paying this year's price in the next year until 2:00 am in tehran, i am your host. i will not be a candidate in the next election because i do not consider myself a worthy representative of the people. we expect from someone who was a representative. now , i did not expect that and the battle of insight.

maybe they take orders from a coach and coordinate from one place. the difference between the one who votes and the one who doesn't is from earth to heaven. a person who votes and declares his wishes and steps to achieve them can achieve his goals. in the name of god . greetings and respect to the listeners dear viewers interested in filmjales program. in this phil majlis program , we are at the service of seyyed mustafa mirsalim, who is one of those who we knew in the first days of the revolution as the main core and main characters of the revolution, but finally, in the eleventh term of the majlis , he also accepted the responsibility of representation for a term other than this minister of guidance. he was a candidate for prime minister and

for a relatively long period of time as a deputy minister of the interior, but now we are talking about the parliament, and i think we can talk about this structure with mr. mirslim. political means the legal system designed for the islamic republic . we talked with some other representatives who were lawyers or had a lot of experience . hello, mr. mirsalim, in the first amendment to the constitution, the prime minister was removed and the presidency remained, apart from the debate that has been going on for years about

some people believe that it was true that the prime minister would remain and the presidency would be removed it was good that we would become a parliamentary system , that is, in fact, the prime minister would come for an indefinite period with the vote of confidence of the parliament, and in any case, in a country where the first person of the country is the appointed leader and his position and authority are known, the election of the president is usually the reason. conflict can create a kind of conflict , but apart from this, now that 30 years out of more than 30 years out of maybe 35 years have passed since the amendment of the constitution, it seems that a new need also makes a new amendment of the constitution necessary. in this new amendment, the same problem that i said in the first round was passed, which led to the removal of the prime minister. a point

the new thing that many people are talking about is that we need the senate, that is, they say that the shura assembly is usually run by representatives who do not have much political experience for the first time, so-called amateurs, and they do not know enough about the law anyway. it should be everywhere in the world, there should be a primary assembly, there should definitely be any system that is claimed. and people's opinion is important to him, but it seems that legislation should be in two stages, and in the second stage, the representatives of the supreme parliament or the parliament, which is formed by representatives who are more experienced, for example, two or three terms in the parliament the first council of the national council or the islamic council, depending on the type of system accepted, they can

participate in the senate, that is, participate in the senate elections. of course, it seems that in our system, the guardian council or, for example, the expediency discernment council or shura. cultural revolution, there are various institutions that take the job of approving these kinds of laws or taking care of the laws that the parliament approves, but it seems that the creation of a senate may take the place of many of these, that is , another set of expediency recognition is necessary. it is not necessary or the cultural revolution council is not necessary to be approved by the so-called parliament. what do you think about amending the constitution ? do you think the constitution needs to be amended or does it no longer need to be amended, in the name of allah , the most merciful

, the most merciful? the theory of daily prevention. the tyranny of the parliament members at that time , the first experts who wanted to deal with the constitution , their main concern was that the constitution should be set up in such a way that we will no longer face the tyranny of the very bitter tyranny of those who were in the era of tyranny. how bitter and how dignified it is to experience. a person is hitting me on the head, and therefore , in the constitution, we had a very broad division of power. first , we had the presidency, apart from the leadership position, and

then we had a prime minister who had to win a vote of confidence with the government. was carried out on a large scale and this had led to an inefficiency, because in practice the president, although he was elected by the people, could not implement the ideas he had explained to the people and the promises and appointments he had made, and the implementation was in the hands of the government selected. it is true that the parliament proposed the prime minister to the president, but the president had to look at the majority of the parliament. he cannot nominate anyone as the prime minister

. it can be reduced, yes , it means that it will be adjusted according to the majority vote in the parliament, and therefore, many of the things that the president has in mind cannot be implemented because it may not be compatible with the spirit that exists in the government elected by the parliament. well, this experience is almost he said that three periods of progress in the islamic republic with the first assembly. we witnessed these cases in the second parliament and the third parliament, until in 1368, the issue of revising the constitution was raised and the first constitution

was amended using the experience gained during these three periods of the parliament. the amendments were put to the vote of the people and were approved by the leadership and became our second constitution , the amended constitution was removed in the second constitution, and the prime minister was removed, so the president himself had full control over the executive power of the government. yes, with this point that i would like to present to you that anyway, the government was introduced by the president the president means the cabinet should be submitted to the vote of confidence of the parliament. this shows the power of the parliament. of course

