The philosophy of law in the transparency of the parliament by complying with the study of the legal plan "Transparency of the ballots of the representatives" provisions

Author

Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy of Law, Baqir al-Olum University, Qom, Iran.

Abstract

The aim of the current research is to explain the desirable nature of parliament's transparency and its theoretical challenges in contemporary Iranian constitutional law based on the philosophical findings of modern law in relation to constitutional jurisprudence. The research method hired, has been qualitative and the analytical philosophy in contemporary law in response to how the right to transparency is made available, that believes the possibility of having enough information for four answers in the public domain is equal to guaranteeing transparency. Who are the decision makers? How are they chosen? Based on what principles do they make decisions? And the benefit of the decisions taken will be given to which group or people? Accordingly, in a completely transparent parliament, the following should be organized to guarantee these questions: transparency of processes
and decision-making methods, transparency of priorities and policies, transparency of documents and reports, audio-visual and interactive access to the ballots of parliament members and technological access to data, transparency of properties and maintenance costs and the cost of human resources, financial transactions of members and administrative expenses, transparency regarding guests and current expenses, the cost of occasions, events and trips, transparency of members' information, transparency of parliamentary proceedings and complaints. Criticisms, in any other words, intellectual challenges that this philosophical level can be useful for legislative operations have been raised by some schools of public choice and behavioral economics, believing that: transparency causes people to move away from specialized decisions and get absorbed in the currents of interests and extreme populism. On the other hand, the implementation of transparency is very costly and of little use. The critical response to the mentioned challenge firstly, believes however, all political rights are very costly, in principle, its necessity for the society cannot be denied. On the other hand, although there is a possibility of extreme populism, transparency can be precisely opposed to the above-mentioned importance and prevent populism with the guarantees of the profession in the way it is implemented and based on its basic philosophical principles. In fact, the aforementioned criticism is meant more than a definite criticism in the prohibition of transparency but a clear attention to guaranteeing the dimensions of philosophical transparency. Also, for its function and purpose (regarding providing acceptability and legitimacy for political representation), the oath of allegiance is considered parallel to the theory of representation in public law, which is totally considered the basis of parliament in modern law. One of the essential requirements in the philosophy of Islamic law in the contract is the absence of jeopardy in the acts of guardianship, and the guardian is obliged to clarify the limits and quality of his expediency in the acts of guardianship. On the one hand, in the practice of governance in public affairs in Islam, observing the right and the rightness is one of the urgent and necessary matters that the Shariah is not satisfied with leaving it aside, and the rightness in the contract of guardianship is necessary for transparency in many cases, and therefore the philosophy of Islamic law can include the issue that Parliament should be transparent. On the other hand, the interpretive originalism considering the interpretation of the text of the constitution according to the opinion of the Constituent Assembly, shows by examining the text of the constitution that the constitution of the Islamic Republic also supports the issue of transparency. The result of the review of the provisions provided in the legal plan depicts that if they are approved, the Islamic Council will not be able to be transparent, and many transparency provisions in this plan have been left incomplete and neglected.

