Welcome to the Iran 1400 Project podcast, where we explore the
past, present, and possible futures of Iran through informed
dialogue, independent thought, and diverse voices.
From historical insight to emerging narratives, we connect
ideas to action in the pursuit of a more just, inclusive, and
forward-looking society. Join us as we rethink Iran's
trajectory, one conversation at a time.
OK, let's unpack this. When we talk about justice in
Iran, it's more than just the legal stuff, right?
The laws, the courts. Absolutely.
It's always been deeply tied into, well, power dynamics.
Who's in charge? Who gets to define what's fair?
I don't know what that actually means for society.
Exactly. And it's a concept that's really
shifted quite dramatically over the centuries.
Our sources today help trace that history.
It's fascinating and often pretty turbulent.
So our mission here is to follow that evolution.
How the whole idea of justice and the reality of it has been
used may be sometimes I've held. But often bent or even broken.
Yeah, from way back ancient traditions right up to the
challenges around faces now. And importantly, what these
sources might suggest about, you know, reimagining justice moving
forward. We'll take a journey starting
when justice was very local, sort of ad hoc, then through
attempts to build a national system, a state system, and then
into the really radical changes after the 79 revolution.
And all along, how did this affect people, their trust in
the system? And the sources, they don't just
list the problems, which is interesting.
They actually propose something quite compelling, this idea of
justice not just as law or or punishment, and not.
Just rules from above. But as civic infrastructure, the
essential foundations, that's the.
Core idea, the ethical conditions really, that people
need to cooperate, to build trust, just to live together
with dignity. And this concept, Arim Hassami
explores it particularly well in the material.
It suggests looking back actually.
And Iranian traditions. Yeah, deeper traditions.
They might offer clues for building a future where justice
is, you know, foundational part of society's bedrock, not just a
state tool. So this deep dive, it's really
your shortcut to understanding why justice has been such a
battleground in Iran's history. And why thinking about it today
as a civic necessity, why that's so vital?
OK, let's jump in. All right, so let's start that
journey. Late 19th century, the Kajar
era. What did justice actually look
like then? On the ground, well, the sources
paint a picture of fragmentation.
It was incredibly fragmented, meaning there wasn't one single
clear legal authority. You had justice being handed out
locally, sometimes by landlords, sometimes tribal chiefs,
sometimes religious clerics in the shorist courts, you know,
following Islamic law. And then you also had royal
officials in the Earth courts dealing with customary stuff or
state matters. So like parallel systems?
Almost, Yeah, but messy. Very messy, less parallel, more
like a patchwork quilt. And there was this constant
underlying tension between the religious authorities and the
state's power, right? So for an ordinary person,
getting justice often really depended on, well, who you were,
your status, your money, your connections.
Predictability wasn't really a thing then.
Or equality. Very hard to come by.
Yeah. That lack of standardization,
that lack of a central authority, it just bred a sense
of arbitrary rule you can imagine.
Definitely. Were people trying to change
this back then? Even that early?
Oh. Yes, the sources mentioned
efforts, attempts to bring in legal reforms, modern legal
training, but they hit a wall, significant resistance because
the people holding power in the old system, certain clerics, the
landed elites, they saw these changes as a direct threat.
To their influence. To their influence exactly so
the key take away for this period, justice functioned more
like personal negotiation, personal arbitration vulnerable.
To who had the upper hand? Totally.
And it lacked any real civic coherence, no unified sense of
legitimacy across the board. OK, that fragmented picture
really makes the 1906 Constitutional Revolution seem
like a massive shift. Then what was the vision for
justice there? It was huge.
Iran's first big push for state governed by law based on a
constitution, It fundamentally changed the terms of the debate
away from arbitrary rule towards legal rights.
A huge conceptual leap. Massive.
The Constitution actually set up a formal judiciary, a separate
branch of government that was radical for the time.
So the idea was national courts moving towards laws written
down, codified. Precisely, and a real effort to
create secular legal codes. They looked to Europe for
models. French law was a big influence
developing the Iranian Civil Code later on that was a major
step defining processes, rights. The sources talk about a
professional legal class, emerging institutions like the
Bar Association starting up. But did that old system, that
dual authority, just vanish? No, not overnight, not
completely. The religious courts, they kept
significant sway, especially over things like family law,
which just shows you the enduring power of the clergy.
So while the direction was definitely towards
modernization, secularization, that tension, that pull between
modern legal ideas and traditional clerical authority,
it didn't go away. It remained a major challenge.
So the Constitution promised national justice, but it was
still kind of caught between these competing powers.
Exactly. Limited by these competing
claims to sovereignty, you could say.
OK, let's move forward then. The Polavi era, particularly
under Reza Shah, What's happening with the judiciary?
The sources suggest a total rebuild.
Oh it. Was drastic a complete overhaul?
Reza Shah wanted a strong centralized state and secular,
so he systematically moved to bring all legal authority under
the state umbrella clerics removed from judicial posts.
Replaced by. Replaced by judges trained in
modern law, state approved law. By the 1930's, the religious
courts were either formally abolished or basically stripped
of most of their power. So building a hierarchy of
courts, standard procedures, formal training for judges, I
mean, on Pedro, that sounds like a modern system.
