About a week ago, Iran's parliament
basically rejected the sweeping new requirements for presidential candidates it had previously approved:
It is standard procedure in the Majles for legislators to vote on a
multipart bill in its entirety and only subsequently to debate and vote
on its individual articles. But what occurred over the past week
concerning legislation that would have imposed a sweeping new set of
qualifications for potential presidential candidates was anything but
standard. The new election law, which passed by a wide margin in its
overall form, was effectively gutted when its crucial article was found
by the same legislature to be unconstitutional by a far wider margin...
(The changes) were opposed both by defenders of the Guardian Council, who saw
them as undermining its vetting authority, and pro-democracy
commentators, who saw them as further limiting Iranians' already
constricted choice in possible leaders. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
spoke out vehemently against the legislation; it is widely assumed that
he is maneuvering to have a member of his inner circle succeed him in
next June's presidential election and that he saw the law as a means of
eliminating any chance that his favored candidate would be approved. And
those who hope to see 78-year-old former President Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani make another run for the office surely noted that the maximum
age requirement would have barred that possibility.
Just days later, when the Majles took up debate on the legislation's
individual articles, deputy Ali Reza Salimi moved that Article 7,
encompassing all of the controversial new eligibility requirements,
violated the Constitution. Speaker Ali Larijani (pictured above), who
had personally pitched the virtues of the legislation to the Guardian
Council -- half of whose members were chosen by his brother,
judiciary chief Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani -- observed that the council
also maintained that it was unconstitutional and thus seconded Salimi's
objection. With Larijani, the parliament's top officer and the
legislation's most prominent advocate, having turned against it, the
Majles rejected Article 7 as unconstitutional by a vote of 162 to 19.
No comments:
Post a Comment