MajlesEdit
The Majles, officially the Islamic Consultative Assembly, is the national legislature of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Located in Tehran, it is composed of 290 members elected to four-year terms. Its core duties are to draft and pass legislation, to approve the national budget, and to supervise the executive within the constitutional framework. Legislation proposed by the government or by members of the Majles is subject to review by the Guardian Council to ensure compatibility with the constitution and with Islamic law; if the Guardian Council objects, the bill may be amended or referred to the Expediency Discernment Council for resolution. The Majles thus functions as the principal forum for public policy debate and policy formulation within the limits set by the broader ruling structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The parliament represents voters from across the country in regional constituencies and operates as a principal arena for policy competition and accountability. Elections are overseen by the Guardian Council, which screens candidates for compatibility with the constitution and with Islamic principles, and determines who may stand for office. This vetting process has become a focal point of political contestation, particularly when reformist or opposition candidates are disqualified. The Majles, in turn, can challenge government plans, request information from ministers, and approve or amend the budget, but its powers coexist with several non-elective institutions designed to preserve the overarching religious and constitutional order. In practice, this yields a system in which elected representation works within a framework that emphasizes stability, continuity, and adherence to the constitutional order, rather than pure majoritarian democracy. See Elections in Iran and Budget (finance) for how budgets are presented, debated, and approved.
The historical roots of the Majles lie in the Constitutional Revolution of the early 20th century, which produced the first domestic framework for elected representation in Iran. The modern parliamentary institution was reshaped and embedded within the theocratic framework established after the 1979 revolution, when the current constitution created a hybrid system that blends popular representation with unelected religious authority. The Parliament thus sits alongside other organs such as the Supreme Leader of Iran and the Expediency Discernment Council to shape policy and governance. See Constitutional Revolution of Iran and Constitution of Iran for the foundational history and terms of authority.
History
Origins and constitutional reforms
The early 20th century constitutional movement established a national assembly and a framework for lawmaking that sought to curb unrestricted royal prerogative. The modern Majles re-emerged in the Islamic Republic era, operating under a constitution designed to balance popular representation with religious authority. See Constitution of Iran and Islamic Consultative Assembly (the formal name for the Majles) for the procedural evolution.
The Islamic Republic era
Since 1979, the Majles has functioned in a political environment where elected legislators must work within a system of non-elected institutions that guarantee constitutional and spiritual legitimacy. The Guardian Council, the Supreme Leader, and the Expediency Discernment Council interact with the Majles to determine which laws may be enacted, how they are interpreted, and how disputes are resolved. The parliament has played a central role in debates over economic policy, social regulation, and foreign affairs, and its composition has reflected the broader tensions between reformist, conservative, and pragmatic currents within Iranian politics. See Iranian parliamentary elections and Foreign relations of Iran for related dimensions of policy and process.
Reform era and political tensions
In the post-2000 period, debates within the Majles mirrored wider national conversations about reform, openness, and economic management under international sanctions. Reformist and conservative blocs contended over how to pursue political change, how to structure subsidies and market reforms, and how to engage with the international community. The Guardian Council’s role in candidate vetting and the Expediency Council’s power to arbitrate between Majles and Guardian Council decisions have been central to these debates. See Green Movement and Elections in Iran for context on how electoral dynamics intersect with policy outcomes.
Role and structure
Electoral system and size
The Majles consists of 290 seats elected from multi-member districts and national-level electoral rules. Candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council, which can disqualify potential lawmakers on grounds of constitutional loyalty and adherence to Islamic principles. This gatekeeping shapes the political spectrum within the chamber and affects legislative strategy and coalition-building. See Iranian parliamentary elections for additional procedure details.
Powers and responsibilities
Key powers include drafting and passing legislation, approving the national budget, and supervising the executive. The Majles can question ministers, summon them for hearings, and vote on motions of confidence or impeachment as allowed by the constitution. It can also initiate or amend legislation related to social, economic, and regulatory policy, subject to review by non-elective authorities. The president’s budget proposal is subject to Majles scrutiny and modification, before it can become law.
Relationship with other branches
The Majles operates within a multi-branch framework. The Guardian Council reviews legislation for compatibility with the constitution and Islamic law, and it approves or vetoes candidates for office. If the Majles-Guardian Council disagreement persists, the Expediency Discernment Council issues binding interpretations to resolve the impasse. The Supreme Leader holds ultimate authority over the state’s political order, including finalize on crucial matters of state and religious governance. See Guardian Council, Expediency Discernment Council, and Supreme Leader of Iran for the structural relationships at work.
Procedures and institutions
Within the Majles, standing committees, investigative commissions, and sessions handle policy development and oversight. Members frequently question ministers and submit inquiries on government performance, budgetary implementation, and regulatory enforcement. See Parliamentary procedure and Committee (legislature) for general comparative concepts.
Controversies and debates
Candidate vetting and democratic legitimacy
A central debate concerns the Guardian Council’s power to screen candidates for constitutional fidelity. Critics argue that this power curtails political pluralism and limits the electorate’s expressive range, while supporters contend that vetting is essential to ensure fidelity to the constitutional order and the moral framework of the state. The balance between popular representation and religious-constitutional guarantees remains a persistent point of contention in Iranian politics. See Guardian Council and Elections in Iran for context.
Independence versus institutional restraint
Observers note that the Majles operates within a framework that restricts its independence, given the supremacy of unelected bodies and the overarching authority of the Supreme Leader of Iran. Proponents argue that this arrangement preserves long-term stability, coherent policy, and national sovereignty in a context of external pressure and internal diversity. Critics contend that it blunts accountability and narrows policy alternatives. See discussions on Constitution of Iran and Expediency Discernment Council for how authority is mediated.
Economic policy, subsidies, and sanctions
The Majles has played a pivotal role in shaping economic policy, budgeting, and subsidy reform in an environment of international sanctions and domestic priorities. Debates focus on how best to sustain growth, protect the poor, and maintain strategic state-led sectors while encouraging private investment and efficiency. Advocates emphasize policy consistency and fiscal discipline, while opponents press for broader reform and social protections. See Budget (finance) and Elections in Iran for related policy dynamics.
Civil liberties and political reform
Within Iran, the range of permissible political discourse is comparatively constrained by the constitutional regime’s foundations. Reformist voices have pushed for greater legislative leverage and more expansive political participation within the existing framework, while defenders of the current order emphasize the importance of stability, national unity, and the moral-legal underpinnings of the state. The debate over how far legitimate reform can or should go is ongoing and deeply interconnected with wider regional and international currents. See Green Movement and Constitution of Iran for broader context.