No Permission for Protest: The Heavy Shadow of Laws on Public Demonstrations
Article 27 of the Iranian Constitution recognizes freedom of assembly as a legal right of citizens. According to this article, "holding any gathering or demonstration is permitted, provided that the participants do not carry weapons and the event does not contradict the principles of Islam." However, the Law on Political Parties and Associations requires prior permission to organize any protest or public gathering.
Political Desk, Student News Network (SNN) - Kosar Qasemi
The legal organization of public gatherings remains one of the key challenges facing civil groups, trade unions and professional associations. These protests have been on the rise, fueled by unregulated privatization, the bankruptcy of large factories and small businesses, and worsening economic conditions. They are usually held to improve conditions and removing existing obstacles. But even before they take place, these assemblies face significant obstacles, including bureaucratic hurdles in obtaining permits and legal ambiguities in the permitting process. The multi-step permitting process for protests is so arduous and discouraging that many organizers abandon the process altogether, opting instead to hold unlicensed and technically illegal demonstrations.
So which prevails: The Political Parties Law or Article 27?
Article 27 of the Iranian Constitution recognizes freedom of assembly as a legal right of citizens. According to this article, "It is permissible to hold any meeting or demonstration, provided that the participants do not carry weapons and the event does not contradict the principles of Islam. This article explicitly grants the right to protest by conditioning it solely on these two requirements.
In addition, Article 8 of the Constitution requires the people to enjoin good and forbid wrong in relation to the government, a duty that includes assembling for the purpose of admonition. According to this article: "In the Islamic Republic of Iran, enjoining good and forbidding wrong is a universal and reciprocal duty that applies to the people among themselves, the government among the people, and the people among the government." As mentioned in Article 27, there are only two conditions for holding meetings - conditions that also allow for ambiguity and different interpretations.
However, the Law on Political Parties and Associations requires prior authorization for any assembly. Accordingly, and in contrast to Article 27, civil groups must obtain a permit before gathering.
Mansur Rahmdel, a professor of criminal law and criminology at the Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, confirmed the ambiguity of the conditions in Article 27 in an interview with the Student News Network, stating: "The phrase 'provided that it does not contradict the principles of Islam', which is stipulated as a restriction in Article 27 of the Constitution, is so vague and open to broad interpretation that it overshadows the right itself. The constitutional legislator has not provided any criteria for determining what the "principles of Islam" are. Is there a specific interpretation of these principles that allows certain actions to be defined as "disturbing the foundations of Islam"?
On the other hand, some point to the "Regulations on Ensuring the Security of Legal Gatherings and Demonstrations" as the legal basis for requiring prior permission for protests. According to these regulations, individuals and groups are required to obtain permission from official institutions, such as the governor's office. The establishment of these regulations, which are based on the Law on Political Parties and Associations, has created ambiguity for both protest organizers and legal authorities. In addition, the repeal of the 1981 Law on Political Parties and the enactment of a new law have cast doubt on the validity of these regulations.
Mansur Rahmdel further explained: "An executive regulation is subordinate to the applicable law. If the applicable law is repealed or amended, the regulation also loses its validity in relation to the repealed or amended sections."
The legal ambiguities and gaps regarding the issuing of permits for public gatherings are so widespread and pervasive that Esma'il Jabarzadeh, former deputy interior minister for political affairs, stated in a 2017 interview with Hamshahri, "We are facing a legal gap when it comes to issuing permits for protests."
The Endless Obstacles to Obtaining a Permit and the Article 10 Commission
Obtaining a permit for public gatherings remains one of the most difficult aspects of organizing protests. Governments must provide legal, fair, and unbureaucratic mechanisms to facilitate peaceful demonstrations in order to uphold people's right to freedom of assembly.
Naser Imani, a political affairs expert, said in an interview with Tasnim News Agency, "Allowing people to protest is not a privilege granted by the government, nor is it a right that the government can choose to exercise or not is a duty. If the government fails to fulfill this duty, it should be held accountable, just as it would be if public funds were misallocated. One of the reasons for the recent protests is that people do not know where or how to express their concerns. This is a crucial issue and the opportunity to protest should be available throughout the year."
Legal systems around the world regarding the issuance of protest authorizations are generally divided into three categories:
1- Prior Approval System
2- Advance Notification System
3- Post-Event Review System
The Prior Authorization System, which is enforced in Iran's legal framework, imposes the most stringent restrictions compared to the other models. The most important restriction in this structure is the requirement to obtain official approval before taking any action.
