Why Justice, Why Now?

Justice has long been both a sacred principle and a contested battleground in Iran’s history. From Zoroastrian ethics to Islamic jurisprudence, from monarchic reforms to revolutionary tribunals, the idea of justice has shaped how Iranians have viewed power, legitimacy, and the public good. Every political order in modern Iran has invoked it—yet few have realized it in durable, equitable, or inclusive ways.

Among the more recent contributions to the Iranian intellectual tradition is the Bahá’í Faith, which emerged in the 19th century and emphasized justice not merely as legal fairness or divine retribution, but as the moral foundation of collective life. In this vision, justice ensures that individual dignity and social prosperity are inseparable, making it both a spiritual and civic imperative. Though long marginalized from official discourse, this values-based conception offers a vital, indigenous perspective on how justice might be reimagined in a future Iranian society.

Today, as Iranian society reckons with the limits of past systems and the possibilities of a more just future, revisiting the evolution of justice is not an academic exercise—it is a civic necessity. This article traces that evolution over the past century and asks: How might justice be reimagined not as an instrument of authority but as the ethical infrastructure of Iranian society?

Plurality and Power: Justice in the Late Qajar Period

In the late 19th century, Iran’s legal system was a patchwork of customary norms, clerical rulings, tribal decisions, and monarchical decrees. There was no single legal authority or codified body of law. Justice was often local and arbitrary, administered by elders, landlords, clerics, or royal officials, depending on status and circumstance.

The dual system of shar’ (religious) and ‘urf (customary) courts reflected an uneasy balance between Islamic jurisprudence and royal prerogative. But this balance offered little predictability or equality. Appeals were rare, and decisions varied dramatically.

Efforts to standardize justice in the late Qajar era—such as proposals for judicial reform and legal education—met resistance from religious authorities and landed elites who saw such reforms as threats to their traditional power.

Frame: In this period, justice functioned as personal arbitration, vulnerable to hierarchy, fragmented, and lacking civic coherence.

Constitutional Revolution: Justice as National Reform

The 1906 Constitutional Revolution marked Iran’s first concerted attempt to create a law-governed modern state. The new constitution established a judiciary alongside the executive and legislative branches, signaling a shift toward codified justice.

Although the dual court system remained, the push toward secular legal codes and professional courts began in earnest. The Iranian Civil Code, heavily influenced by French law, was a milestone in shaping procedural justice. At the same time, religious courts retained authority over family law, reflecting the enduring influence of the Shi’i clergy.

The legal profession began to take root, and institutions like the Iranian Bar Association (founded in 1915) emerged to support a more accountable judiciary. But deep structural tensions—between modern legalism and clerical tradition—persisted.

Frame: Justice emerged as a constitutional promise, limited in practice by competing sovereignties.

Pahlavi Era: Centralized Law, Modern Form—But at What Cost?

Under Reza Shah, the judiciary was disbanded and reconstituted as a secular, centralized institution. Clerics were removed from the bench, and judges were trained in modern law. By the 1930s, religious courts were formally abolished.

The legal system expanded in sophistication, with clearly defined jurisdictions, a tiered court structure, and formal legal education requirements. During Mohammad Reza Shah’s reign, the judiciary continued to professionalize, even as it became increasingly politicized.

Institutions like the Houses of Equity attempted to extend legal order to rural areas and minimize clerical influence. But despite these reforms, justice remained top-down, dependent on the state’s political interests and unwilling to tolerate meaningful dissent.

Frame: Justice was reimagined as bureaucratic rationality, but it lacked the political accountability or civic trust needed to endure.

Islamic Republic: Sharia as Moral Authority

The 1979 Islamic Revolution radically restructured Iran’s legal system. Revolutionary tribunals replaced the existing judiciary, and a new constitution declared that all laws must conform to Islamic principles. The courts were reorganized under a system of Sharia, with clerical judges presiding.

The integration of Qisas (retributive justice), Hadd (fixed punishments), and Tazir (discretionary sentencing) created a legal framework rooted in Shi’i jurisprudence. At the same time, forgiveness and compensation provisions introduced restorative justice elements, and due process was increasingly compromised.

The judiciary became a tool of political control, silencing dissent and enforcing ideological conformity. The Bar Association was stripped of independence, and legal protections eroded, especially for women, minorities, and political prisoners.

Frame: Justice took the form of divine discipline, rigid in ideology but inconsistent in civic fairness.

The Present Crisis: Control Without Consent

Over four decades, the promises of Islamic justice have eroded under the weight of politicization and repression, leaving a judiciary often perceived as a tool of regime survival rather than public service.

Trials often lack transparency and consistency. Arrests and verdicts are frequently politically motivated. Lawyers defending dissidents face harassment or imprisonment. Executions remain alarmingly frequent.

The language of justice persists—but is widely seen as hollow. Citizens experience the legal system not as a space for fairness, but as a mechanism of fear.

Frame: Justice has become a monopolized state function, detached from public legitimacy and ethical trust.

A Civic Reimagining: Justice as Ethical Infrastructure

Two Three Words by Aram Hessami offers an alternative vision: justice as a civic ethic, grounded not in ideology or punishment but in fairness, transparency, and mutual responsibility. In this framework, justice is not merely a legal outcome but a condition for cooperation, dialogue, and trust.

While distinct in its moral clarity and civic focus, this vision resonates with broader conversations in Iranian and global thought. Over the past century, various Iranian thinkers and legal reformers, across ideological and spiritual backgrounds, have grappled with how justice can serve the public good rather than political authority. Internationally, scholars such as Hannah Arendt, Amartya Sen, and John Rawls have similarly argued that justice must be built upon public reason, trust, and shared ethical commitments.

Hessami’s contribution stands out for articulating this as an ethical infrastructure—a civic ecology rather than a legal mechanism—significant in a society like Iran’s, where formal institutions have often failed to secure dignity or consensus.

This view echoes older Iranian traditions as well. In Zoroastrianism, asha denoted cosmic and moral order, the truth that structured life justly. In Shi’i Islam, ‘adl is both a divine attribute and a human obligation. In 19th-century teachings emphasizing unity, dignity, and ethical governance, justice was framed as the principle through which individual purpose aligns with collective well-being.

Abbas Amanat’s analysis of Iran’s historical dualities—especially between din and dolat (religion and state)—underscores how the collapse of independent justice systems often stems from unresolved moral and administrative authority tensions. If Azadi is the cry for dignity, justice must be the structure that upholds it.

Frame: Justice is best understood as civic ecology—the system sustaining trust, dignity, and social order.

Justice as a Civic Compass

To imagine a better future for Iran, justice must be reclaimed—not as a tool of control, but as a shared civic compass. This means:

• Building institutions of independent judgment
  
• Ensuring equal access and due process
  
• Fostering a culture of fairness and transparency
  

Justice should not belong to the state or the clerics alone. It must be owned by the people, rooted in their daily lives, cultural memory, and ethical aspirations. True justice in Iran will not emerge solely from legal reform, but from a citizenry committed to defending dignity, demanding accountability, and cultivating a shared moral horizon.

In this sense, justice is not just about law but about who we want to become.

---

This article continues the Iran 1400 Project’s effort to recover and reimagine the civic concepts that can help shape Iran’s democratic, inclusive, and ethical future. We invite readers, scholars, students, and civic actors to reflect on how justice has shaped their experiences and envision a just future for Iran.