SAEDNEWS: Taghi Azad Armaki argues that minority rule, even by righteous individuals, is a form of dictatorship. He believes this contradicts modern reasoning and religious law.
According to SaedNews, Taghi Azad Armaki, a sociology professor at the University of Tehran, emphasized that a minority cannot dictate decisions to the majority. He stated:
"It is only natural that when a minority, in any form or with any method, intention, or goal, makes decisions on behalf of the majority, it effectively dismantles society. It eliminates the natural order of the community and deprives a majority—who could otherwise live their lives—of their rights, disrupting collective participation."
According to Jamaran News, the full interview with Taghi Azad Armaki is as follows:
In every society, there is always a minority that protests against various matters. We must accept that Iranian civil society will always have a small group of dissenters. It is impossible for everyone in a society to agree on everything. In my opinion, this is a sign of a natural society, and it should not be considered a negative phenomenon.
If the minority holds power, then there is a problem. In a natural society, a minority never becomes the ruling force; a minority remains a minority. It expresses its critical and oppositional views, reconstructs itself, and tries to spread its ideology in order to reach the majority. This is the natural way in which minority ideas expand in society.
However, if a minority seizes power through means like political favoritism, coercion, deceit, or misconduct, it loses the right to ignore the opinions of the majority.
We must return to the discussion of public opinion—what does the majority of society believe, and what does the minority believe? The question of who is right and who is wrong is no longer relevant in policy decisions. For example, if the majority believes that WhatsApp or Telegram should not be blocked because their businesses and livelihoods depend on them, their voice should be heard.
A minority cannot impose its will on the majority. When a minority makes decisions for the majority, it exercises a form of dictatorship—even if the minority consists of the most righteous people. A "benevolent" minority dictatorship still ends up suppressing a "flawed" majority. This goes against modern rationality, and religious law undoubtedly concurs.
It is only natural that when a minority makes decisions on behalf of the majority, society begins to deteriorate. This disrupts the natural state of the community, depriving the majority of their rights and causing dysfunction in collective participation.
We currently have a crisis of participation. The public no longer wants to support political groups, nor are they willing to vote for reformist candidates. This is because the participatory space has been attacked. If the majority makes a mistake, they will pay the price and learn from it—but they must be allowed to make that mistake. Even a righteous minority does not have the right to make decisions on behalf of the majority. Society must be allowed to err so that, through a historical process, it gains awareness and avoids repeating those mistakes.
We live in a new and diverse society with a variety of interests. This is not the past, when an uninformed majority had decisions made for them by a knowledgeable, powerful minority. I am not saying that was the right approach, but it was what happened. Today, however, society has changed. Even if the majority makes mistakes, they do so with awareness. You cannot simply take away their right to choose.
The ultimate consequence of this approach is that we strip society of its right to choose, participate, and decide, thereby creating a passive, weak, and submissive population. Such a society will not resist in times of crisis—whether for democracy, development, justice, national defense, or territorial integrity.
Right now, we are facing a threat to our national sovereignty, and the majority must not submit to it. If a minority decides the course of action for everyone, the majority may eventually refuse to comply. This could lead to real territorial threats and endanger Iran’s sovereignty.
When you take away the majority’s right to choose—preventing them from making decisions or participating in mistakes—they will not participate in what is right either. For example, if today you tell the majority they cannot access social media because a small "righteous" minority believes it is against their best interest, they will become disengaged.
When a nation is invaded by a foreign enemy, it happens because the majority is indifferent, unaware, or unconcerned about their own interests. If you take away their right to choose, you may prevent them from making mistakes today, but tomorrow they will not stand up for what is right either. They will become passive and withdraw.
This has happened throughout Iranian history. Look at history: there were times when autocratic rulers made decisions for the people. When crises emerged, society was no longer prepared to resist. This led to territorial losses and the depletion of national resources.
For instance, when Russia seized large portions of Iran, it happened at a time when society was weak, lacked participation, and was unable to make decisions. Otherwise, people would have resisted—they would not have allowed the Caucasus to be taken from Iran. Had they resisted, they might have reclaimed occupied territories after invasion.
By excluding people from decision-making and stripping them of their right to participate, we end up making historical mistakes—mistakes that impact our nation, culture, religion, ethics, politics, and independence.
That is incorrect. These are two separate issues with different origins. The decision to ease internet restrictions did not happen because of the rising dollar.
The reason for the rising dollar is simple:
We don’t have money.
The treasury is empty.
We don’t have dollars.
Trump is coming back.
War is about to start.
No one in the world is buying our goods.
What does this have to do with internet censorship?
Even if censorship had been lifted earlier, the same economic crisis would still be happening. In my opinion, economic sanctions and financial crises have nothing to do with these kinds of internal policy decisions.
