The Relationship between Political Affairs (of Schmitt and Mouffe) and the Government in the Islamic Republic of Iran

In addition to viewing other scholars’ opinions on the concept of politics, this study involved two views and perceptions of the issue including Schmidt's antagonistic political subject and Mouffe's agonistic political matter. Both theorists seem to agree on the concept of politics and its nature; however, the way they look at politics distinguishes their opinions. Accordingly, one can ask how Schmidt and Mouffe define politics differently. In line with the question, this research is intended to study the views of Mouffe and Schmidt through a descriptive-analytical method. Schmidt seems to define politics in terms of the distinction between friends and enemies. He believes that what matters is the distinction between friend and foe. For this reason, Schmidt believes that politics is nonsense when there is no hostility. Consequently, politics is the ultimate border of antagonism (hostility) in Schmidt's view. Mouffe, on the other hand, bases politics on agony and seeks to turn aggression into opposition. For Mouffe, an opponent is a rival whose presence is legitimate and must be considered. If there should be a struggle, it must be a against rival ideas and not an attempt to eliminate them. The results of this research indicated that the discourse of the revolution is a new expression of the government in the world of politics; a discourse which considers the principle of independence in the field of theory and practice from the imported ideas. It considers the case not as a conflict or competition, but as a principle of maintaining independence of the state or sovereignty structure and centers religious democracy in internal affairs. Thus, in Schmidt's view, the state derives its legitimacy through fighting, confrontation and conflict; while in Schmitt’s view, it derives its legitimacy from the democratic process. however, the discourse of the Islamic Revolution regards government to gain its legitimacy from people and religion; a discourse centered on religious democracy in society