According to chapter 8, Article 111, of the Iranian Constitution, ‘Whenever the [supreme] leader becomes incapable of fulfilling his constitutional duties, or lobs one of the qualifications mentioned in Articles 5 and 109 ... he will be dismissed. The authority of determination in this matter is vested with the experts specified in Article 108.” According to Article 109, the essential qualifications of the leader are justice and piety, political and social discernment, prudence, courage and administrative capability. Two-thirds of the elected members of the Assembly of Experts are to vote for the dismissal of the leader in such an instance.

Here is the first twist in this mechanism. All candidates to the Assembly of Experts must be approved by the Guardian Council whose members are, in turn, appointed either directly or indirectly by the supreme leader. The Assembly consists of 88 Mujtahids (religious scholars who have been certified as capable of interpreting religious law) that are elected by direct public vote for eight-year terms.

Simply put, only those who are loyal to the leader have the chance to run for the Assembly of Experts. Thus, in practical terms, the members of the Assembly are the leader’s men. It is unlikely that such a loyal Assembly will question the capability of, let alone dismiss the leader.

The second structural contradiction within Iran’s political system originates from the very principle of the “absolute guardianship of the jurist” that shapes the foundation of the Iranian theocratic system. Article 57 of the Iranian Constitution places all three branches of the government “under the purview of the absolute rule and guardianship” of the supreme leader.

When asked what is the interpretation of the principle of “absolute guardianship of the jurist”, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa and maintained: “According to Shiism, all Muslims have to obey the order of the guardian jurist and submit to his commands. This edict even applies to other grand ayatollahs, let alone their followers.”

This interpretation could neutralise any law (such as the aforementioned Article 111 of the Constitution, outlining the duties of the Assembly of Experts with respect to the oversight on the supreme leader’s performance) or argument supporting the leader’s supervision, let alone his dismissal.

According to the internal regulations of the Assembly of Experts, the seven-member Committee for Investigating and Supervising the Leader is tasked with supervising the conditions and comportment of the leader on a continual basis. The committee reports to the assembly’s board and, if two-thirds of the board and committee members agree, the assembly members are called for an extraordinary session to discuss whether it should take action with respect to the leader. But the question is: “How can the assembly take any action against the leader while the leader has the absolute authority over the state as a whole?” According to the principle of “absolute guardianship” stipulated in Article 57 and the religious interpretation suggested by Khamenei, the leader can veto the Assembly’s decision because there is no power above him.

In other words, logically, how can subjects elect their guardian — in the case of Iran, through their representatives — and enter with him into a social contract, according to which, they grant him “absolute power” and then supervise his performance and perhaps dismiss him if they (or their representatives) find that he lacks the qualifications mentioned in the Constitution?

Ayatollah Ahmad Alamolhoda, the influential ultra-conservative cleric and a member of the Assembly once remarked: “The Assembly of Experts cannot supervise the leader’s performance because the leader is the guardian of all [of us], and experts cannot supervise the performance of their own guardian ... The leader is the guardian, and the experts are subjects of the authority ... How can I supervise his actions when he is my guardian?”

Giving such vast authority to the leader could also be in sharp contrast with some other religious principles. According to Iran’s official religion, Twelver Shiism, no one is divinely free from error and sin. This principle, with the recognition that the leader himself is not immune from sin and error, is said to justify oversight by the Assembly of Experts. The effect of this principle also appears in Article 107, which states: “The leader is equal with the rest of the people of the country in the eyes of law.”

That said, in practical terms, no one can question the leader because he is the absolute authority and his words and decisions are above all his subjects.

Cyrus Namjoo Moghadam is a columnist specialising in Iranian issues.