قلمرو صلاحیت قانون‌گذار عادی در تعیین شرایط نامزدهای انتخابات مجلس شورای اسلامی؛ رویه شورای نگهبان در بوته نقد

 ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
In contemporary constitutional democracies, the eligibility criteria for electoral candidates play a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity and effectiveness of legislative bodies. While the right to vote is often broadly extended to citizens, the right to stand for election is typically subject to more stringent qualifications. This distinction underscores the importance of ensuring that those who seek legislative office possess the necessary attributes to represent the electorate effectively. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Constitution outlines the framework for elections to the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) but delegates the determination of specific eligibility conditions for candidates to the ordinary legislator. Article 62 of the Iranian Constitution states: "The Islamic Consultative Assembly is composed of representatives of the nation, who are elected directly by secret ballot. The eligibility criteria for voters and candidates, as well as the conduct of elections, shall be determined by law."
     Despite this delegation, there is ongoing debate about the extent of the Parliament's authority to set these criteria and the role of the Guardian Council in overseeing and interpreting the legislative provisions. The Guardian Council, vested with the authority to interpret the Constitution and supervise elections, has at times exercised significant influence over the determination of candidate qualifications. This influence raises questions about the balance of power between the legislative body and the constitutional supervisory institution, and whether such influence aligns with the constitutional framework intended by the drafters.
     This paper critically examines the scope of the Iranian Parliament's authority in establishing eligibility conditions for parliamentary candidates and analyzes the Guardian Council's approach to this issue. By exploring constitutional provisions, legislative practices, and the interplay between legislative and supervisory bodies, the study aims to clarify the boundaries of authority and propose recommendations for a more transparent and objective framework for candidate eligibility.

‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
How should the scope of the Iranian Parliament's authority in determining the eligibility conditions for candidates in the Islamic Consultative Assembly elections be structured, considering constitutional provisions and the Guardian Council's interpretative practices?

‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The hypothesis of this study posits that the Guardian Council has exceeded its constitutional mandate concerning the eligibility criteria for parliamentary candidates. This overreach undermines the Parliament's authority as the ordinary legislator and disrupts the constitutional balance between legislative and supervisory bodies. As a result, the eligibility conditions for candidates may not reflect a transparent, objective, and quantitative framework, leading to potential biases during the oversight of elections.

‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
This paper adopts an analytical and doctrinal methodology to explore the constitutional and legal dimensions of the issue. The study is structured around the following components:
     Constitutional Analysis: A detailed examination of the Iranian Constitution, focusing on Article 62 and related provisions that define the roles and powers of the Parliament and the Guardian Council. This analysis seeks to interpret the constitutional text within the broader context of the principles of separation of powers and democratic governance.
     Legislative Review: An exploration of the laws enacted by the Parliament regarding candidate eligibility criteria. This includes assessing the specificity, transparency, and objectivity of these laws, and how they align with constitutional mandates and democratic principles.
     Critical Evaluation of the Guardian Council's Approach: A critical assessment of the Guardian Council's interpretations and practices in relation to candidate eligibility. This involves analyzing instances where the Council may have overstepped its constitutional role by imposing additional criteria or interpretations not explicitly provided for in the law.
     Theoretical Framework: The study is grounded in constitutional theory, particularly the concepts of separation of powers, rule of law, and democratic representation. These theoretical underpinnings provide a lens through which to assess the appropriateness of the current practices and propose recommendations for reform.
     Qualitative Data Collection: Gathering qualitative data from legal texts, official statements, and scholarly commentary to support the analysis. This includes reviewing debates from the Constitutional Assembly, official interpretations by the Guardian Council, and academic critiques.

‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
Examination of Iran's constitutional provisions and legislative practices reveals an interplay between the Parliament's authority to determine candidate eligibility and the Guardian Council's interpretative and supervisory roles. Article 62 of the Constitution grants the Islamic Consultative Assembly the authority to set eligibility criteria for parliamentary candidates. However, a holistic interpretation of the Constitution indicates that this authority is circumscribed by other constitutional principles aimed at promoting fairness, non-discrimination, and the development of moral virtues (Clauses 1 and 9 of Article 3).
     One of the primary findings is that while the Parliament has endeavored to objectify subjective qualifications—such as loyalty to Islam, the political system, the Constitution, and the principle of Velayat-e Faqih—by enacting specific legislation, the Guardian Council has often resisted these efforts. The Council insists on maintaining subjective criteria to ensure the genuine existence of these qualifications in candidates. This insistence has led to the rejection of legislative reforms aimed at clarifying and objectifying eligibility conditions, thereby preventing arbitrary discretion and protecting candidates' rights.

‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
The analysis concludes that the Guardian Council's overextension of its supervisory role into the legislative domain poses challenges to the constitutional balance of power in Iran. By resisting the Parliament's efforts to establish clear and objective eligibility criteria for parliamentary candidates, the Council not only infringes upon the legislative authority but also impacts the integrity and fairness of the electoral process.
     To address these challenges, it is essential for the Parliament to persist in its legislative reforms aimed at clarifying eligibility conditions. Objectifying subjective qualifications and adjusting the burden of proof in favor of candidates can mitigate arbitrary discretion, protect candidates' rights, and enhance public trust in the electoral system. Such reforms are consistent with constitutional mandates promoting fairness, non-discrimination, and the development of moral virtues.
     Moreover, the Guardian Council should reconsider its approach by acknowledging the Parliament's constitutional role in legislating electoral matters. By allowing legislative reforms that operationalize constitutional principles without compromising the core values of the Islamic Republic, the Council can contribute to a more transparent and effective electoral system.
     In conclusion, a collaborative approach between the Parliament and the Guardian Council is imperative for strengthening Iran's democratic institutions. By respecting each other's constitutional mandates and working towards shared goals of fairness and integrity in elections, both bodies can enhance the legitimacy of the electoral process. This, in turn, can increase public participation, foster greater trust in governance, and uphold the constitutional principles that underpin the Islamic Republic of Iran.