Keywords


اداره کل امور فرهنگی و روابط عمومی مجلس شورای اسلامی (1364). صورت مشروح مذاکرات مجلس بررسی نهایی قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران. انتشارات اداره‌کل امور فرهنگی و روابط عمومی مجلس شورای اسلامی.
اکبرزاده، فریدون و همکاران (1399). نقش راهبردی شفافیت آرای نمایندگی در کارآمدی مجلس شورای اسلامی از نگاه حکمرانی مطلوب. راهبرد، شماره 95.
جبل عاملی، محمد (بی‌تا). القواعد و الفوائد‌. قم: دفتر تبلیغات اسلامی، ج2.
خردمند، محسن (1398). جایگاه فقهی شفافیت اطلاعات حکومت اسلامی. حکومت اسلامی، شماره 92.
خمینى، سید روح‌الله (1۳۶۸). حکومت اسلامی و ولایت فقیه در اندیشه امام خمینی. تهران: موسسه تنظیم و نشر آثار امام خمینی، ج1.
خویی، سید ابوالقاسم (1427ق). التنقیح فی شرح المکاسب. مقرر الشیخ میرزا علی الغروی. نجف: انتشارات موسوعه فقهی دارالخویی، ج3.
سبحانی، جعفر (1308ق). معا‌لم‌ الحکومه‌ الاسلامیه‌. قم: کتا‌بخا‌نه‌ عمومی‌ اما‌م‌ امیرالمومنین‌ علی‌(ع).
طاش کبری‌زاده، احمدبن مصطفی (1405ق). مفتاح السعادة و مصباح السیادة. بیروت: دارالکتب العلمیه، ج۱.
طاهری، محسن؛ ارسطا، محمدجواد (1395). بررسی تطبیقی مبانی اصل شفافیت از دیدگاه اسلام و نظریه حکمرانی خوب. پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، شماره 9.
فاکر میبدی، محمد (1376). بیعت و نقش آن در حکومت اسلامی. وحدت اسلامی، دوره 10، ص231-267.
مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی (1399). گزارش کارشناسی طرح شفافیت آرای نمایندگان. تهران: انتشارات مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی.
مکارم شیرازى، ناصر (1425). انوار الفقاهه. قم: انتشارات مدرسه امیرالمومنین(ع)، ج1.
موسسه دائرة‌المعارف الفقه الاسلامی (1387). فرهنگ فقه فارسی. قم: انتشارات موسسه فقه اهل البیت(ع)، ج 5.
Boustany, J. (2010). La politique d'accès aux documents publics: étude comparative entre les États-Unis, la France et le Royaume-Uni. Enjeux politiques du document numérique. Documents, contenus numériques: politique en question, Paris [archive].
Bredin, J.D. (2001). Secret, transparence et démocratie. Pouvoirs 2001/2 (n° 97), p. 5-15. https://doi.org/10.3917/pouv.097.0005.  
URL= file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/POUV_097_0005.pdf
Bütler, M., Benesch, Ch. & Hofer, K. (2015). Transparency in Parliamentary Voting. Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113033, Verein für Socialpolitik/ German Economic Association, p2.
Commonwealth Freedom of Information Principles. Agreed by the 11th Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting, Trinidad and Tobago, May 1999, Principle 2.
Dupuis-Déri, F. (2013). Démocratie: Histoire politique d'un mot aux États-Unis et en France, Québec, Lux, coll. Humanités.
Fox, J. & Weelden, R.V. (2012). Costly transparency. Journal of Public Economics, 96(1), p.142-150.
Freedom of Information Act, 1989.
Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns: A Handbook on Political Finance. Peace is Loud. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, p. 30. Retrieved 24 April 2019.
Hauser, G.A. (1999). Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Mendel, T. (2008). Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Survey Green. Leslie (1 January 2012). Zalta, E.N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 3 February 2017 – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Moeller, S.D. & et al. (2008). Openness & accountability: a study of transparency in global media outlets. International Center for Media and the Public Agenda (ICMPA).
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1), p.1-25.
Grossi, S. (2019). Commonwealth Freedom of Information Principles. Agreed by the 11th Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting, Trinidad and Tobago, May 1999, Principle 2.
Sifry, M. (2011). WikiLeaks and the Age of Transparency. Yale University Press.
The Public's Right to Know: Principles on Freedom of Information Legislation. London: June 1999, Preface.
United Nations Convention against Corruption. Adopted by the UN General Assembly: 31 October 2003, by resolution 58/4Entry into force: 14 December 2005, in accordance with article 68(1), Signatories: 140 Parties: 187 (as of 6 February 2020).
Yee, J. (2015). Social Capital in Korea: Relational Capital, Trust, and Transparency. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 24(1), p. 30-47.