خلاصة:
A comparative study of electoral systems has always been a facilitator for optimizing election-related laws in the constitutional law literature of countries. In this regard, the present research aims to examine parliamentary election supervision between two countries, Iran and England. Elections are considered one of the most fundamental requirements and prerequisites for democracy and the legitimacy of modern systems. Despite this, merely holding elections does not contribute to the progress of democracy unless other fundamental rights and freedoms of democracy are recognized. In this respect, election supervision is a matter that everyone acknowledges as necessary. The philosophy of appointing a supervisor is the correct implementation of laws and the prevention of illegal interference by executive and political authorities. The main goal is to maintain the integrity of the elections, and unconditional supervision without accountability cannot fulfill this purpose. Iran's legal system is based on dual supervision. According to Article 99 of the Constitution, the Guardian Council is responsible for this supervision, after which the credentials of the elected representatives are reviewed and approved. In the aforementioned article, there is no mention of how this supervision is conducted, and this issue has led to different legal interpretations. The exercise of this supervision is such that, in addition to supervising the correctness of the elections, a type of supervision over the correctness of the choice is also carried out by the supervisory authority, which has been a major source of electoral tensions. The Council's supervision is discretionary, covers all stages of the election, and the Council's appointed supervisors lack independent competence; in this regard, the Council's final decisions are definitive and enforceable. In the English electoral system, despite the fundamental differences between the two legal and political systems, there is no similar institution to the Guardian Council that has been assigned election supervision by law. Objective conditions and the absence of ambiguous and interpretable conditions make the determination of competencies evaluable, and the determination of competencies is more partisan; supervision is investigative in nature and subject to individual complaints, which are pursued through a special electoral court.
ملخص الجهاز:
To ensure the validity of the electoral process, which in fact reflects the actual votes of the people in choosing representatives, the appointment of an observer over the performance of the executors and the validity of the electoral process is consequently considered a necessary matter; this issue is not exclusive to the political system of Iran, but also pertains to all countries leading in democracy that have experienced years of history of free elections with the insight and attitude of political philosophy.
In addition to the fact that the negative and positive conditions for candidates for parliamentary representation are specifically defined based on various laws, the issue of individuals' participation in electoral competitions is subject to different interpretations in different systems, depending on the political system and social and cultural factors.
Third Clause - Goals of Supervision Generally, the goals of supervision can be stated in several items, which include: preventing unhealthy competition, abuse of power, and exerting influence to achieve power; preventing the occurrence of electoral violations and fraud; preventing potential abuse of powers; creating an open atmosphere accompanied by building trust in individuals, groups, and parties based on the exercise of their real will in determining their destiny; and finally, ensuring public confidence in the full observance of the principles of impartiality, independence, accountability, transparency, and respect for the rule of law in the election process.
(
, 
, 
)