, there is no difference between the first constitution and the second constitution regarding the authority and power of the parliament, except in one case that i will present to you. kurd, but naturally the powers of the president will be wider than what we expected with hasfar as the prime minister. came under the control of the president, but some of the powers that the president had were transferred to the leadership, such as the commander-in-chief of the forces, which was very important, while the commander-in-chief of the forces was under the control of the president in the first constitution. we are witnessing a change between the powers of the presidential leadership and a conflict between the government and the government. of course, here we

no longer have the conflict between the president and the prime minister, but a conflict between the president and the plan he announces to the people. because it is directly elected by the people and the parliament, which is supposed to represent the government's program , it appears that this is considered the political life in any system. however, regarding the powers of the parliament, which are very extensive and important

, there was not much change, except for one point. what was that point? you mentioned it. we mentioned in our constitution that the approvals passed by the parliament cannot be against the city, compared to the decrees. at all, the legitimacy of the parliament due to the existence of the guardian council, except for the first period of the first period of the parliament, which has passed. because you know that in the first period of the parliament, if the selection of a lawyer

for the guardian council is proposed to the parliament, then the parliament must choose, and when the parliament is not formed , how should the guardian council be formed ? it's over. yes, from then on , we can't imagine a parliament without a guard, because that 's not something we can imagine. well, the parliament examines the general conditions of the country it examines the needs and requirements , it also examines the foreign sharia with its effects and influences on the country and makes decisions in the house of representatives, not all of them, but most of them are aware that their issues should not be contrary to sharia rules or contrary to the law. . it is important to note that this notice is given according to the internal regulations of the parliament, which is itself a

law of the mother law. it is possible for the speaker of the parliament to accept what is entered , he may not accept it, and put it to the vote of the parliament, but in any case, it is not certain whether what was decided in the parliament with we can safely say: there is no comparison with sharia, no contradiction the constitution doesn't have it, and it also has the discussion that in some circumstances it is necessary to agree about some of the principles of the constitution that it should be closed for a limited period . it doesn't matter if it is given to the guardian council, the jurists of the guardian council, their duty is to see if the interview of the majlis. amend it, and the group

of jurists and jurists will decide on the contradiction of the constitution of the majlis with the principles of the constitution . the decrees of the mission are against the constitution and you have to amend it. the parliament usually does this amendment twice. it is approved in sahan and presented again to shohrban to see if the opinions of the guardian council have been secured or not . and the commissions of the parliament are done so that this visit does not happen many times, usually the problem is solved with one visit, but it is possible to insist despite the fact that the guardian council has determined that an issue is in conflict with the provisions of the description or with the principles of the constitution. borze insists on this

we also accepted that there is a balance here, but our opinion is this: we are the representatives of the parliament, not a single representative, when we say the parliament , this is the majority of the parliament . there is a country, the primary determination of expediency is with the parliament, in this case, it must be finally determined whether this is the expedient that the parliament has recognized. is it really in the interest of the country or not? why was it not given to the parliament? at the beginning, the late imam left it to the majlis itself that if two-thirds of the majlis approve, these issues will be accepted, but later the late imam formed an assembly to investigate this independent of the majlis, because the majlis

is in any case influenced by the votes it has received from the people , and this dependence on the votes of the people may have an effect on determining expediency, and many cases have occurred. that we realized that this effect is not insignificant, so therefore, the imam's vote was changed from assigning the expediency determination to two-thirds of the delegates' votes to the determination assembly. in my opinion , the change of vote was reasonable and this assembly is actually elected by the leader. he has the duty to determine whether the cause of the parliament

is for the expediency of the system or not. a proposal comes from the parliament, after the guardian council has done its work and announced its objections, the parliament insists, the reasons are given to the assembly , the assembly here may accept the expedient recognized by the assembly, that expedient will be implemented, of course, when if they want to make a decision in this case , they should be present at the guardian council's jurists' assembly, because the issue of contradiction with the sharia may be raised, this is necessary, and here in such cases, the discussion is discussed. there is a comparison with evil, according to the expediency of those jurists of the shogun, members of the expediency council

, that is why they are considered to have the vote. in other cases , this is not the case . well, the final decision must be made by the assembly. he did not accept the expediency here, instead of rejecting it altogether , he can approve an expedient that is in the interest of the system. this will be a collective resolution. the expediency of the system is recognized based on the resolution that we had in the parliament and the insistence of the parliament to put the expedient that it recognized, but in the second constitution, which is different from the first constitution, in the first constitution, we did not have the assembly to determine the system's legitimacy

, it did its work according to the decree of the imam of the assembly, but in the second constitution, this assembly. according to the first and second main clauses of the constitution , almost what the senate does in some countries, here the assembly is responsible for detecting the anointing of the regime. and the rulings of the shariah means against the useless laws, the laws that are passed for example for an atmosphere that has arisen and such a reason. he doesn't have the power to resist or discredit himself , so he accepts the law , of course those laws must be legislated, so to speak, that is, they must be approved

