A Discursive Analysis of the Priority of Maximum Participation over Election of the Most Qualified Candidate in the Islamic Republic (2009–2025)

The aim of this research is to examine the priority of maximum participation over the election of the most qualified candidate in the elections of the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on an official source, namely the statements of the late Leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei¹. Accordingly, first, the correctness of this priority in his statements was assessed, and after proving the validity of this claim as attributable to him, the reasons and logic behind this perspective were explored. As a result of this research, the rationality of this claim was proven, and policymaking in accordance with such a discourse requires promotion and attention. In humanities research, relying on a single method challenges the assessment of error margins and the justification of a claim's validity, whereas combining quantitative and qualitative methods is highly effective in proving the validity of a theory and minimizing biases and other criticized factors affecting a claim. In this regard, this research, by appending quantitative and qualitative methods, seeks to maximize the validity of the claim regarding the discursive priority of maximum participation over the election of the most qualified candidate in Ayatollah Khamenei's thought. For this purpose, first, relying on a quantitative method and evaluating his statements between the years 2009 and 2025—which have been eventful years—the temporariness of this priority in his theory has been refuted, and it has been demonstrated that his consistent discourse is the precedence of maximum participation over the election of the most qualified candidate. In the next stage, the reasons for this priority and the logic behind it are discussed, explored using a qualitative method within the theoretical framework of Beetham's theory of legitimacy and in light of the idea of religious democracy. According to Beetham's theory of legitimacy, the legitimacy of a political system is not merely based on its efficiency and legality; rather, the main pillar of legitimacy is the people, whose conscious and continuous participation and informed approval of a political system's policies must also be considered in the legitimacy of the political system. The manifestation of this conscious presence and popular approval is in the political participation of the people and their presence in elections. Furthermore, this participation and the election of the most qualified candidate are understood in light of the theory of religious democracy, which both recognizes the people's right to political participation and to elect the most qualified candidate, and, based on religious injunctions, imposes a duty and obligation upon them towards the Islamic system to participate in elections. In this respect, the nature of political participation in the Islamic Republic differs from that in other political systems.




102  ô  Political science, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2025




Based on the above mixed method, the following results were obtained:
1) The correctness of the claim regarding the priority of maximum participation over the election of the most qualified candidate in Ayatollah Khamenei's thought.
2) The non-temporariness of the priority of maximum participation over the election of the most qualified candidate in Ayatollah Khamenei's thought.
3) Maximum participation is a necessary condition for the legitimacy of a political system, whereas the election of the most qualified candidate is a condition for perfection.
4) The basis for the priority of maximum participation over the election of the most qualified candidate in his thought arises from: - The precedence of security concerns over economic and political efficiency. - The precedence of religious and national duty over rational duty. - The precedence of a demonstrative and symbolic strategy of national power over better performance and greater efficiency.
The priority of maximum participation over the election of the most qualified candidate is not merely a symbolic or temporary matter; rather, it relies on a logical discourse and a precise strategy that is particularly useful in situations of threat and when the enemy focuses on proving the illegitimacy of the political system. Accordingly, the election of the most qualified candidate is neither rejected nor refuted in his thought; rather, in his logic of governance, the survival and security of the system — which is secured through maximum participation — takes precedence over the quality of administration, which is the product of electing the most qualified candidate. Hence, the precedence of participation over the election of the most qualified is not a simple value judgment but a strategic decision at
the level of macro-policymaking and threat management. Of course, the priority of participation over the election of the most qualified does not imply a contradiction between the two; rather, it indicates a dialectical relationship: maximum participation, by creating "soft efficiency" — including national cohesion, reduced security costs, and increased social capital — provides the necessary groundwork for achieving managerial efficiency (which is the product of electing the most qualified candidate). In threatening conditions, without widespread participation, even the most qualified managers will lack the necessary legitimacy and authority to implement efficient programs. Consequently, the discourse of maximum participation is not merely a political recommendation but has become, within the depth of the discursive thoughts of the Islamic Revolution, a security-legitimacy necessity, a religious-national duty, and a powerful symbolic strategy in confrontation with enemies.