Assembly Of ExpertsEdit

The Assembly of Experts is a clerical body within the Islamic Republic of Iran charged with supervising and selecting the country’s supreme religious and political leader. Comprised of senior Islamic scholars elected by the public for eight-year terms, the Assembly is designed to provide a religiously grounded mandate for the leadership and a constitutional mechanism for accountability. Its formal authority rests in Iran’s constitutional framework, which ties the legitimacy of the leadership to both popular assent and religious sanction. While the Assembly does not perform routine governance, its decisions regarding succession and oversight carry significant weight for the direction of the state and its security outlook. The structure reflects a careful balance between popular participation and doctrinal authority, anchored in the theory of velayat-e fakih, or guardianship of the jurist, which grants the religious establishment a central role in statecraft. See Constitution of Iran and Guardianship of the Jurist for the underlying legal and doctrinal bases.

The Assembly’s contemporary relevance stems from its dual function: to elect the supreme leader and to supervise the leader’s performance over time. In practice, this means that the body provides a constitutional check on the person who holds the top office, while recognizing that the leader’s authority is reinforced by religious legitimacy, institutional support, and the broader political order. The Assembly is one piece of a complex regime architecture that also includes Guardian Council and Expediency Discernment Council, all operating within the framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Overview

The Assembly of Experts is a deliberative body of senior clerics elected to eight-year terms, generally numbering in the mid-to-late 80s. Members convene in Tehran for sessions that examine issues related to leadership, succession, and the compatibility of state policy with religious principles. See Iran and Constitution of Iran for context on how this body fits into the broader political system.
The Assembly’s core mission is to ensure that the supreme leader remains a trustworthy guardian of the people’s religious and political order. The body can, in principle, elect a successor to the leader and convene to review the leader’s performance as required by the constitution. See Supreme Leader of Iran for information on the office being supervised.
The link between religious authority and political power is central to the Assembly’s purpose. This linkage is grounded in the doctrine of velayat-e fakih, which assigns the state’s ultimate guardianship to qualified clerics. See Guardianship of the Jurist and Velayat-e-Faqih.

History

The Assembly of Experts was created in the early years of the Islamic Republic as part of a broader project to fuse religious legitimacy with republican structures. The 1979 revolution established a framework in which clerical authority would inform political authority, and the constitution formalized this relationship. The Assembly’s most visible historical moment came with the election of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as supreme leader after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Since its inception, the Assembly has served as a potential mechanism for leadership change, albeit within a system that preserves ultimate authority in the hands of the clergy and the office of the supreme leader.

Throughout its history, the Assembly has faced debates over how it should balance deference to senior clerical authority with the electorate’s role in selecting representatives. Proponents argue that the body provides essential continuity and doctrinal legitimacy, which helps maintain social stability and consistent foreign policy. Critics contend that the Assembly’s powers are markedly constrained by the constitution and by the Guardian Council’s vetting process, which narrows the field of candidates and limits electoral competition. See Election in Iran and Guardian Council for related processes and constraints.

Composition and election

Members are senior clerics, typically with long vocational training and established reputations within the religious establishment. They are elected by direct vote of eligible citizens for eight-year terms. See Islamic Republic of Iran for the political context that shapes who runs and why.
The number of seats has varied over time, but the body generally comprises roughly eighty-something members. The exact composition can shift with elections and vacancies, yet the core feature remains: clerical scholars with credentials recognized across Shia communities.
Candidates are subject to screening by the Guardian Council, which has the constitutional role of ensuring that candidates align with the regime’s legal and doctrinal requirements. This screening shapes the field and influences the Assembly’s political balance. See Guardian Council and Constitution of Iran.
The Assembly’s leadership and procedures are governed by internal rules, and sessions are typically held in Tehran. The process of choosing a new leader, when necessary, is conducted within the framework set by the constitution and the Assembly’s own deliberations.

Powers and limitations

Electing the supreme leader: The Assembly has the constitutional authority to elect the country’s supreme leader, a position that combines religious authority with political leadership. The leader serves as the head of state and the commander in chief of the armed forces, among other powers, and is expected to uphold the religious and constitutional order. See Supreme Leader of Iran.
Dismissing or disciplining the leader: In theory, the Assembly can oversee or remove the leader under certain constitutional provisions. In practice, the process is constrained by political realities, doctrinal considerations, and the broader power structure that centers religious authority in the capital and security institutions. See Velayat-e Fakih and Constitution of Iran for the formal framework.
Oversight and accountability: The Assembly reviews the leader’s performance in light of the constitutional duties and religious obligations that sit at the heart of Iran’s political system. It can question policy directions and discuss succession issues, helping to maintain continuity in the regime’s core objectives. See Expediency Discernment Council for a sense of how different organs interact on political questions.
Relationship to other bodies: The Guardian Council vets candidates for elections, including those to the Assembly, which shapes proportionality and ideological balance. The Expediency Discernment Council serves as a mediator in policy disputes between the parliament and the Guardian Council, while the Supreme Leader ultimately holds the final say on major strategic questions. See Guardian Council and Expediency Discernment Council.

Controversies and debates

Democratic legitimacy versus doctrinal authority: Critics argue that the Assembly’s power is limited by the Guardian Council’s vetting and by the overarching authority of the supreme leader, which can curtail substantive democratic competition. Supporters counter that the combination of popular election with clerical legitimization preserves social order and avoids political erosions that can accompany unfettered electoral politics.
Reform movements and political pluralism: Reformists have often pressed for broader electoral participation and more transparent procedures. Proponents of the status quo say that the system’s stability and long-term policy consistency—particularly in security, regional policy, and social order—depend on preserving the doctrinal framework and ensuring that leadership remains aligned with fundamental religious principles.
International critics and “democratic openness”: Some external observers describe the system as undemocratic due to candidate vetting and limited public influence over the highest offices. Defenders argue that the Iranian model blends popular consent with religiously grounded governance, aiming to reconcile national sovereignty, social cohesion, and a principled foreign policy. In debates about this topic, proponents emphasize the need for national sovereignty and cultural continuity, while opponents emphasize liberal norms and civil liberties. In this debate, proponents would note that outside criticisms often misunderstand the practical checks and balances designed into Iran’s constitutional order.
Skepticism of reformist challenges: Within the right-leaning view, the emphasis is on stability, predictable leadership, and a careful approach to reform that respects religious and cultural traditions. Critics of rapid or radical reform contend that abrupt changes could destabilize economic performance, social harmony, and regional standing. The right‑leaning perspective tends to treat the Assembly’s cautious approach as a bulwark against upheaval that could invite external interference or internal chaos.