Revolutionism is different from accusing and questioning the validity of the system

Amir Hossein Sabeti's statement that "I bear witness to God; "Many of whom we didn't think, we saw that they have a price" and accusing other MPs is not something that can be easily ignored.

Ambassador Arjan's political group: the recent statements of Amirhossein Sabeti, Tehran's representative in the Islamic Council, that "I take God as a witness; "Many of whom we didn't think, we saw that they have a price" and accusing other MPs is not something that can be easily ignored. This kind of literature, from the platform of the parliament and from a person who has entered the house of the nation with the people's vote, not only needs explanation and presentation of documents, but it can seriously damage the public trust and credibility of one of the most important legal institutions of the country.

If a representative claims that people and currents are changing their positions in exchange for benefits or privileges, the way to prove this claim is clear, name, provide documentation and pursue the matter through legal channels, but what is the relation of the representative's responsibility to making general, vague and pervasive accusations that make public opinion suspicious of widespread corruption and the buying and selling of people in the country's structure? Is it possible to question the credibility of the country's people and mechanisms without presenting documents and then blame everything on openness, revolutionism or political courage?

The problem here is that the words of a member of parliament, especially when they are expressed with such literature, are not just a personal statement, these words have a reflection beyond the domestic audience and can become propaganda fodder for the media, which basically seeks to discredit the institutions of the country and induce pervasive corruption and deadlock in the governance structure. The difference between a member of parliament and a media activist against the regime is precisely here. In addition to the right to criticize, the representative must also accept responsibility for his words and their consequences. You cannot use the credibility of the representative's position, but consider yourself an independent critic when responding to the consequences of your statements.

Of course, this criticism does not mean that any person or institution is immune from questioning, by the way, if a violation has occurred, if people have changed their positions in exchange for benefits, or if the monitoring mechanisms have failed to fulfill their duties, they should be followed up with clarity and documentation, but if such claims are made without reason, they cannot be ignored. In the first case, the responsible institutions must be accountable, and in the second case, the speaker must explain his claims. No one, not even a member of parliament, should go beyond this rule.

On the other hand, although it can be argued that in the sensitive situation of the country, Mr. Qalibaf's withdrawal from his complaint against Mr. Rasaei could have helped to reduce political tensions and internal bipolarity, and this was definitely an action in accordance with the interests of the country, and this expectation was met by the speaker of the parliament, but this is not a license to accuse, insult, or destroy individuals and institutions. The political dispute should be resolved within the framework of the law, not by generalizing accusations and accusing others of dealing without clear evidence. One cannot expect restraint from others, but he himself did not cross any boundaries in fomenting political differences.

The saddest thing is that sometimes some people get so engrossed in political competition and defending their relatives and like-minded people that it seems as if the public interest and the credibility of the country's institutions are of secondary importance. Defending a like-minded person or even a person we are close to is defensible to the extent that it does not lead to ignoring the law of questioning others improperly and destroying public trust. Representative responsibility is not a concession for political settlement; It is a trust that should serve the interests of the people and the country.

The parliament, with all its possible weaknesses, differences and shortcomings, is one of the legal pillars of the country. We should not destroy the dignity of this important institution with some ill-considered words and give an excuse to those who seek to continue the closure of the parliament. It is not possible to invalidate the entire parliament based on a speech, just as a representative does not have the right to tarnish the credibility of a group of people and mechanisms of the country with a few vague sentences.

Mr. Sabeti, who presents himself as a concerned and revolutionary representative, is expected to pay more attention to the consequences of his words than others. Concern is valuable when it is accompanied by fairness, responsibility, reasoning and adherence to the law. Candor, if separated from documentation, can turn into recklessness, and demandingness, if not accompanied by fairness, can lead to destruction and mistrust. Revolutionaryism is not measured by the harshness of the tone, nor by the number of accusations raised from the public forum, its criterion is adherence to principles, justice in judgment and accountability to the people.

If these words are measured with the principles and guidelines of the Martyr of the Revolution, one should ask which moral and political principle allows such heavy generalizations to be made about the people and structures of the country without providing clear documentation? One cannot, on the one hand, consider oneself to be the defender of the system and ideals of the revolution, and on the other hand, without providing a sufficient reason, say words whose natural result is to weaken public trust in the same system. Of course, this question does not mean attributing a specific intention to the speaker, it is a discussion about the function and responsibility of speech, not a definitive judgment about people's motives.

Now it is the turn of the regulatory bodies, if Mr. Sabeti's claims are documented, he must provide his evidence, and the responsible bodies are obliged to investigate the issue and announce the result. If the claims are untrue or lack sufficient documentation, the matter should be dealt with through legal channels. It cannot be accepted that a representative would make accusations of such scope, cast doubt on public opinion, and then no one would take responsibility for clarifying the truth. Transparency should include both the performance of institutions and the claims of those who speak from official platforms.

Finally, Mr. Sabeti is expected to revise his words if he has documents to present them through legal channels and if he has deviated from fairness and accuracy in expressing his content, he should bravely accept and correct it. Returning to a revolutionary approach does not mean withdrawing from the demand for the right, but in demanding the right by observing the law, ethics and fairness.

More than ever, the country needs responsible criticism, effective supervision and transparency, not words that increase the scope of skepticism and disagreement without clarifying the truth. The representative of the people should be at the forefront of making demands, but at the same time know that the podium of the parliament is not the place for baseless accusations. If there is a claim, the document must be presented, if there is a violation, the law must be implemented, and if something wrong is said, correcting it is the least expected from a representative of the people.