تأملی بر رویکرد تفسیری شورای نگهبان در پرتو نظریه‌های هرمنوتیک

The quest for meaning in various texts lies at the heart of hermeneutics, the study of interpretation. This pursuit of understanding transcends mere words, aiming to bridge the gap between a text and its intended audience across time, culture, and personal perspectives. Nowhere is a consistent and well-defined interpretive approach more crucial than in the legal realm, where the interpretation of foundational documents like constitutions carries significant weight. This paper examines the interpretive approach employed by the Guardian Council in Iran for interpreting the nation's constitution. By analyzing the Council's practices through the lens of hermeneutical theories, this work seeks to illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of their approach and suggest potential avenues for improvement.
The Iranian constitution, like its counterparts around the world, occupies a position of paramount importance within the legal hierarchy. It serves as the bedrock upon which all other laws are built, and its interpretation carries the weight of shaping the nation's legal landscape. A consistent and well-defined interpretive approach is therefore paramount to ensure clarity, fairness, and the upholding of the constitution's original intent.
Here, hermeneutics comes to the fore. By offering frameworks for understanding texts, hermeneutics provides valuable tools for navigating the complexities of constitutional interpretation. Different schools of hermeneutical thought, each with its own emphasis, offer diverse perspectives on how to approach the task of interpreting a text. Understanding these schools is crucial for evaluating the Guardian Council's interpretive practices. Traditionally, hermeneutics has been understood as operating within a triangular framework comprised of the author, the text, and the interpreter. The author-centered approach prioritizes the original intent of the text's creator. The text-centered approach focuses on the inherent meaning within the text itself, independent of the author's intentions. Finally, the interpreter-centered approach emphasizes the role of the interpreter's background, experiences, and biases in shaping their understanding of the text.
The Guardian Council, in its official pronouncements, declares its interpretive approach to be centered on the "intent of the legislator" (the constitution's framers). This suggests an adherence to the author-centered model of hermeneutics. However, the Council's methodology in practice reveals a more nuanced picture.One aspect of the Council's approach aligns with objectivist hermeneutics, a branch of the author-centered school. Objectivist hermeneutics emphasizes the importance of understanding the text within its historical context and the original intent of its creators. The Council's reliance on references to the law-making process demonstrates a partial commitment to this principle.
However, the Council's practices often deviate from a purely objectivist approach. In some instances, the Council resorts to literal interpretations, focusing solely on the plain meaning of the words in the constitution. While this approach can be useful for achieving clarity, it can also lead to rigidity and fail to capture the nuances of the text's meaning in its broader context.
More concerning are instances where the Council goes beyond literal interpretations. Such extra-literal interpretations, while potentially motivated by a desire to adapt the constitution to changing circumstances, can stray from the spirit of the document and the intent of its framers. This inconsistency in the Council's approach can generate confusion and inconsistencies in the legal system.
The Council's use of extra-literal interpretations, particularly when it deviates from the text's spirit and authorial intent, suggests a potential shift towards a fusion of meaning horizons. This concept, associated with philosophical hermeneutics, highlights the interaction between the interpreter's understanding and the meaning inherent within the text. While valuable in some contexts, a fusion approach can lead to interpretations heavily influenced by the interpreter's own biases and agendas, potentially undermining the objectivity of the legal process.
Furthermore, the Council's interpretive pronouncements often lack clear justifications for their rulings. This opacity makes it difficult to discern a consistent interpretive approach and raises concerns about accountability. Without clear explanations of the rationale behind their interpretations, the Council risks accusations of arbitrariness and undermines public confidence in the legal system.
Despite aiming for the "intent of the legislator" and often employing elements of objectivist hermeneutics, the Guardian Council's approach falls short of fully embracing the strengths of this school. To achieve more consistent and well-founded interpretations, the Council could benefit from a more thorough application of objectivist hermeneutics.
One crucial element is the hermeneutical circle, a concept that emphasizes the cyclical nature of interpretation. The interpreter begins with a preliminary understanding of the text, which is then refined through a deeper analysis of its historical context, authorial intent, and the language used. This analysis, in turn, informs a more nuanced understanding of the text, leading back to a potential reinterpretation. By engaging in this iterative process, the Council can arrive at interpretations that are more grounded in the text's original meaning and historical context.
Another important aspect of objectivist hermeneutics is the consideration of both grammatical and technical (psychological) interpretations. Grammatical interpretation focuses on the literal meaning of the words within the text. Technical interpretation, on the other hand, delves deeper, considering the underlying social, political, and cultural context in which the text was created. By employing both methods, the Council can achieve a more holistic understanding of the constitution's intended meaning.
Furthermore, objectivist hermeneutics emphasizes the importance of attempting to reconstruct the author's perspective. This involves delving into the debates and discussions surrounding the constitution's creation to gain a deeper understanding of the framers' intentions and the reasoning behind specific clauses. By incorporating this element into their interpretive process, the Council can ensure their interpretations remain faithful to the spirit of the constitution.
By embracing the full framework of objectivist hermeneutics, the Guardian Council can navigate the space between "interpretive reality" and "interpretive truth." Interpretive reality refers to the initial understanding of the text based on the interpreter's background and current context. Interpretive truth, on the other hand, strives to arrive at an understanding that is as close as possible to the original meaning intended by the authors.
While the interpreter's perspective can never be entirely erased, a well-developed objectivist approach can minimize the influence of personal biases and agendas. By employing the hermeneutical circle, engaging in both grammatical and technical interpretations, and attempting to reconstruct the author's perspective, the Council can move closer to achieving interpretive truth. This, in turn, will lead to more consistent, well-founded, and ultimately, more meaningful interpretations of the Iranian constitution.
The interpretation of the Iranian constitution plays a critical role in shaping the nation's legal landscape. Examining the Guardian Council's interpretive approach through the lens of hermeneutics reveals both strengths and weaknesses. While the Council demonstrates a partial commitment to objectivist hermeneutics, inconsistencies and a lack of transparency remain areas for improvement. By embracing the full potential of objectivist hermeneutics, the Council can achieve a more robust and well-defined interpretive framework, ensuring that the Iranian constitution's meaning remains clear, consistent, and true to the original intent of its framers. This, in turn, will contribute to a more stable and predictable legal environment for all citizens of Iran.