حوزه عمومی و کمال گرایی در حقوق اساسی؛ مورد پژوهشی، قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
کمال گرایی به عنوان اندیشه ای که از دیرباز نظریات سیاسی دولت را تحت تاثیر قرار داده، دارای پیوند عمیقی با مفاهیم دولت اخلاقی، آرمان شهری، جامعه فضیلت مدارانه، اولویت جامعه و تقدم خیر است. از سوی دیگر حوزه عمومی به عنوان مفهومی که در اندیشه سیاسی مدرن، زاده و پرورش یافته است؛ به عنوان حوزه هنجارساز و منشأی عقلانی ساز برای دولت، مدنظر اندیشمندان سیاسی مدرن قرار گرفته است. با توجه به اینکه یکی از رویکردهای اصلی به قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران رویکرد کمال گرایانه است، لازم است به این پرسش پاسخ داده شود که با توجه به اصول و ارکان حوزه عمومی، آیا امکان تحقق آن در رویکرد کمال گرایانه به قانون اساسی در نظام حقوقی جمهوری اسلامی وجود دارد؟ در پایان با بررسی مبانی رویکرد کمال گرایانه و حوزه عمومی، امتناع تحقق حوزه عمومی در این قرائت از قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران نتیجه می شود.Public Sphere and Perfectionism in Fundamental Rights: The Case of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Introduction Perfectionism, a long-standing influence on political theories of the state, is deeply connected to the concepts of the moral state, utopia, virtuous society, societal priorities, and the precedence of the good. Yet, the public sphere—conceptually emerging and evolving within modern political thought—has been regarded by contemporary political thinkers as a normative domain and a rationalizing force for the state. One of the main approaches to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is perfectionism. This raises an important question: Considering the principles and pillars of the public sphere, can it be realized within the perfectionist approach to the Constitution in the Iranian legal system? Literature Review In an article titled “From Privatization of Public Law to Publicization of Private Law: Legitimacy and Intervantion of Liberal Capitalist State in the Thought of Habermas,” Mashhadi (2015) explored the crisis of legitimacy in modern Western societies. According to Mashhadi, Habermas argues that the state in capitalist societies exists in a contradictory condition. The intense conflict of interests between classes of society means that whether the state intervenes in the economy or refrains from doing so, it ultimately faces a crisis of legitimacy. From a public law perspective, the thesis From Public Spaces to Public Spheres: Examining the Position of Public Spaces in the Laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Noubahar, 2013) examined examples of public spaces—including mosques, squares, and streets—within the IRI’s laws. Materials and Methods The present study used a descriptive–analytical method to address the research question. Moreover, the data was collected through library research. Results and Discussion Despite traces of an impartial approach in the IRI’s Constitution, the perfectionist approach remains dominant. For instance, the preamble defines the purpose of the state as striving toward Allah, which is also reinforced in various parts of the Constitution (e.g., Articles 2 and 3) that assign specific duties to the state. Regardless of the compatibility between a perfectionist approach to the state and the concept of a modern constitution, the central question is whether the emergence and development of the public sphere is possible within this specific reading of the IRI’s Constitution.The perfectionist reading of the Constitution is based on the idea of guiding the people through the state, which assumes responsibilities beyond those specified in neutral approaches. In the perfectionist interpretation, the objective of the state is to establish a moral society in which the good of each individual is ensured by the state. Therefore, the role of the state extends beyond maintaining order or providing public material interests; it encompasses shaping the lives of citizens under its leadership. This reading finds significant support in the IRI’s Constitution. Key elements include defining a moral purpose for the state formation (the people’s movement toward Allah), specifying a utopia (the Islamic model society), deriving legitimacy from a source beyond the public will (assigning sovereignty and legislation to God), emphasizing the concept of a righteous ruler over an elected one (where the righteous govern the country), presenting a different reading of the political population (prioritizing the concept of Ummah over the nation), and determining the nature of the good life and the superior good (a faithful life). These thematic axes form the core of the perfectionist approach embedded in the Constitution. According to the deliberations of experts for constitution, these key themes also guide the primary approach of the majority of experts. Notwithstanding, the public sphere, as a concept rooted in modern political thought, is based on principles that contradict the foundations of the moral state—a product of the perfectionist approach to the Constitution. The public sphere relies on the idea of constituent power, which emphasizes communicative action as a necessary means to address the shortcomings of representative democracy, particularly regarding legitimacy—which is a key principle of democratic states. However, the legitimacy derived from the perfectionist approach to the Constitution is based on the rule of norms that originate not from social system but from the state, which is tasked with realizing the Islamic utopia by adhering to original Islamic norms. In this view, the state is not an embodiment of the people’s political will but rather the realization of a political ideal of a nation of the same faith. In other words, the political society of Ummah , as a population with the same thought, replaces the nation as a political entity. Therefore, key pillars of the public sphere—freedom, equality, and inclusivity—are shaped by this particular conception of political society. In the establishment of an Islamic model society, the essential factors are supposed to be Islamic standards, which are to serve as the foundation of the moral state. Consequently, at best, what emerges is not a true public sphere but rather a domain of the moral state, where the pillars of the public sphere (e.g., freedom, equality, and inclusivity) exist within a strict ideological framework. Furthermore, the perfectionist state is built on the precedence of the good over rights—the belief that, in the pursuit of Utopia, the state shall act as guides leading people toward perfection and is primarily responsible for defining and ensuring the good life. Consequently, the concept of justice, which is central to the idea of rights, is fused with the concept of virtue, and the state becomes the key agent in realizing the good as the foundation of virtue. The concept of nation is reinterpreted through the lens of the concept of Ummah , effectively eliminating ethical-philosophical pluralism. In this reading, individuals are not regarded as rights-holders but rather as duty-bearers or obligors whose perfection is defined by the state’s conception of the good, and who should abide by the norms that form the good independently of the social context. Thus, in a broader sense, political and social freedoms within the perfectionist approach to the Constitution are shaped by the prioritization of the good over rights, and their realization is subject to the state’s oversight and regulation. Within these interpretations, the perfectionist reading of the IRI’s Constitution is fundamentally at odds with the core principles of the public sphere, including freedom, equality, inclusivity, legitimacy based on public will, ethical-philosophical pluralism, and most importantly the separation of justice from virtue, which underpins the principle of prioritizing rights over the good. Conclusion Regardless of the value placed on the public sphere or the broader relationship between the modern constitution and the perfectionist conception of the state, the realization of the public sphere may be possible under alternative approaches to the IRI’s Constitution. However, within the perfectionist reading in Iran’s legal system, the foundations of the public sphere are in direct conflict with constitutional principles, making its realization impossible.
تبلیغات
