The legitimacy of the Islamic government

We are considering this issue that based on which criteria the power of government is granted to some people and systems so they can use this power legally?
This debate is one of the important debates on the philosophy of policy that has been analyzed in different ways and according to various schools that exist in the political philosophy and this debate has been mentioned with different terms.
Including the phrase "social power" that fit in the concept of secular power. This means that except for material and physical strength and power of management, the officials should have with another power that is called "social power". The question now is from where the government takes the "social power", legitimacy and tenure of the government and law enforcement. Based on which criteria one takes this right that is a fundamental characteristic in the top of the pyramid of power? In a country of 60 million educated, skilled and qualified people, how does only one person remain at the top of the pyramid of power? Who has given this power to him? Basically, what are the criteria for the legitimacy of government, officers and government officials? Different political and legal schools have answered to this question differently, but the answer that is most common in the culture today is that people have granted this power to government and president.
This power is only transferred through the will of the people to the individual and other routes of power transmission are not legal. It is impossible that one receives this power as a heir from his father as in the royal regimes they believe the power and government are hereditary and when the king dies his power will be transferred to his son and people play no role in it and they believe that his son would be the best and most qualified person to manage government. This idea is common in some countries today but the culture of world does not accept this system and this theory is not acceptable for people and it is not true that if someone is appropriate for government ruling so his son would be the best governor after him.
In fact, in those countries, only the name of the Sultan or the King has been remained and true power is taken away from him. And the power has been transferred to someone like prime minister who has been selected by people.
So in the public believe and common democracy system in this era one is capable of government ruling and achieving the executive power who is elected by people and this is the only way of his legitimacy. Of course the ways and criteria upon them people choose some someone are different and there are various forms for this important issue in different countries: in some countries the head of government is chosen through parties and the elected agents of people and in fact these parties and agents of parliament play the role of middlemen between people and head of government. However when one was directly or indirectly elected by the majority of people, the power of government has been granted to him and so he is the most supreme executive person who takes the guidance of society.
Of course granting the government power to president by people is not a physical issue that people separate something from them and give it to him or it creates an extraordinary power and energy in his body. This rule is an immaterial power that comes with the deal of people to governor, so people undertake that in the temporary periods of 2, 4, 7 or even for lifelong and based on the law accepted in different systems and countries people obey their elected king.
Given this, the government and law executor take their power from people and if people do not agree with him, he will not succeed. There are different reasons for this idea and theory that some have philosophical aspect and some have anthropological aspect and some have only contractual aspect or they are based on tangible experiences, namely after experiencing and observing different forms of government, they recognized this form of government as the most efficient and complete manner.
We should pay attention that considering the way of granting the power by people to one who is selected needs a detailed debate and we will consider in in the future God willing.
But we mention briefly that after the establishment of a legal government, people must obey and follow the rules of the executive branch and accept them and agree with them. Before that this would be mentioned in schools and other communities, it has been accepted in the Islamic system. The issue of share of people and the election of officials by them and the public agreement on this issue has been mentioned in the Islamic society due to its theory aspect and this method has been practically applied. The idea that one imposes his power based on hereditary monarchy or by force is not only practically doomed to failure, but also it is condemned by Islam. So the question is that from the perspective of Islam whether the acceptance of people is enough for the legitimacy of a government and according to law can we say what is done in the form of an Islamic government by is legal just because people agree with this kind of government?
In other words, the legitimacy of government is achieved in the shade of people acceptance and when people who accepted and voted for him, his government will be legitimate. It is the same idea of democracy that is generally accepted in today's world. The question now is whether Islam accepts exactly the same view?
The difference between Islam's approaches to legitimacy with liberal societies'
After that we accepted based on Islamic idea, the governor should be accepted by people and without the cooperation of people the Islamic government lacks the executive power and cannot implement the Islamic provisions, the question is that whether the legal criteria and legitimacy of government is the vote of people or other factor should be attached? In other words, whether the adoption of government by people is the necessary and sufficient condition for the legality of the government or a prerequisite condition for the realization of its objective?
