Iran International
A senior member of the Iranian parliament (Majles) has proposed replacing Iran's problematic presidential election system with a model in which the Supreme Leader directly appoints the President.
Speaking to Didban Iran (Iran Monitor) on Thursday, Osman Salari, the deputy chairman of the parliament's legal committee, defended his proposed system, arguing that it “is not against religious democracy.” In Iran’s political structure, this form of pseudo-democracy restricts voter choice by allowing only candidates approved and shortlisted by the hardliner-dominated Guardian Council to appear on the ballot. In addition, political parties are severely restricted, and media is either government owned or monitored and controlled.
Salari added that although the Supreme Leader is the true head of the government, there is nothing wrong with him appointing a President to lead the executive branch.
Several Iranian media outlets and politicians have previously suggested replacing the public election of the President with a parliamentary system in which the President is chosen by members of parliament.
Public trust in the president's office and the tightly controlled election system has declined over the past 15 years, as it has become increasingly clear that the president has limited authority over major state issues.
According to the government-owned Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), the parliamentary system was most recently discussed in January 2022 when the agency analyzed the pros and cons of the two systems, drawing on the views of prominent Iranian political scientist Hossein Bashirieh.
ISNA outlined the advantages and disadvantages in a report, stating, "In the presidential system, both the parliament and the President are elected by the people for fixed terms. The parliament cannot remove the President from office, although it can impeach him. Conversely, the President does not have the authority to dissolve the parliament."
ISNA contrasted this with the parliamentary system, noting, "In the parliamentary system, the parliament can dismiss the head of the government (usually a prime minister) by withdrawing its vote of confidence. The Prime Minister also has the power to dissolve the parliament and call for new elections." The report also highlighted that the separation of the three branches of government is more clearly defined in the parliamentary system.
The push by Iranian politicians and media to change the political system stems from the ongoing conflict between the Supreme Leader and the President since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Since Khamenei became Supreme Leader the situation has gradually worsened as he has systematically monopolized power.
As Salari observed in his interview with Didban Iran, "all of Iran's former Presidents since 1989 have been accused of deviation," and Khamenei distanced himself from each of them before the end of their terms. Salari added that although these Presidents initially received Khamenei's endorsement, they often pursued political, economic, and social policies that diverged from his views. This divergence complicated decision-making, particularly on key economic and foreign policy issues.
Salari argued that “directly appointing presidents by Khamenei is still democratic because Khamenei was indirectly elected by the people.” However, this claim is controversial given the circumstances of his election by the Assembly of Experts, which was heavily influenced by its former deputy chairman, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Videos available online show Rafsanjani using his considerable influence to suppress opposition to Khamenei’s election.
In 2011, Khamenei expressed support for the idea of the president being elected by parliament, but he did not pursue it further despite the concept being revisited several times since then.
However, Salari's proposal is fundamentally different, as it places the choice of a president in the hands of one individual. It is unlikely that this idea will progress beyond mere suggestion, as Khamenei has consistently avoided taking direct responsibility for decisions that could significantly impact the structure of the government. He appears to prefer having a president elected by others, allowing him to distance himself and criticize the president if things go wrong.