It looked like it, yeah. And that professionalization
continued under his son, Mohamed Reza Shah.
They tried to push state law out, even into rural areas.
I sense a butt coming. There's a.
Big butt. The sources really emphasize
this. Despite the modern structure,
the judiciary remained heavily dependent on the state, on the
Shah's political will. Dependent in what way?
Was it not really independent? Oh, that's the crux of it.
It wasn't designed to be truly independent.
It wasn't there to act as a check on state power.
It became more of a tool implementing the state's agenda
and, crucially, suppressing political opposition.
I see. And because it lacked that
independence, that political accountability, because the
public didn't genuinely trust it as impartial, this seemingly
modern system, it never really put down deep roots of
legitimacy. The take away Justice took on
this modern bureaucratic form. Rational.
Maybe. Bureaucratic rationality, yes,
but it fundamentally lacked civic trust that buy in needed
to make it truly resilient. And that lack of trust that sets
the stage for the massive upheaval of 1979, the Islamic
Revolution. This wasn't just reform, was it?
This was a total transformation, ideologically, structurally.
Absolutely complete transformation.
You had revolutionary tribunals popping up basically replacing
the existing courts overnight. The new constitution and
declared flat out all laws must conform to Islamic principles,
specifically she jurisprudence. The whole judiciary was
restructured, put under the supervision of clerical
authorities, clerical judges appointed.
And they brought in specific Islamic legal concepts like
kisses. Yes, kisses.
That's retribution. Sort of an eye for an eye,
though more complex than that. Had punishments.
Those are fixed, often severe penalties for specific crimes
defined in religious texts and tazir discretionary punishments
where the judge decides based on Islamic guidelines.
So these became the guiding principles.
They became foundational for the legal framework.
Now there are elements, you know, provisions for
forgiveness, compensation, things you could maybe see as
restorative in a sense, right? But the overall process of
justice became increasingly tied to ideological interpretation
and state control. And what did that mean for
things like due process legal protections for defendants?
The sources are pretty clear on this.
They were significantly compromised.
Seriously undermined How so? The judiciary became really an
integral part of the new state machine, often used to enforce
ideological conformity to silence opposition.
The Bar Association lost its independence and the rights of
defendants, especially if you were a political prisoner or a
woman or from a minority group, were severely cut back.
So this era frames justice as divine discipline.
Divine discipline? Yeah, that was the framing.
But in practice, rigidly ideological, often inconsistent
and highly politically applied. That whole history, wow, It
really does set the context for the current situation, which as
you said, our sources describe pretty bluntly a system in deep
crisis. They really do.
That initial promise of Islamic justice after more than 4
decades now, the sources argue, it's been significantly eroded,
worn down by politicization, by repression.
The judiciary, often seen not as independent, not as a public
service. As a tool primarily serving the
regime's survival, that's the perception described.
And you see the results, right? Right.
Sources point to them. Lack of transparency in trials,
arrests and verdicts that seem politically driven.
Lawyers getting harassed, even jailed just for defending
certain clients. And tragically, these incredibly
high execution rates. All flagged in the sources as
symptoms of this crisis. The language of justice might
still be used by the authorities.
But it rings hollow for many. Widely viewed as hollow, yes.
And maybe the most critical point the sources make is about
how ordinary citizens experience the system.
How? They feel it.
Exactly, it's not seen as a place you turn to for fairness
for getting a wrong righted or settling A dispute impartially.
It's seen as something else. Often perceived as a mechanism
of fear of control. And that brings us right to that
core idea for today's deep dive justice seen as this monopolized
state function detached from the people, from legitimacy, from
ethical trust control without consent.
That detachment is absolutely key, because when that link
breaks down the link between justice, public trust and the
whole social contract, it has profound consequences for
stability, for cooperation, for the basic health of society.
OK. So we've traced this difficult
history leading to this present crisis pieces of trust.
But as you mentioned, the sources don't just leave it
there. They offer a different path, a
different vision. This idea from Aram Hassami
Justice as Civic infrastructure. What does that actually mean?
Like. Practically, it's a really
powerful shift in thinking instead of seeing justice
mainly, as you know, laws enforced by the state or.
Is just an ideology. Right.
Hassami suggests viewing it as something more fundamental, a
civic ethic. Think about like the invisible
networks that make a city work. Plumbing.
Power grids. Exactly.
The things you don't see but rely on.
Justice, in this sense, is the ethical plumbing or wiring that
allows society to function, to cooperate, build trust, that
engage in dialogue. And ensure people can just live
with basic dignity. Precisely.
It's not only about the courts and laws, but about the
underlying ethical conditions in society that make fairness even
possible. So fostering mutual
responsibility, transparency, not just as legal rules, but as
like deeply held value. As civic values, yes.
And the sources argue, this isn't some totally new alien
idea for Iran. It connects to deeper roots.