, so the opposing laws must be invalidated by the guardian council or the parliament, no, not later, after the guardian council accepts that law, even though he knows that it is of no use or, for example , it was created for some reason and approved. from then on , the legal department of the parliament must check to see if there are conflicting previous laws or not, but we usually know that this work is not done correctly, that is, many laws are just it is approved because the representative for example, they may recognize that this is good for the voters to think that such a law has been passed, but it is not really effective, it is not effective. working overtime to approve laws is pointless or wasting time on laws . after all, they are not responsible. well, here we come to

another important point. first, let me say about the point you said that it is not the case that the decision about the law is frozen in the islamic council should do it, not what bill or plan it has to take some steps in the stages of the specialized committees of the parliament, sometimes one or two committees may do intensive work on the proposal that has come as a bill or a plan of appropriate supplementary reviews before it wants to be included in the document. all representatives have the right to register their proposals on this resolution that came from the commission. in the floor of the parliament , they are also examined , and there is a lot of discussion about it until the final result is reached. moreover, before

the proposal comes to the committee for the administration of laws, the vice president of the parliament has the duty to investigate the conflicts , make a suggestion to the honorable representative and ask him to resolve these conflicts, and since i had made a proposal myself, on behalf of the rules, my suggestion is very logical and correct. i used it. in order to say what is going on in the world and the experiences that exist, where have they been positive and where have they been negative , we should not repeat negative experiences. you can say that the presence of the senate is not necessary this. the egyptian intelligence council and the guardian council as a whole are doing this more or less, while you should remember that basically, changing the constitution itself has a process and requirements,

for example, nowadays, if you propose to the people that we, the people, want to start changing the constitution, people say, sir , our problem is not constitutional issues . you are bringing up the issue of the constitution when you want to side with us, as if that's why i think i don't want to change the constitution at all , even though logically, legally, and fundamentally , we may have arguments to say that yes, if this work is done , it will be beneficial, but this person should be seen by the public now. the final vote does not have a place in everyone , but in my opinion, it is a question of priority at all. it is not that we should use the constitution . what exactly is the priority right now , that is, what purpose did you go to the 11th majlis and what did you try to achieve? this is a very important point. you see, when we

had a revolution, this revolution was 44 years ago we are starting this year. well, this revolution removed some obstacles from the people's feet. this was the work of the revolution. it was a transformation, but this transformation was not a constructive transformation. it was a transformation that there were obstacles in the way of the people that could be attributed to their human dignity. sir, we do not accept dependency. it's over to the outside, we have to decide independently about the leader of the country , we don't accept to be in the hands of a tyrant anymore. the country should be done by the people themselves , what is the work of the royal family, the people should make a decision .

and other powers are forbidden, freedom, freedom from what, from the tyrants ruling over us , we are their juice, no, we removed these two obstacles , it was a very big job , it was a very important job that was done, so what happened next, the job is over , not now the next step is about to start. this first step was to remove the obstacles . what was the obstacle for us to do something? how can these reforms be done? some of

the rules were made in order for these spaces to become common. well, i have to change them, as the existing structures were not suitable for the ideals that we had in mind. we had made a revolution, those structures had to be islamic , the structure of the constitutional monarchy is very different from the structure of the islamic republic, so this was a positive thing to do, we had to work with it, we needed to do the work. sir, these laws are against sharia , these laws are not acceptable, these laws should be islamic , they are laws or those structures that are not suitable for this work, those structures should be changed. in the end, you see, we come

to go through the principled and logical procedure to say well, the revolution has removed the obstacles from the people's way opinion: now the people must enter the scene to prove the structure of the body to this system and the rules that existed, and these rules were not at all in line with the revolution and the ideals of the revolution, and they were not in line with the ideals that we defined in the constitution , change it. when should it be done? people should do it. it is the duty of the people. at all , qasi has said that absolute sovereignty belongs to god. god almighty has given people this authority, since when did it come from god to be in charge of their own destiny? why? by electing your own representatives in one year. the future when the parliament is over you will not participate in the next assembly due to restrictions.

which exists , will you act for the presidency as you did before, that is , my preparation, first of all, i believe that this presence of the people on the stage, which is very important , will appear in the parliament for the affirmative measures that must be taken, at your service. after removing the obstacles , how should this be organized? let's make the people's presence with the party with the party is a political organization, a party is a political organization, that is, people gather together based on a mission, they say what are our intentions, so that the country can be governed properly, if the power of the government the country is at the disposal of this part of the people that we are not the rest of them, for example, as a party , they want to put us in the hands of them

. then, in the various meetings they hold together, the capabilities of the party elements are evaluated by experts to see if this party we have is compatible with our political ethics or not . they have lived together for years. what are the characteristics of this person? you are naturally a candidate of the samsanafa party, but are you a volunteer or not ? now i am going to give you your answer. therefore, it is the party that determines whether it can invest in a person to introduce him as a candidate for the presidency or for the parliament or not .