At the founding of the Islamic Republic, the country’s political and administrative posts were ‎empty, and so the clerics occupied most of the positions, armed with the belief that all the ‎country's affairs must be conducted in accordance with Islam. Things were easy and ‎unproblematic then. And it was believed that the rest of the road for the Islamic republic would ‎be an easy one too. ‎

The picture that is portrayed of government in the Shia religious sources, is the picture of a ‎government governing a small town or a large village, with two or three thousand inhabitants. ‎This picture is modeled after the prophet of Islam's rule over the very small town of Medina. ‎Can that very simple and primitive model be the model of governance in Iran's society of today? ‎The answer to this question is undoubtedly negative. If the answer is negative, then which is the ‎model? Was there a comprehensive plan to actualize Islamic rule or Islamic republic in ‎accordance with today's needs? ‎

The structure of today's societies and countries is radically different from the structure of Medina ‎of those days. Therefore, the necessities of governance of these societies are different from the ‎necessities of those days. ‎

No on, prior to and after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, provided a comprehensive ‎plan that included an adequate definition of an Islamic government and its necessities; a plan ‎outlining how a country and its affairs must be government. ‎

After the revolution, Iran's new rulers thought the answer rested in that anyone occupying any ‎position must Islamisize affairs in accordance with his imagination, viewpoint and preferences. ‎As such, in the field of lawmaking - which is among the most important fields - Shia religious ‎laws were rewritten and replaced many of the laws. ‎

To Islamisize offices, it was decided that individuals be tested in a process called "Gozinesh" on ‎their beliefs and knowledge of important religious rules, so that individuals with appropriate ‎beliefs and adequate knowledge of Islamic laws are employed in offices. ‎

However, who can say that this method of governance has born positive result and today's Iran is ‎an instance of a desirable society?‎

The marriage of clerics, on the one hand with Islam, and on the other with various issues of ‎governance in economic, political, security, social, and cultural fields, has had many ‎repercussions. Among its repercussions is that people regard all the country's problems as ‎having resulted from the performance of clerics. On the other hand, given the historical ‎background that people have always searched for Islam in the words and thoughts and ‎imagination of clerics, they naturally connect what has happened to Islam. Finally, they reach ‎the conclusion that to be Islamic is this and none else! ‎

Undoubtedly, this result has not been desirable for Islam, the clerics or the public's beliefs. ‎Indeed, it has been destructive, to the point that unless a reasonable solution is found, all three ‎would face irreversible damage. Even now it is too late for a solution. Nevertheless, there is ‎benefit to stop loss at any time. ‎

Now, the clerics are faced with two options in confronting the present situation:‎

‎1. To stay and continue on the same path; or‎

‎2. To leave. ‎

If the clerics remain on the scene and continue on the same path as they have before, the result ‎would be the same as it has been, meaning the further deterioration of the clergy's status. It is ‎possible that clerics would say, we would stay, but not like this. The question is: Then, like ‎what? With what plan? Would you continue to devise plans and methods in accordance with ‎your preferences? If so, the results would be no difference. In effect, three decades have been ‎enough to introduce and implement possible plans. ‎

Another group, which seems to be more aware, has left the confines of power and attempted to ‎reestablish its previous position as clerics by retreating from previous stances. This group ‎constitutes the opposition within the clergy, and currently enjoys better positions compared to ‎other groups. It is possible to imagine two ways for clerics to leaver power: to leave it ‎absolutely, or to leave it while reserving the right of oversight. ‎

The reasonable and thoughtful choice of either of those two ways bestows the clergy with the ‎opportunity to search for the roots of many problems and ambiguities and attempt to answer ‎them, in light of the experience of the past three decades. ‎

Now is the time for clerics to reconsider the results and repercussions of their three decades of ‎presence at the helm of power. ‎

We need to maintain open dialogue, not just about this issue, but about all social, cultural, ‎political,…, issues. Certainly, if clerics themselves keep this in mind and make it a priority in ‎their actions, the country would reap the positive benefits. It would have many positive benefits ‎for clerics as well. ‎