Abstract
The encounter between Islamic civilization and Western modernity has significantly impacted Islamic thought, compelling scholars and jurists to engage with modern political frameworks. One such framework is the concept of elections, which, despite being a modern political mechanism, has been integrated into the political jurisprudence of contemporary Shia thought, particularly in the views of Imam Khomeini. This study seeks to explore the theological foundations that underpin the legitimacy of elections in Imam Khomeini’s perspective. The primary research question examines the doctrinal bases that justify electoral legitimacy within an Islamic governance system. The hypothesis suggests that if Imam Khomeini recognized elections as a legitimate mechanism in an Islamic government, then there must be substantial theological principles supporting this view, even if not explicitly stated. The research findings highlight fundamental theological principles, including the theory of consultation (Shura), the doctrine of human vicegerency (Khilafah), the principle of majority rule, and the concept of non-domination. These principles collectively provide a doctrinal foundation for the legitimacy of elections in an Islamic governance framework. This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing library and documentary sources to investigate the theological justifications that support electoral processes in Shia political thought.
Keywords: Elections, Political Legitimacy, Democracy, Political Jurisprudence, Imam Khomeini.
Introduction
The establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran following the 1979 revolution opened a new chapter in Shia political jurisprudence. Prior to this period, Shia jurisprudence was predominantly concerned with private law and had limited engagement with public law. However, with the Islamic Revolution’s success, the governance aspect of Islamic jurisprudence underwent significant scrutiny, as its principles were tested in real political practice. Among the key debates that emerged was the role of elections and public participation in governance. Imam Khomeini’s political thought offered a novel interpretation of electoral legitimacy within an Islamic framework, arguing that the concept of elections was not in contradiction with Islamic theology but rather rooted in fundamental Islamic principles. This paper investigates the theological foundations that justify the legitimacy of elections from Imam Khomeini’s perspective.
 
Materials and Methods
This study follows a qualitative research approach using a descriptive-analytical methodology. The data collection process involves library research and documentary analysis of primary and secondary sources related to Islamic political jurisprudence and the works of Imam Khomeini. The study examines various theological and jurisprudential sources that discuss governance in Islam, with a specific focus on texts that address electoral legitimacy. The research draws on historical and contemporary Islamic scholarly works, comparing different interpretations to provide a comprehensive understanding of how elections can be justified within an Islamic governance system.
The sample for this study includes 18 books and academic papers that specifically discuss Islamic governance, electoral legitimacy, and Shia political jurisprudence. The selection criteria include:
- Direct relevance to the topic of religious and electoral legitimacy in Islamic governance.
- Academic credibility, including peer-reviewed journal articles and books authored by recognized scholars.
- A balance between historical perspectives and contemporary analyses to provide a holistic view.
 
Discussion & Result
The Principle of Human Vicegerency (Khilafah): One of the most fundamental theological foundations for electoral legitimacy in Islam is the concept of Khilafah, which establishes humans as God’s vicegerents on Earth. This principle is derived from Quranic verses such as: "And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority [Khalifah]’” (Quran 2:30). Scholars like Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr argue that this verse implies a divine trust in humanity to govern the Earth through justice and moral responsibility (Kadivar, 2003). The concept of Khilafah provides a theological justification for participatory governance, as it entrusts humans with decision-making responsibilities. Imam Khomeini’s political thought integrates this principle by recognizing the necessity of public participation in governance through elections.
The Theory of Consultation (Shura): The principle of Shura (consultation) is another theological foundation that supports electoral legitimacy. The Quran explicitly commands consultation in governance: "And those who have responded to [the command of] their sovereign and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend” (Quran 42:38). Islamic scholars, including Imam Khomeini, have interpreted Shura as a divine mandate for participatory decision-making. In modern political systems, elections serve as a mechanism for consultation, allowing the public to express their views and contribute to decision-making processes (Firoozi, 2011). Imam Khomeini emphasized that an Islamic government should reflect the will of the people while remaining aligned with divine laws.
The Principle of Majority Rule: Democratic governance in modern societies relies on majority rule, and Islamic jurisprudence provides theological support for this concept. Imam Ali (AS) in Nahj al-Balagha emphasizes the importance of adhering to the consensus of the Muslim community: "Hold fast to the majority, for the hand of Allah is with the community; and beware of division, for whoever separates from the group is prey for Satan, just as the stray sheep is for the wolf” (Sermon 127, Nahj al-Balagha). This statement highlights the significance of collective decision-making. Islamic jurisprudence, especially within Shia political thought, acknowledges that in matters of public concern, the majority’s decision holds weight unless it contradicts clear religious directives (Mavani, 2013). The application of this principle in elections ensures that governance is based on public consent, aligning with the concept of justice in Islamic teachings. The Principle of Non-Domination and Limited Authority: Islamic governance, as conceptualized in Shia thought, rejects authoritarian rule. The principle of non-domination asserts that no individual or group should have absolute control over others without legitimate and justifiable authority. This aligns with the fiqhi principle of (non-absolute authority), which states that no person inherently possesses authority over another unless explicitly granted by divine decree or social contract (Vaezi, 2004). This principle supports the necessity of elections, as they provide a structured means for delegating authority while ensuring accountability. Imam Khomeini’s political philosophy underscores the importance of a government that derives legitimacy through public participation, thus preventing autocratic rule.
 
Conclusion
The theological foundations of electoral legitimacy in Imam Khomeini’s thought are deeply rooted in Islamic jurisprudence and Quranic principles. Concepts such as human vicegerency, consultation, majority rule, and non-domination collectively support the idea that elections are not merely a modern political tool but an extension of Islamic governance principles. The findings of this study suggest that far from being an imported Western mechanism, elections can be justified within the framework of Shia political thought through the adaptation of traditional Islamic doctrines. The future of Islamic governance, particularly in societies that uphold religious principles, depends on how well these theological justifications are integrated into contemporary political structures.