The Nature of Governance with a Focus on Mahdist Governance

In line with political thought, doctrinal paradigms, social customs and norms, worldview and ideology, as well as the types of political and cultural systems and the civilizational and historical backgrounds of each society and nation, the distribution of power and the implementation of policy, which is collectively termed governance, are determined. Governance is a modern, high-frequency concept with a constructivist, multidimensional nature. As a soft, expansive, and widely embraced technology, it is prominently featured in various educational and research centers and institutes. In this paper, governance is defined as the systematic process of steering, guiding, facilitating, and regulating society from origin (policy-making) to destination (objectives), based
on collective decisions and public participation. Mahdist governance is one of the constrained forms of governance, distinguished from others by the Mahdist qualifier. Mahdist governance is described as an Islamic governance model structured around the doctrine of Mahdism, dedicated to guiding and leading society and its citizens toward excellence and perfection in both material and spiritual dimensions. Mahdist governance is divided into two categories: Transcendent Mahdist Governance and Governance of walī al-faqīh (jurist guardian). In other words, Mahdist governance is characterized
by two approaches: general and specific. In the general (broader) sense, Mahdist governance refers to absolute Mahdist governance without specifying those accepting the guardianship. In the specific (narrower) sense, the definition includes the designation of those accepting the guardianship. Accordingly, general Mahdist governance is an Islamic governance model structured around the doctrine of Mahdism, aimed at guiding society and citizens toward material and spiritual excellence and perfection. This definition encompasses governance under the direct sovereignty of Imam al-Mahdi and governance under the sovereignty of Imam al-Mahdi’s successors, at the forefront of whom stands the jurist guardian. Specific Mahdist governance stands in contrast to the general form. The fundamental distinction lies in the fact that the specific governance focuses on the differences and exclusive features between transcendent Mahdist governance and governance of the jurist guardian, such as distinctions between ruled and rulers, and unique characteristics exclusive to each. In contrast, the general governance emphasizes the commonalities and overlaps between the two, such as their shared origin in the doctrine of Mahdism, their role in elevating and perfecting individuals and society, and so on. Both forms of governance originate from and are structured around the doctrine of Mahdism. The first is administrated under the direct sovereignty of Imam al-Mahdi, and the second under the sovereignty of his successors. In this paper, the research method is qualitative. Data collection is conducted through documentary and library-based methods, while data processing is carried out using descriptive and analytical approaches. Governance has to do with various topics, including the foundations and principles of governance, the role and functions of governance, the scope and domain of governance, the pillars and fundamentals of governance, the style and method of governance, the purpose and ultimate aim of governance, the criteria and standards of governance, the types and categories of governance, the nature and dimensions of the ruler and ruled. One of the most important discussions in governance is the nature and definition of governance, which is addressed under the framework of ontology and conceptualization. This paper undertakes the task of elucidating and justifying this aspect. Undoubtedly, governance, in the sense of steering and guidance, has become a highly frequent and widely discussed concept in the contemporary era. It is the subject of debate, dialogue, research, and investigation by scholars and intellectual elites across various disciplines and academic domains in diverse scientific centers and institutes. It should be noted that every subject and concept is generally examined through two approaches: conceptual and affirmative; that is, through conceptual and theoretical lenses. The general concept of governance and the specific concept of Mahdist governance are no exception to this rule. To identify and introduce them, it is necessary to conceptualize it through a study of its nature and essence. In conclusion, it is generally stated that the study of concepts (here, the concept of governance is intended, with emphasis on the concept of Mahdist governance) can be divided into two types: literal and terminological. Terminological conceptualization can in turn be divided into two types: simple and compound. The compound concept—also referred to as a construct or multidimensional concept—varies into essential and accidental conceptualization. Essential conceptualization itself is divided into complete definition and incomplete definition, while accidental conceptualization is divided into particular accident (referred to as complete description) and general accident (referred to as incomplete description). Incomplete description varies into types such as definition by method, definition by purpose, definition by problems, definition by analogy, and so forth.