The Universal House of Justice
Kindly convey the following to ….
The Universal House of Justice received on 2 March 2024, through one of the believers, your letter raising a number of questions about its election. We have been asked to reply as follows.
The House of Justice understands that your questions have arisen from the attacks of some who have malicious intent towards the Faith—attacks which you are concerned may sow seeds of doubt in the minds of others. Naturally, those who seek from every perspective to attack the Faith have no interest in the truth; no explanation will ever satisfy them, and any statement will be seized upon as the basis for further attacks and misrepresentations. For this reason, the friends have always been advised to avoid becoming ensnared in contentious debates with such individuals. At the same time, scepticism about governing entities and institutions has also become commonplace in many societies, prompting questions regarding the way that elections are conducted. For the sake of fair-minded persons who may ask about such matters, the comments below are offered for consideration.
The various electoral systems that have been developed in different countries for managing the process of determining who is to wield power display features that reflect the core values of each system. Many nations strive to make a fair competition for power the basis of their electoral system; even authoritarian regimes often like to give the impression that their elections are characterized by free and fair competition, however far this may be from reality. In the context of a political system of elections, the values of freedom and fairness are intended to preserve the competition among contending political interests that is the system’s defining characteristic and to guard this feature from the exercise of unwarranted control by those in power. However, competition and control are both anathema to the process of Bahá’í elections; indeed, any sense that an individual is seeking to gain or retain elected office would be seen by mature Bahá’í voters as conduct entirely contrary to the spirit of the Cause which would render that person unqualified to serve. To assess the Bahá’í electoral process in light of features that are alien and antithetical to its nature—even features that might be viewed as admirable in political elections—is to misunderstand and distort its essential aims and constitution.
The purpose of the Bahá’í Faith is to create lasting unity among diverse peoples. Unity is both its end and means. It should be unsurprising, then, that the Bahá’í electoral process, which is based upon spiritual values, is attuned to the manner in which Bahá’í elected institutions are to conduct their affairs. Bahá’í institutions are not made up of contending factions of members with competing platforms; they rely on a process of consultation—the collective search for truth—in which a range of views are shared, and although they may initially differ, those views give rise to a consensus that represents the decision of the institution as a body. Similarly, the Bahá’í electoral process is entirely above factionalism and competition. There are no nominations, there is no campaigning, the election itself is carried out in a rarefied and prayerful environment, and the electors are free to choose whomsoever they deem most qualified to serve. An opportunity for consultation on community affairs occurs alongside the election process in local election gatherings, unit conventions, National Conventions, and even at the International Bahá’í Convention, but ideas that arise during consultation are not the property of those who voice them; they are shared as a contribution to a collective process of search for solutions, rather than in factional competition with other ideas. Those who are elected to an institution would consider any ideas that are put forward dispassionately and assess their merit in light of relevant principles.
The qualifications of those who are to be elected to take responsibility for the administrative affairs of the community are found in passages from the writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi. Those who are elected should be those considered by the electors to be the most worthy for this service; however, this does not and cannot mean that all those who are worthy will be chosen. After all, in most instances, the number of individuals worthy to serve on any elected body is much larger than the few who are ultimately elected. The electors are to approach the task of participating in a Bahá’í election “in unity and amity, turning their hearts to God, detached from all things but Him, seeking His guidance and supplicating His aid and bounty.” Following prolonged and prayerful consideration, each has the right and responsibility to vote for whomsoever he or she finds to be most suitable from among all those eligible. “By emphasizing the necessity of maintaining his full freedom in the elections,” a letter written on behalf of the Guardian states, Bahá’í electoral procedures “make it incumbent upon him to become an active and well-informed member of the Bahá’í community”.
