Abstract:
The use of words such as 'enemy', 'regime', and 'nation' in our political literature shows that this category of concepts does not possess the necessary clarity and transparency; these concepts lack explanatory characteristics, and the reasons provided are unable to justify the uses of such terms. On the other hand, the history of using this kind of literature has long come to an end.
Machine summary:
Hayat-e No, 3/6/79 Abstract: The use of words such as "enemy," "regime," and "nation" in our political literature shows that this category of concepts does not possess the necessary clarity and transparency; these concepts lack explanatory characteristics, and the reasons provided are unable to justify the uses of such terms.
Thus, if we consider "election by the people" as one of the main categories of the Islamic Republic, the "regime" possesses an essential unity and refers to a single objective identity.
This short exploration into the way common political categories and words such as "enemy," "regime," and "nation" are used expresses, above all, the fact that generalization lacks authentic explanatory characteristics, and the usual reasons provided are incapable of justifying the uses of such terms.
The honorable author has referred only to three concepts (enemy, regime, and nation) among common political categories and has not mentioned any other common political categories such as "freedom," "democracy," "monopolism," "totalitarianism," and "pressure group.
In his argumentation, he has recalled points that warrant much reflection: a) He believes that "for the same reason that the people - due to a lack of competence - cannot recognize and elect the Wali al-Faqih themselves, they also cannot elect the Assembly of Experts.
c) The honorable author considers the recourse to experts as a matter of "epistemic division of labor" and concludes that from this principle, one cannot "extract the theory of individual and totalitarian rule.
(
, 
, 
)
