Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 97
existence today are followers of a claimant to the Guardianship after Shoghi Effendi‘s death,
Charles Mason Remey, and are split into several groups, each led by a different Remeyite
successor.10
The administration now consists of both elected and appointed officials. Local affairs are
governed by nine-member Local Spiritual Assemblies. Countries are divided up into
electoral units, where delegates are elected, which in turn elect the National Spiritual
Assemblies (NSA). The members of the world‘s NSAs function as delegates every five years
for the election of the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) in Haifa, Israel. This supreme
governing body is regarded by Baha‘is as infallible. While the meaning and scope of this
infallibility is a matter of much debate in intellectual circles, the UHJ is popularly perceived
as incapable of making any wrong decision.
The ideological spectrum within the Faith that runs from liberal to extreme fundamentalism
largely centers around attitudes toward the House of Justice and its infallibility. Liberals
point to scriptural limits on its authority, especially the fact that it was intended as a
legislative body without license to interpret or impose orthodoxy. 11 Fundamentalists regard
it as being completely and unquestionably infallible in all its statements and decisions. Most
mainstream Baha‘is can be fairly described as conservative in this respect and will generally
deny that any ideological differences exist at all. In online discussions, fundamentalists can
be provoked into a rage at the mere mention of the terms ―liberal‖ and ―conservative‖ in
connection with Baha‘is since this seems to belie the religion‘s unity. Besides being the
common position of most mainstream Baha‘is, the conservative view also prevails in the
administration, so that liberals are at risk of being investigated and/or sanctioned if they
become too vocal.
Baha‘is often describe their system of elected governing bodies as being more democratic
than those prevalent in the wider society, since voters may choose any member in good
standing. However, the election practices outlined by Shoghi Effendi prohibit campaigning
of any kind, and assembly decisions are presented as unified without recording dissenting
votes, so that it is impossible to know which policies any individual candidate supports. With
so little information as a basis for decision, a Baha‘i votes primarily on reputation and name
recognition rather than on any particular issue or agenda. This, of course, gives incumbents
a tremendous advantage, and suggestions have been made that current office-holders
deliberately control who becomes visible enough within the community to become elected
on the national level.12 The ban on campaigning also inhibits any formation of reform
movements from the grassroots. Even though they are elected bodies, Baha‘i institutions
are not considered to be accountable to the electorate, but only to God.
The appointed officials in Baha‘i governance consist of the Continental Board of Counsellors,
chosen by the UHJ. They, in turn, choose, Auxiliary Board Members (ABMs), who appoint
local Assistants. In theory, none of these are supposed to have any independent authority,
but act at the behest of the elected bodies. However, these officials are responsible for the
―propagation and protection‖ of the Faith, and the ―protection‖ aspect includes keeping a
watchful eye out for any signs of covenant-breaking. Since the reports they make to the
NSA or UHJ are often the basis for decisions to sanction members, they wield considerable
power.13
Disillusionment with Baha’i Life
The Baha‘i Faith in the U.S. claims to have 140,000 members, but it is axiomatic among
Baha‘is that half of these on the rolls are permanently inactive and have lost contact with
the community. The inactivity rate may well be higher one independent poll estimated the
number of Americans identifying themselves as Baha‘is to be only 28,000.14 There has, until
now, been a remarkable lack of concern about these many disillusioned. The common
attitude towards the complaints raised by former members is that their inability to conform
existence today are followers of a claimant to the Guardianship after Shoghi Effendi‘s death,
Charles Mason Remey, and are split into several groups, each led by a different Remeyite
successor.10
The administration now consists of both elected and appointed officials. Local affairs are
governed by nine-member Local Spiritual Assemblies. Countries are divided up into
electoral units, where delegates are elected, which in turn elect the National Spiritual
Assemblies (NSA). The members of the world‘s NSAs function as delegates every five years
for the election of the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) in Haifa, Israel. This supreme
governing body is regarded by Baha‘is as infallible. While the meaning and scope of this
infallibility is a matter of much debate in intellectual circles, the UHJ is popularly perceived
as incapable of making any wrong decision.
The ideological spectrum within the Faith that runs from liberal to extreme fundamentalism
largely centers around attitudes toward the House of Justice and its infallibility. Liberals
point to scriptural limits on its authority, especially the fact that it was intended as a
legislative body without license to interpret or impose orthodoxy. 11 Fundamentalists regard
it as being completely and unquestionably infallible in all its statements and decisions. Most
mainstream Baha‘is can be fairly described as conservative in this respect and will generally
deny that any ideological differences exist at all. In online discussions, fundamentalists can
be provoked into a rage at the mere mention of the terms ―liberal‖ and ―conservative‖ in
connection with Baha‘is since this seems to belie the religion‘s unity. Besides being the
common position of most mainstream Baha‘is, the conservative view also prevails in the
administration, so that liberals are at risk of being investigated and/or sanctioned if they
become too vocal.
Baha‘is often describe their system of elected governing bodies as being more democratic
than those prevalent in the wider society, since voters may choose any member in good
standing. However, the election practices outlined by Shoghi Effendi prohibit campaigning
of any kind, and assembly decisions are presented as unified without recording dissenting
votes, so that it is impossible to know which policies any individual candidate supports. With
so little information as a basis for decision, a Baha‘i votes primarily on reputation and name
recognition rather than on any particular issue or agenda. This, of course, gives incumbents
a tremendous advantage, and suggestions have been made that current office-holders
deliberately control who becomes visible enough within the community to become elected
on the national level.12 The ban on campaigning also inhibits any formation of reform
movements from the grassroots. Even though they are elected bodies, Baha‘i institutions
are not considered to be accountable to the electorate, but only to God.
The appointed officials in Baha‘i governance consist of the Continental Board of Counsellors,
chosen by the UHJ. They, in turn, choose, Auxiliary Board Members (ABMs), who appoint
local Assistants. In theory, none of these are supposed to have any independent authority,
but act at the behest of the elected bodies. However, these officials are responsible for the
―propagation and protection‖ of the Faith, and the ―protection‖ aspect includes keeping a
watchful eye out for any signs of covenant-breaking. Since the reports they make to the
NSA or UHJ are often the basis for decisions to sanction members, they wield considerable
power.13
Disillusionment with Baha’i Life
The Baha‘i Faith in the U.S. claims to have 140,000 members, but it is axiomatic among
Baha‘is that half of these on the rolls are permanently inactive and have lost contact with
the community. The inactivity rate may well be higher one independent poll estimated the
number of Americans identifying themselves as Baha‘is to be only 28,000.14 There has, until
now, been a remarkable lack of concern about these many disillusioned. The common
attitude towards the complaints raised by former members is that their inability to conform