You mentioned historical roots earlier, like the ancient
Zoroastrian idea of Asha. Yes, Asha, it represents this
fundamental concept of moral order, truth, righteousness,
something believed to structure the whole universe and human
life justly. Then in Shi Islam you have idle
justice. It's a core attribute of God,
but also a human duty, connecting divine justice to how
people should behave. And even in sort of newer values
based traditions that emerge from the 19th century onwards,
there's often this emphasis on justice as a principle that
links your personal integrity to the well-being of the whole
community. Social Prosperity.
Like the Baha'i perspective mentioned in the materials,
framing justice as the moral foundation needed for collective
life, connecting individual dignity and the prosperity of
everyone. These different threads across
centuries, across belief systems, they all point to
justice being fundamental not just to law but to social order,
to human flourishing. The sources also bring in Abbas
Amanat's analysis here, suggesting that the breakdown of
independent justice often happens because of those
unresolved tensions, religious versus state authority and the
erosion of public trust. And if people today are calling
for azadi, which means liberty, freedom but carries that deeper
sense of dignity, then justice understood in the civic
infrastructure way, is like the necessary framework to actually
support that dignity. That's the connection being
made. It's about shifting the lens
from justice as the state's monopoly.
To justice as a basic condition for a healthy, functioning
society. OK.
So if that's the vision justice as civic infrastructure, how do
the sources suggest moving towards it?
What would that look like in practice?
Well, they outlined some key components.
First, building genuinely independent judicial
institutions. Really independent.
Crucial. Absolutely.
Second, ensuring equal access to justice and fair due process for
everyone, regardless of their status, their beliefs, anything.
Universal Access. Yes, and 3rd, cultivating A
broader culture of fairness and transparency.
This isn't just about courtrooms.
What's wider than that? Much wider it's about
interactions in daily life and how government offices work and
public discussions and how people treat each other.
And this all links back to that idea you mentioned earlier,
civic ownership. Fundamentally, the argument in
the sources is that justice can't be truly effective or
legitimate if it's seen as belonging only to the state or
only to one particular group. It needs to be reclaimed.
Reclaimed and owned by the people themselves, drawing
strength from their shared cultural memory, their ethical
hopes, their everyday experiences of what's fair and
unfair. So real justice, according to
this view, isn't just going to come from new laws handed down
from the top. Unlikely.
It needs to be built from the ground up by citizens who are
committed to defending dignity, demanding accountability.
And cultivating that shared ethical horizon you mentioned.
Exactly. It's not just about changing the
rules of the game, it's about fundamentally shifting who feels
ownership of the game and what moral compass guides it.
As one source puts it, it's not just about the law.
It's about who we collectively aspire to become as a society.
We've really covered a lot of ground.
We've journeyed through this complex history of justice in
Iran, seeing how it's been shaped by power, by religion,
that constant tension between tradition and modernity.
We saw that fragmented system back in the Lee Kujar era,
justice as personal arbitration, really lacking that civic
coherence. Then the promise of national
justice that came with the Constitutional Revolution.
A big step towards a law governed state but still
wrestling with those competing authorities.
Right. And then the Pallavi era's
attempt at building that centralized secular judiciary,
it had that form, that bureaucratic rationality.
But lacked the deep public trust which kind of paved the way for
more change. Exactly leading into the Islamic
Republic's radical restructuring, framing justice
as divine discipline, but often resulting in a system perceived
as well ideologically rigid, yet inconsistently applied and
politically controlled. And that brings us to today,
where, as our sources detail so powerfully, the justice system
is often experienced as control without consent.
Yeah, a state function detached from public legitimacy, from
ethical trust. An environment where fear can
over shadow fairness, really damaging that vital social
contract. But crucially, the sources we
dug into offer that powerful alternative vision, reimagining
justice not just as law, but as ethical infrastructure.
That's civic ecology, essential for trust, for dignity, for
social order. And this vision, it resonates
with those deep Iranian traditions.
We talked about Akisha Arag, modern values based teachings
about collective well-being. It calls for justice to be a
civic ethic building. Independent institutions
ensuring equal access, fostering transparency, cultivating
fairness right from the ground up.
It suggests that real justice in Iran needs to be reclaimed on by
the people, recognizing that, as some analysis implies, justice
is the structure needed to uphold azadi, that sense of
dignity and freedom. Absolutely.
This deep dive really shows how the state of justice is so
intrinsically linked to the relationship between people and
power to the health of the social contract itself.
So here's a thought maybe to leave you with If justice really
is the ethical infrastructure of a society, what is the current
state of that infrastructure in Iran?
Tell us about the society itself.
And building on that, if justice isn't just about laws or
systems, but as that source suggested about who we want to
become collectively, how might the shared aspirations, the
shared ethical vision of the Iranian people actually shape
the path forward for justice in their country?
Thank you for listening to the Iran 1400 Project podcast.
The Iran 1400 Project invites scholars, experts, and
intellectuals to share their assessment of the evolution of
institutions and ideas during the past 100 years to inspire a
vision of Iran in the 1400s. If you found today's episode
thought provoking, be sure to subscribe, share, and continue
the conversation. For more content and upcoming
events, visit iran1400.org. Until next time, stay engaged,
stay informed, and stay hopeful.