SAEDNEWS: Anyone Who Has Held Office in the Islamic Republic Since the First Day of the Revolution May Have Made Mistakes—or Even Committed Acts of Betrayal
According to the political news service of Saed News, Jomhouri-e Eslami newspaper wrote:
Therefore, when we remind the Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly and some of its members to exercise restraint in their judgments regarding the former president and his foreign minister, it does not mean that we consider them beyond critique or that we view criticism of them as wrong. Everyone must be open to criticism and recognize the right to critique as a fundamental entitlement of others. At the same time, ethics, humanity, and Islamic teachings urge us to exercise fairness in criticism and to remain within the bounds of civility.
Such expectations are even higher for those who serve in the parliament as lawmakers. The very nature of legislation requires the protection of individual dignity and, through each word and phrase, conveys a message of ethical conduct to the public.
If members of parliament maintain decorum and respect for others in their words and actions, and exercise restraint in their criticisms, they preserve their own dignity and appear honorable in the eyes and hearts of the people. Conversely, if these standards are not observed, parliamentarians from top to bottom embody the proverb: “You take the trouble for yourself and create hardship for us.”
The events of the public session on Sunday, November 4, did not align with ethical standards or legislative norms. The Speaker and several MPs had the right to question and criticize the statements and positions of the former president and his foreign minister, but they did not have the right to attribute false accusations to them or shout slogans such as “Death to…” at them.
If the two extreme MPs, known for their political recklessness, acted outside the rules, it was the Speaker’s duty to admonish them, prevent the “Death to…” slogans, and stop others with similar views from joining them.
November 4 marks the day of Imam Khomeini’s stance against American capitulation, and it was not expected that, instead of focusing on this critical issue in parliament, some MPs would resort to disruptive slogans against former officials and foster division. What the Speaker requested from the former president and his foreign minister that day—if seen as a form of capitulation to China and Russia—is not an exaggeration.
The public and the media are well aware of the shortcomings in the records of the Speaker and the two extreme MPs, and they may conclude that such individuals are unfit to serve in parliament. Yet, in consideration of the country’s current situation, they refrain from raising these issues publicly.
A review of recent months and even the entire tenure of the 12th parliament shows that tensions have often been initiated by extreme MPs, while the parliament’s role should be to maintain societal calm. If you believe the former president and his foreign minister have made offensive remarks, the proper course is to respond logically, rather than suppress critics and create the impression—both domestically and internationally—that no one in Iran has the right to dissent or that freedom of expression is restricted. This is precisely contrary to the parliament’s mandate to safeguard the Constitution, particularly its provisions on freedom.
To the Speaker and the few MPs who acted outside the rules on Sunday, we say plainly: if Imam Khomeini were among us today, he would not forgive this inappropriate behavior—especially at a time when the country needs unity and cohesion, and sowing tension serves the enemy’s interests.
