Claims of Parliament Shutdown: A Lie Refuted by the Claimants' Own Speeches

In the current sensitive situation, it is the duty of all sincere supporters of the system to focus on national cohesion rather than fanning side issues. Parliament is the house of the nation and must be protected wisely against political-partisan scenarios.

Mashreq Policy Service - While some representatives and special groups that support them are beating the drum of "Majlis suspension", our reporter's investigations show that not only the Majlis has not been closed for a single day since the beginning of the war, but all its elements have been busy. A claim that seems to have nothing but political-party goals behind it.

Contrary to the claims of a few representatives and special groups that support them, since the beginning of the war, the parliament has not been closed for a single day and all the organs of the parliament have been working.

During these days, the representatives who claim to close the parliament, participated in the specialized commissions and were present in the public meetings of the parliament with special arrangements for war conditions. Their numerous speeches are proof of this.

Therefore, the claim of closing the parliament is raised while the same claimants were not only in the current affairs, but they were part of the active mechanism of the parliament. This apparent contradiction shows that the story is more than a simple criticism.

Real threats and insistence on marginalization

Despite the emphasis of the higher institutions of the system that all the representatives will not be present in the parliament floor due to existing threats and informing all the representatives of its details, the insistence of several representatives and the repetition of the claim of closing the parliament and the recent marginalization has behind another curtain.

Taking into account war conditions and security threats, the higher institutions of the system have made special arrangements for the activities of the parliament; Arrangements that all delegates were aware of in detail.

However, the insistence of a few representatives on reopening the hall in person is not a trade union demand, but an attempt to create a crisis and transmit it to the media and society.

These people are trying to re-open the hall of the parliament in person, to convey some of their political-party goals and agendas to the media and the society.

In other words, the main goal of this movement is not to defend the position of the parliament, but to use the public arena as a tool to advance group and party goals. In a situation where the country is involved in a war and national unity and cohesion are considered as one of the main priorities, such behaviors not only do not help the system, but also cause public anxiety and weaken the legislative body.

Pursuing the chairmanship of the parliament to reopen with different arrangements

At the same time, with the follow-up of the Speaker of the Parliament, there is a possibility of reopening the in-person court with different arrangements. In this context, Qalibaf has mentioned the path taken; including a letter to the Supreme National Security Council and follow-up on this issue from the leadership. Basically, the Supreme National Security Council was against holding an in-person meeting of the parliament due to the war conditions, and a closed meeting was also held to explain this issue.

In this context, on July 30, 1405, the speaker of the parliament promulgated the law related to the mechanism of holding parliament sessions in times of emergency. According to this law, in times of emergency and special conditions of the country, which, as determined by the presidium of the parliament, it is not possible for the representatives to attend and hold official meetings of the parliament, including the floor, commissions, and the presidium, in the said place, these meetings are held by notifying the representatives at the place or places other than the permanent place or in cyber space.

This approach shows that the parliament itself is looking for practical solutions to continue working in war conditions; But the solutions should be adopted based on the interests of the system and taking security considerations into account, not with dramatic pressures and media marginalization.

The parliament is the only pillar that has no alternative

The Majlis is the only pillar of the system that, in case of an accident and its quorum is exceeded, its activities are practically stopped and there is no alternative except holding elections again (which is impossible in war conditions).

This feature makes the parliament a sensitive yet vulnerable institution. The head of the parliament's communication center has also emphasized in response to claims about the closing of the court sessions in order to save the life of Qalibaf: "What caused the closing of the in-person sessions of the court is not to save the life of the speaker of the parliament. Rather, it is not the quorum of the parliament. If the parliament has less than 192 representatives, it is no longer possible to hold it. Therefore, they should not all gather together."

Therefore, the higher institutions of the system have taken special arrangements to maintain its activity with full caution and considering all aspects. Any action that disrupts these arrangements and puts the parliament at risk is not only a betrayal of the position of the representative, but also a betrayal of the nation and the system.

At the end, it is worth mentioning that Ghalibaf, as the Speaker of the Islamic Council, has repeatedly emphasized the continuity of the country and the system in war conditions. He stated at the guarding ceremony of the veterans of the Holy Defense on 31 September 1405: "We will never give up and we will not close the country and we will respond with force." This clear position shows that the claim of closing the parliament, while all its elements are active, is nothing but a political-party scenario.

It is not bad to know that those who beat the drum of closure today were present in commissions and public meetings yesterday, and today they are also considered part of the active mechanism of the parliament. The difference here is that they seek to stage and transfer the sidelines to the media, not to defend the parliament.

Now it is the duty of all sympathizers of the system to focus on national unity and cohesion in the current critical situation, instead of fueling the fringes. The parliament is the nation's house and it should be protected against political-party scenarios with prudence and tact.