In reply we should say what is mentioned in the theory of Velayat e Faqih and separates it from other kinds of democrat governments that are accepted in the world includes the fact that the criteria for legitimacy and legality of a government is not the idea of people but the vote of people is like the framework and the permission of God constitute the legitimacy of government and this is rooted in the beliefs of the people and the attitude of a Muslim toward universe.
The explanation is that a Muslim knows the world as the kingdom of God and he believes that all people are servants of God and there is no difference among all people and all have equal rights as the holy prophet of Islam peace upon him says:
“Believers are like jags of a comb, they benefit equal and mutual rights.”
After all, there is no doubt that all people are the servants of God and all are the same and there are no distinctions in that direction, whether the humanity of human beings is equal and no one is superior than the others. Black and white, men and women all are equal in the principle of humanity. How and based on what criteria he will have the power to rule over others? The philosophy is that the executive branch should use force when necessary to catch and stop offending. If no judicial branch exists and government could invite people to act upon law just by advice, so there was no need to executive branch and the teachers and scholars of ethic were enough.
If someone offended someone else's property and honor, he should be arrested and imprisoned or punished in other ways.
There is no doubt that the punishments that are common in today’s world and Islam has appointed some of them to criminals whose most famous forms are imprisoning the criminal, limits the freedom of human. When someone is forcibly held in a room whose door is closed, the most basic freedom has been denied from him. The question is that on what criteria and what right can one take the liberty of a criminal? Certainly taking the freedom and legitimate rights of offenders should be based on law enforcement. It is true that the criminal should be punished, but why a particular person should be in charge of it and not the others. Assigning specific people to enforce the law and the legitimacy of their behavior should be endowed with reason and evidence. Because their behavior is somehow like the occupation of an owner: one who imprisons the criminal, occupies his body and does not let him wherever he wants to go, as an owner who punishes his slave. Because encountering with the criminals and offenders means taking their freedom and their legal rights, in the Islamic insight the criterion for the legitimacy of executive branch is something except the vote of people.
The criterion for the legitimacy is the permission of Allah, because human beings are all servants of God, and God should let others seize even his criminal servants, even slaves. Everyone, even criminals have the freedom and this freedom is a divine blessing that has been granted to every human being and no one has the right to deprive others of their freedom. Only one has the right to take the liberty of people and even the criminals and he is God.
Thus, in the Islamic vision and approach, in addition to all criteria that are considered essential in all human and rational systems, for the formation of the executive branch and essentially the government, additional criteria is required that is rooted in the beliefs and teachings of Islam. Based on our belief, God is the owner of all human beings. Such a belief requires that taking God's creatures should be done by Allah's permission. On the other hand, the laws determine the frameworks of good behavior of people and they also limit the freedom but they cannot be executed by themselves and a system is required to implement them so the government and executive branch should be shaped by the forcible branch and there is no doubt that the government and executive branch cannot be settled down without the forcible power of God and limiting the freedom of people and it was mentioned that no one can limit the freedom of people even the criminals without the permission of God. Only by God's authority, power can be delegated to others because God owns humans and he can allow the government to capture His creatures.
The privilege of theory of velayat-e Faqih has been mentioned based on the views expressed in the philosophy of politics and in the government is due to the theory that is rooted from the monotheism and Islamic beliefs. In this theory, the government and the occupation of the people must be based on God's permission. On the contrary, the belief that regulatory capture in behavior and freedoms of others do not need God's permission is somehow considered as polytheism. Namely if the person in charge of executing the law believes that he can occupy the freedom of people without the permission of God in fact he claims that as God has the right to occupy people, he has the right to occupy people too and this is polytheism. Of course it is a weak polytheism that is derived from lack of thinking and it results in sin. How one can consider himself like God? People are servants of God and their possession is upon God. According to this theory, the legitimacy of the government is based on the permission of God and the acceptance of government by people's vote is a condition for the achievement of government.