The cabinet members, advisors and top managers of Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be positioned in three categories:
1. Those who are completely loyal to him.
2. Those who endorse him from their principlist (conservative) viewpoint.
3. Technocrats who regardless of the circumstances act as agents.
Yet there are other categories that may embrace the advocates of Mr. Ahmadinejad and those who vote for him, but as they are irrelevant to our discussion here, we overlook them. Also such categorization does not imply that the members of the first and third groups are not principlist or no principlist can be found among them. As a matter of fact, this categorization refers to the origin of each group. For example the criterion of the first group is based on Mr. Ahmadinejad himself. In the other words, their decisive factor is Mr. Ahmadinejad regardless of his ideas or origin. Even if presumably the methods, character and even visions of Mr. Ahmadinejad challenge the ideological frameworks of principlism, they will keep on supporting him with no hesitation.
The second group members are backing Mr. Ahmadinejad since they believe he is loyal to principlism more than others and refer to the explicit and implicit supports of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for Ahmadinejad as their proof. On special circumstances they would have no qualm to express their disapproval of some policies adopted by the president and even they are ready to criticize him publicly.
They have challenged some proposals made by Ahmadinejad and his acts including the presence of women in stadiums as well as ignoring clerics and Maraje' Taqlid (Shiite religious authorities and sources of emulation). Moreover they have opposed the controversial remarks made by one of the president's close allies particularly on the Zionist regime; the scandal over Mr. Kordan's case; accusing the prominent figures of the system, even if they are subjected to criticism from the viewpoint of principlism or supreme leader; the presence of some capitalist ministers in the cabinet; lack of adherence to law and ignoring the ideas of Parliament (Majlis) members; paying no heed to the principle of powers distinction, resisting the operation of Ershad (guidance) Patrol Police, cultural negligence against the opinions of supreme leader and so on.
Meanwhile the position of the third group is clear-cut. They cooperate with all governments without any ideological dependence. Both they and the governments know that their mutual promises are temporary and both seek their own benefits in a win-win game.
It is predicted that the first and third party play a more important role in the forthcoming cabinet and subordinate key organizations or firms, since as Ahmadinejad claims one of the problems faced by him in the ninth cabinet was misgivings and neglects shown by some top managers in accomplishing their duties. Actually these managers were not completely obedient and somehow were related to other power centers in the country, or other parties and notable principlist figures. They are regarded as brakes when Mr. Ahmadinejad is speeding up his operations. Consequently (as we will witness) they either should join the first group members or be replaced by them.
As a propaganda technique, the first and third groups attribute all criticisms of government to Ahmadinejad and further regard them as challenges to Velayat Faqih (the rule of Shiite jurisprudence), but both claims are illogical and condemnable. By employing such a technique and creating tension, the first and third groups try to impress the second group and limit the possibility of their deviation.
Furthermore, the first party tries to introduce Ahmadinejad as equivalent of principlism to unite the wide range of principlists (from the backers of the president to his critics) in the country. It is to lead Ahmadinejad's critics to take one of these instances: to be dissolved in the faction of the presidents' advocates and save the title of principalism out of belief, addiction or fear; or leave their basement, found a new faction out of desperation or courage. In the second case, or they can be delighted by referring to the statement, "truth does not depend on words" and regard themselves as pure and original principlists even while gathered under a new sign.
