Equivalence and comparison between the duties and authorities of Absolute Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist with the other heads of states in Presidential, Parliamentary, and Semi-presidential systems

In 1987, after some disagreements arose among some senior officials of the Islamic Republic over the problems in governance and the extent of an Islamic system jurisdiction in solving those problems, the theory of Absolute Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, as a theory with long precedence in Shiite political jurisprudence, was raised by Imam Khomeini. Later in 1989, the theory was reflected in articles 57 and 110 while revising the constitution. Contrary to the views of expert political analysts, studies have shown that the Absolute Guardianship Theory and the state mandate (by the Jurist) are not specific to the Islamic Republic as religious system but also other non-theocratic and secular political systems have alternatives akin to this theory under such titles as “head of state commands”, “Veto”, and “Special Authorities”, by which the other head of states may step further than their constitutional powers. In other words, the three models of Presidential, Parliamentary, and Semi-presidential systems, give more inclusive authorities and powers to a head of state, in most cases if not all, than to the leader of Iran. In this paper, we manage to legally clarify the Absolute Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist Theory and the significance of state mandates (by the Jurist) in constitutional law, and finally draw a comparison between duties and powers of Iran’s leader with other heads of states in common models of Presidential, Semi-presidential and Parliamentary systems.