A Comparative Study of the Imamī Jurisprudential Foundations Shaping the Constitutions of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran

Abstract

The development of constitutional law in modern Iran has been shaped not only by modern concepts of public law but also by the continuing normative influence of Sharia and Imamī political jurisprudence. This study comparatively examines the Imamī jurisprudential foundations underlying the constitutional order established by the Iranian Constitutional Revolution and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with particular attention to political legitimacy, the position of Sharia, the constitutional role of the jurist, popular participation, legislative supervision, and the relationship between law and public expediency. Using a comparative-analytical and interpretive approach, the study examines the constitutional translation of jurisprudential concepts within the two political orders. The findings demonstrate that both constitutional systems recognize Islam as a normative component of public order, subject legislation to Sharia-based limitations, assign constitutional significance to juristic authority, and accommodate forms of popular political participation. Nevertheless, they differ fundamentally in the institutional function assigned to jurisprudence. The Constitutional-era model is predominantly based on supervisory jurisprudence, in which principles such as the rejection of despotism, justice, consultation, public supervision, preservation of order, and Sharia conformity operate primarily to limit political authority and regulate legislation. Within this model, the jurist functions principally as a supervisor of Sharia compliance rather than as the holder of supreme political authority. By contrast, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic institutionalizes a guardianship-oriented jurisprudence centered on wilāyat al-faqīh, in which jurisprudential authority contributes directly to the establishment, legitimacy, direction, and preservation of political power. The study concludes that the principal transformation in modern Iranian constitutional jurisprudence is best understood as a transition from jurisprudence as a normative restraint on political power to jurisprudence as both a restraint upon and a constitutive foundation of political authority.