Note: Dr. Naser Elahi has been engaged in teaching and researching economics for over three decades. This faculty member of the Economics Department at Mofid University, while completing advanced seminary studies at the level of external lessons, pursued higher education up to a doctorate in economics and obtained a post-doctorate in “Ethics and Economics” from the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. The associate professor of the Economics Department at Mofid University, regarding the experiences of other countries in people-based economics, believes that no country has a truly free and people-based economy because there is no free democracy in the world. However, he considers people-based governance the only path to economic elevation. The full text of the exclusive interview of Contemporary Jurisprudence with this veteran professor and researcher of economics is as follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is people-based economics fundamentally desirable, or does it, in addition to its benefits, also entail drawbacks?

Elahi: In people-based economics, before discussing desirability or the benefits arising from it, the issue of prerequisites must be addressed. People-based economics requires certain conditions, and without clarifying these conditions, one cannot speak precisely about it.

Since the emergence of economics, the approach was that all people participate in the economy and engage in exchanges among themselves; hence, self-sufficiency and self-reliance were of great importance. For example, the pride of nomads was that they provided all their needs themselves. Through animal husbandry, they prepared their clothing, housing, and food, and it was considered shameful for them to demand their needs from others. However, the science of economics states the opposite. From this perspective, relationships must be formed, and division of labor must take place. Division of labor leads to the creation of specialization, and specialization requires exchange, resulting in the emergence of the market. The market, as an institution, can align all conflicting and contradictory desires. In other words, the market creates a vector whose outcome is the public interest; therefore, individuals must be left free to take their share from this market.

This matter has intensified in the Western world day by day, to the point that figures like Menger emerged. Menger believed we must move beyond the objectivity of the Scottish era; because reality exists objectively, and we are all influenced by one reality, our perceptions are all objective, and each person sees reality through their own mindset, having their own understanding, interpretation, and perception of it. Hence, there is no such thing as absolute; everything is relative. According to this view, perceptions become plural, and we must allow everyone to say, “This is how I understand it,” and the truth is not in the hands of any single person but in the hands of everyone.

Then the Austrian School emerged, stating that if you want to do this, it requires entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs, based on their insight and understanding of matters and the way they think, feel they can go beyond this and create something else. Now, if the environment is one where individuals have conviction, consider a role for themselves, and to the same extent consider a role for others, believing that we must think together, this collaboration creates the market mindset. The foundation of the market mindset is precisely this pursuit of understanding one another. If the social environment allows for collaboration and free thinking, and individuals can express their various interpretations of issues, in fact, a new interaction is created, which, of course, has its own specific prerequisites.

These prerequisites can be both positive and negative. For example, in the institutionalist school, an entrepreneur must have the power of creative destruction, meaning they can build and destroy to rebuild in a different form. Meanwhile, people-based economics means allowing different thoughts and beliefs to express opinions and creating a space for diverse ideas to flourish.

In conclusion, in my view, if a society is to reach perfection, this perfection is achieved through people-based governance, not through monopoly, individualism, or guardianship in the sense that one entity decides for all. Ms. Ostrom has also proposed polycentric governance, meaning that it should not be the case that one entity decides for everyone; rather, all stakeholders must be involved in decision-making. A people-based economy in this sense is not only highly desirable but also leads to the elevation and perfection of society.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Has the type of political system in countries influenced the people-based economics in those countries?

Elahi: The answer is both yes and no! Many countries adopt the posture of being people-based, but in reality, they act differently. The key to the economy lies in five things, all of which are monopolized by specific lobbies and capitalists, such as media and military armaments. In my view, in none of the existing systems, even those claiming complete democracy, do we have true people-based governance. Even in the most progressive democratic systems, when someone speaks about the Holocaust—whether it existed or not—they are censored or even eradicated from existence. If even a single instance of monopoly occurs in a people-based system, its people-based concept is lost. Therefore, the point is that a fully people-based political system does not exist, and thus, this question cannot be answered.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What role (positive or negative) have religious institutions, jurisprudence, and the law of religions and faiths in other countries played in people-based economics in those countries?

Elahi: In our jurisprudential system, we believe that there is no closure to ijtihad, and the door to knowledge and scholarship is always open. Based on this view, a jurist can freely express their views based on the Quran and Sunnah without the need for censorship. In countries where this has truly been implemented and religious scholars have freely expressed their opinions, their views have influenced people-based economics. However, in countries that have not allowed this, scholars of religions and faiths have not been able to contribute theoretically to people-based economics.