The House of Justice has previously stated that “election to an Assembly, from a Bahá’í point of view, is not a right that people are entitled to, or an honour to which they should aspire; it is a duty and responsibility to which they may be called.” Electoral office is not an indicator of spiritual station. As the Guardian has explained, “membership in an Assembly or committee is a form of service”, and it should not be looked upon “as a mark of inherent superiority or a means for self-praise”. The service rendered by those elected to administrative positions is carried out without any thought of personal benefit, and it is not sullied by considerations of worldly gain; it is directed towards the progress of the Cause and the betterment of the world. Believers who serve at any level of the administration do not have a “mandate” to implement particular policies or personal preferences as is the case in political elections. On the contrary, as Shoghi Effendi explains, “The members of these Assemblies, on their part, must disregard utterly their own likes and dislikes, their personal interests and inclinations, and concentrate their minds upon those measures that will conduce to the welfare and happiness of the Bahá’í Community and promote the common weal.”
These are among the predominant characteristics of the Bahá’í electoral process at this time. In the future, circumstances may change, leading to certain adjustments in electoral procedures; an example is the recent adoption in a number of large local communities of a two-stage election process, similar to the arrangements that were previously implemented in Ṭihrán on the instruction of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. However, the spiritual nature of the election and the aim of unity will always remain.
The election of the Universal House of Justice is a process in which the entire global community comes together in a visible recommitment to the Covenant. In accordance with the system set out by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the friends at the grassroots throughout the world elect their delegates, these delegates elect their National Assemblies, and those elected members of the National Assemblies then become the delegates at the International Convention who elect the members of the Universal House of Justice. Before the year 2000, those elected to the House of Justice were drawn from active service in a range of areas at the time of their election, including on the International Bahá’í Council, National Spiritual Assemblies, the Continental Boards of Counsellors, the International Teaching Centre, and even as staff of the Bahá’í World Centre. Those elected since 2000 had been serving as members of the International Teaching Centre at the time of their election, having previously served in other capacities. Whatever the pattern of election results might be in the future, the result will continue to depend solely upon the collective choice of the delegates and their freedom to vote as their consciences dictate.
In the course of his or her duties, each member of the International Teaching Centre visits various countries and regions; these visits sometimes include interactions with National Assemblies or their members. Individuals serving on other institutions and agencies whose responsibilities are global, continental, regional, or national in character are also required to travel to different countries from time to time and also interact with the members of National Assemblies. None of this alters the fact that, in every instance, the election of members of the House of Justice is the outcome of the exercise of the unrestricted choice of the delegates, who each bear the responsibility before God to vote for those they sincerely believe best combine the characteristics and qualities required for membership of the House of Justice. The House of Justice has not suggested that the members of any particular institution or agency exemplify those qualities better than individuals serving in any other capacity.
The foregoing comments are offered in response to the general points raised in your letter; some of your other questions, dealing with very specific issues, will be addressed briefly. With respect to the programme when delegates arrive in the Holy Land for the purpose of attending an International Convention, the members of institutions that are based at the World Centre do not interact with the delegates before the election. Concerning the messages of the House of Justice addressed to the Bahá’í world, there is nothing in these that could be construed as an attempt to influence the electors’ unrestricted choice; in any case, it may interest you to know that the release of the Riḍván message of the House of Justice occurs after the balloting process has already concluded. Regarding individuals being re-elected in successive elections, the matter of whether to vote for existing members of the House of Justice is one that is left to individual delegates to decide after having considered all the relevant factors in the privacy of their own conscience.
In another question you enquire about aspects of the election of the House of Justice which you state are challenging to explain to non-Bahá’ís. The points set out above, it is anticipated, will be of some assistance in this regard. In asking this question, you may also have had in mind the fact that the membership of the House of Justice is confined to men, as this point often arises in such discussions. This issue has been explored in depth in previous letters written on behalf of the House of Justice—in particular, you may wish to review a letter dated 22 December 2013 sent in response to an individual who had asked about this topic. A copy is enclosed.
It is hoped that the information provided here will assist you to address any questions that arise from the fair minded and to dispel the distortions of the malicious. Be assured of the prayers of the House of Justice in the Holy Shrines that your efforts in the path of service may be abundantly confirmed.