عنوان مقاله [English]
Democratic systems are based on different conditions and contexts , It is impossible to imagine such a system without them. Like these fields, there are conditions for a healthy competition between the parties and the various candidates for the elected office of the country. Including conditions for healthy and democratic competition, the availability of the principle of equality of persons with access to government offices and people's equal right to self-determination and the principle of non-discrimination are inadequate. In election law, the required conditions of how to nominate a candidate in an election and the category of "candidates for elections "is one of the most important issues in electoral systems. This situation reflects the importance of the issue of the conditions of candidates. Looking at the electoral system in parliament of Islamic Republic of Iran and the Wolesi Jirga of Afghanistan indicates that the legislator of both countries has predicted some conditions for the parliamentary elections. Constitutional Law of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, has identified being elected alongside the right to vote as a fundamental right for the citizens of Afghanistan (Article 33) But this right is an absolute right, Rather, it is bound by conditions. Similarly in Iranian constitutional law, the administration of state affairs is based on public will Which is done through elections: the Majlis and so on (Article 6) Hence the various principles of the constitution as well as numerous Acts and regulations has dealt with the issue of elections and Have specified the process of conducting the elections.
This paper, from a comparative perspective and using the analytical–descriptive method, has tried highlighting while examining the similarities and differences between parliamentary elections: parliament of Islamic republic of Iran and the Wolesi Jirga of Afghanistan, Major damages caused by the electoral system of the Wolesi Jirga and the Islamic Consultative Assembly. At the end, it has been concluded that: first, Iran's electoral system about candidate has determined at the same time, the "objective" conditions, such as: age condition and the "subjective" conditions, such as: belief in Islam. But the Wolesi Jirga electoral system has followed "objective" terms. In this respect, the "right to vote" is more complex in Iran's electoral system. Second, Legal system of Iran by identifying the condition of having a degree of education is leading of the electoral system in Afghanistan. In return, Afghanistan's Wolesi Jirga electoral system with prediction clause: "Payment of a specified amount and approval of a thousand people” for the candidates has prevented from imposing a futile expense to “bite- almale” and from this point of view the electoral system of Afghanistan is far ahead of Iran's electoral system. Third, the two systems have common borders in terms of citizenship, age and non - criminal record. In other words, Afghan and Iranian lawmakers have followed a common path with few differences. However, the Iranian legislator seems to be tightening up. Fourth, though both institutions: the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran and the Afghan Parliament, have the electoral system and so they have the character of a "republican" system” but it must be acknowledged that they are far from reaching the desired point in the electoral system. Fifth; to reach and consolidate the gates of democracy, we have to accept democratic norms and in that sense, both legal systems: Afghanistan and Iran, have to accept the demands of democracy Otherwise, the space for reconciling indigenous values with new and emerging values will continue to refuse.