The authorities responsible for reviewing gatherings and issuing permits are the Article 10 Commission, the governorates, and the Provincial Security Council of each province. The Article 10 Commission is established within the Ministry of Interior to monitor political party activities and issue party licenses and permits. Its members include the deputy minister of interior for political affairs, a representative of the prosecutor general's office, two deputies elected by the Islamic Consultative Assembly, a representative of the Ministry of Intelligence, and two non-voting representatives of the Party Council.
According to the Law on Political Parties and Associations, "It is allowed to hold demonstrations with prior notification to the Ministry of Interior, without carrying weapons, provided that it does not contradict the principles of Islam in the opinion of the Article 10 Commission. In addition, the organizing of gatherings in public squares and parks is allowed with the permission of the Ministry of the Interior".
According to the note to Article 30 of the Political Parties Law, the request to hold a demonstration or assembly must be submitted in writing and in person by an official representative to the Ministry of Interior at least one week prior to the event.
In accordance with Article 32 of the same regulation, the request must contain the following information and detailed documentation:
a) The subject and purpose of the demonstration or assembly
b) The date of the event and its starting and ending times
c) the route of the demonstration, including its starting and ending points
d) The venue for speeches and the reading of resolutions
e) Full details of the event's executive and security staff, together with a written letter of introduction from the organizing group.
f) The list of speakers and the topics of their speeches.
g) Slogans to be used during the demonstration
h) A copy of the prepared resolution
The strict restrictions on public gatherings, the lack of trust in the authorities, and the lack of clear justifications for the denial of permits are key factors that hinder the exercise of this freedom and discourage people from submitting official requests to hold demonstrations.
The restrictions imposed over the years, which have often resulted in the denial or revocation of protest permits, have created a perception among protesters that any attempt to obtain a permit is doomed to failure. As a result, protests such as those of the Haft-Tappeh and Hepco workers, who are simply seeking to improve their working conditions, are held without legal permits or even attempts to obtain them. This in itself highlights the legal gap in the process.
A Council for providing Security?
The Provincial Security Council is a regional equivalent of the National Security Council that operates at the provincial level. According to Article 4 of the 1983 law defining the functions and structure of the National Security Council, the governor of each province is officially responsible for maintaining security within his jurisdiction. This council is tasked with collecting, reviewing, and analyzing reports and assessments related to security, political, and social issues in the province. The council is chaired by the governor and consists of six other senior provincial officials. Before issuing a permit for a protest, the Article 10 Commission is required by law to consult with and consider the opinion of the head of the Provincial Security Council.
Article 9 of the aforementioned law designates the Provincial Security Council only as an advisory body on security matters, while the decision-making authority rests with the representatives of the Ministry of Interior (i.e., the governor, district governor, and county governor). Therefore, if a permit is issued by the representatives of the Ministry of Interior, the role of the Provincial Security Council is limited to ensuring the security of the gathering and does not extend to granting or denying permits.
Over the years, there have been student and labor protests that were authorized by legal authorities, but later canceled by the Provincial Security Council. This raises critical questions about the extent of the Provincial Security Council's authority in issuing or revoking permits. Is it within the Council's competence to intervene in such matters? Given that the law only prohibits protests involving weapons or those deemed disruptive to Islamic principles, why are permits denied for protests such as labor demonstrations? Furthermore, why does the Provincial Security Council revoke permits for gatherings that have already been approved?
Mansur Rahmdel stressed: "The Provincial Security Council has no authority to impose restrictions or prohibitions on individual rights and freedoms. Any decision in this regard is the sole responsibility of the judiciary".
He added: "Such actions constitute a violation of legitimate public freedoms, which are subject to prosecution under Article 570 of the Islamic Penal Code."
Despite several constitutional provisions that emphasize the protection and expansion of freedom, public protest in Iran still lacks a formal and recognized status. In addition, administrative obstacles have made the permit application process increasingly difficult, further restricting the right to protest.
An analysis of recent protests shows that many demonstrations take place without official permission. These gatherings are often leaderless and unorganized, and the disconnect between the people and political parties, along with the lack of official recognition of public protests and government inaction, increases the risk of protests turning violent as a means of achieving their goals. Incidents such as the Gheyzaniyeh protests and the unrest in the village of Abolfazl in Khuzestan Province illustrate these challenges.
Despite the 2016 amendment of the 1981 Law on Political Parties, the issue of demonstrations and public gatherings was deferred to an executive regulation that was never enacted. However, these legal changes did not resolve the issue, and the legal gap regarding freedom of assembly remains, which is a significant obstacle to republican governance. The first step in addressing this problem should be to remove legal ambiguities and obstacles, followed by addressing administrative shortcomings. The increasing number of unauthorized public gatherings further underscores the urgent need for legal reform and the elimination of existing gaps in the legal framework.