Paper short abstract:

This paper contrasts concern with 'post-truth' politics in Western democratic systems with the importance of 'truth' in Iran's hybrid theocratic-democracy. I argue that even in this authoritarian polity, 'truthful' politics, so perceived, remains an indispensable quality of state legitimacy.

Paper long abstract:

Neither socialist nor liberal, Iran's hybrid demo-theocratic system is rarely held as a beacon of transparency or honesty in politics, and even less frequently included in discussions of 'post-truth politics'. A qualifier rather of Western democracies, swaying unsteadily against the winds of right-wing populism, the loss of the criterion of 'truth' in politics provides a seemingly potent opportunity to undermine the foundations of government of and by the people. Yet as we grapple with the emergence and ramifications of a supposedly Western democratic system in which the criterion of 'truth' in politics no longer matters, the Iranian public's concern for and expectation of veracity in political statements and the truthfulness of their leaders provides a confounding counterpoint. In Iran, the acolytes of Khomeini's 'Guardianship of Islamic Jurisprudence', itching for an 'absolute guardianship', are more than comfortable admitting that the norms of Western democratic politics - mass participation, a free and inquisitive press, etc. - are well and good, so long as they do not get in the way of divine dictate (hokme-khoda). What happens, then, when the unfettered rule of the Supreme Leader clashes with Iranians' commitment to truthful, if not democratic, rule? This presentation takes a contrastive study, exploring the dynamics of truth, falsehood, and the legitimacy of governance, in two Islamist families in Mashhad, the second largest of Iran's cities. In my address, I consider the necessity of democracy in a truthful polity, the necessity of truth in a democratic polity, and the redemptive potential of incredulity.