decides, and who bears the cost? Under Article 110 of the Constitution, the supreme command of the armed forces and the declaration of war and peace are among the Leader’s powers. Such decisions are not merely military matters; they affect citizens’ lives, the economy, security and the future of generations. When a decision can transform the lives of millions, society has the right to know why it was made, what other options were available, and who is responsible for its consequences. No political official should be able to impose the costs of their decisions on the people, then hide behind a title, office or the sanctity of their position when called to account. This is the very issue that Mirsalim’s remarks, beyond the subject of oil, bring before us once again. Mirsalim Is Right—but That Is Not the Whole Truth Mirsalim has referred to the jurisprudential basis of anfal, a principle that is also reflected in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. But this does not mean that the people have no rights over the country’s wealth, or that rulers personally own national resources. The more important truth is that republicanism cannot be established merely by holding a referendum in the past. Political legitimacy, public oversight and accountability must have meaning throughout a government’s rule. In 1358, many people voted in the hope of attaining freedom and independence. Now, after decades of experience, we must ask what safeguards existed to preserve those ideals, and why political power was able to move beyond effective oversight by citizens. How can people say that their parents and they themselves were mistaken, and that now they want to make the right decision for their own future, their children and generations to come? Mirsalim has spoken about oil; but our question concerns the whole country: If the people are the source of a government’s legitimacy, why should they not be able to decide about their wealth, question decisions about war and peace, and hold those who ordered and carried out the killing of their children to account? Republicanism is not merely the name of a form of government. It means that no official or institution stands above the law and public oversight; it means that power comes from the people and remains accountable to them. A nation that cannot call its rulers to account and change them without fear does not become sovereign simply by having a republic in name. S. Rouzbeh Source: https://srouzbeh.com/en/posts/entry-1791938131057-b388aa0f Please credit the author and link to this edition.