Religious scholars and leaders have a view of the social order that they regard as divinely ordained. Often their surety of the righteous path makes them relatively inflexible and, if in power, punitive in enforcing their views. Overall, religious leaders’ views, certainty, and evaluating facts through the prism of their beliefs make them poor worldly decision-makers. History bears it out. Religious states tend to extend their territories and get into conquests and war defeats.
The management of a state’s affairs requires a moral order, which could be religiously inspired, but has to give due regard to empirical facts and prevailing conditions.
Historically, in Muslim countries, there was rarely a rule of religious scholars (Mullahs). Imams Abu Hanifa, Shafi, Hanbal and Ghazali were all kept out of power, and those who attempted to enter statecraft were punished.
Coming to the present times, there are two outstanding examples of Mullahs’ rule, namely Iran and Afghanistan. To give my conclusion first, though evidence will follow, both are failed states in different ways.
Let us examine Iran’s state performance. Iran is a country of 91 million people (2024). It is well endowed with both natural and human resources. It is a major oil producer and has the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves. Its literacy rate is 93% and, as an indication of its population’s modern outlook, its fertility rate is below replacement level now, near 2.0. Women form a majority in universities, despite many restrictions on them. It is a middle-income country with a GNI per capita of US$4,657.
After the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, Imam Khomeini established an Islamic regime headed by Mullahs. Like hard ideological states, the Islamic state internally enforced a stringent social order, which began with strong punishments, including executions, for any deviation from the prescribed behaviours. Imam Khomeini and his successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, have assumed the divine right to rule. With religious justification, they are the final arbiters of national policies. There is a constitutional president and Majlis (parliament), but the candidates for those offices are vetted, and their decisions are subject to the Ayatollahs’ overrule.
Religious leaders’ faith makes them inflexible. They want events to conform to their views, rather than apprehending realities as they evolve
Externally, the Iranian regime aimed to bring neighbours under its Islamic influence. From the eight-year war with Iraq (1980–88) to organising and arming Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and uncompromising dealings with the International Atomic Energy Commission, Iranian policies created animosities and confrontations with Western countries, particularly the US and Israel. The Mullahs’ rule also seeded a sectarian divide in the Middle East by promoting Shi’ism amidst Sunni Arab states.
Ultimately, Iran wasted its resources, and its militia allies were routed by Israel, which also bombed deep into the country and severely damaged its nuclear facilities. Iran’s defeat can only be laid at the door of its ruling Mullahs. Their beliefs and sense of honour prevented them from realistically assessing situations and concentrating on the advancement of their society.
Iranians are leaving the country in droves. The foreign confrontations invited economic sanctions, including on selling oil. The internal challenges of drought, water scarcity, and crowded cities, for example, remain unattended. Tehran, its capital, with a population of 10 million, is about to run out of water.
Iran’s economic decline is reflected in the falling value of its currency, the Rial. Its exchange value in US dollars has declined from $1 equal to 70.6 Rials in 1980 to 42,000 Rials today. It has wasted its plentiful resources on delusions of a divine mission. Yearning for a life of prosperity and personal freedoms is reflected in a current popular song by Shervin Hajipour, asking for a life free of ‘rusted minds’ and ‘empty slogans’.
Afghanistan’s case is an open book of medievalism. It does not have the resources and sophistication of Iran. Its Mullah rule bans female education, and male education opportunities are limited. The emphasis is on religious studies. Mullahs who rule have come out of rural seminaries, and they aim to enforce religious observances. It is a landlocked country, reliant on agriculture and the smuggling of opium. It is getting into fights with its neighbour, Pakistan, on which it is dependent for connections with the world at large. Millions of Afghans migrated as refugees during the long wars with the Soviet Union first, and the US later. Both have withdrawn, maintaining minimal relations. Islamic Jihadis are finding Afghanistan a hospitable place.
So low is the trust of neighbours in the Afghan government that both Iran and Pakistan are forcing back Afghan refugees who had long lived in these countries. Both suspect that Afghan refugees may be used to disrupt their local order.
These two examples demonstrate that religious ideas by themselves are not enough for current states. Not only Mullah-ruled, but also other religious leader-guided states have fared poorly. Saudi Arabia, before the current reformist ruler, Mohammad Bin Salman, is an example. Pakistan has not been ruled by Mullahs, but their influence and power to arouse mobs have inhibited its social advancement. The accusation of blasphemy has become an instrument of arousing mobs to attack minorities and any progressive Islamic scholars. Most of the latter have eventually had to leave the country, being branded as heretics.
These few examples from Muslim countries show how religious leaders’ rule brings intolerance and socio-economic backwardness.
Religious leaders’ faith makes them inflexible. They want events to conform to their views, rather than apprehending realities as they evolve. Modern societies need leaders who are in touch with the changing needs of people and can respond to them.