Rewritten Title: MP’s Pay Slip Revelation Ignites Debate Over Parliamentary Compensation
Article:
A recent social media post by an Iranian parliamentarian has thrust the issue of lawmakers’ salaries and operational expenses into the public spotlight, prompting a detailed explanation from a fellow MP on the financial realities of the role.
The Spark: A Text Message Goes Public
The controversy began when MP Malek Shariati publicly shared a text message detailing a salary deposit. While the specific payment was related to his membership in a research center’s academic board, his accompanying social media commentary directed public attention toward the broader financial allocations for parliamentary offices, including funds for advisors and operational costs. This act reignited a recurring public question: What is the total monthly compensation for a member of parliament?
Breaking Down the Figures
In an interview, MP Ahmad Beygdeli from Khodabandeh provided a detailed breakdown. He clarified that a parliamentarian’s compensation is divided into two primary streams.
“Representatives receive a fixed salary, which, after a recent 20% increase, is approximately 40 to 42 million tomans,” Beygdeli stated. “Separately, an amount is allocated for office expenses, which I estimate brings the total to around 80 million tomans per month.”
He was quick to emphasize that this combined figure, which he said “barely reaches 100 million tomans,” must cover all operational costs.
The Heavy Load of Office Expenses
According to Beygdeli, the office allowance is not discretionary income but a fund that must be stretched to cover a wide array of necessary expenditures. This includes:
- Renting and furnishing a constituency office.
- Paying for utilities and office supplies.
- Covering travel costs between Tehran and their electoral district multiple times per month.
- Hospitality for constituents and meeting costs.
- Vehicle-related expenses, including fuel, maintenance, and insurance, even if a basic car is provided by the parliament.
“The costs are truly heavy and extensive,” Beygdeli explained. “Everything from buying a pen to vehicle repairs comes from this same allocation. We have to manage all of it.”
Staffing and the “24/7” Nature of the Role
MPs are legally permitted to have five advisors, who are technically seconded from other government departments. However, Beygdeli highlighted a key challenge: these individuals continue to receive their base salary from their original department, which is often insufficient for the demanding nature of parliamentary work.
“A parliamentary office must be responsive to the people 24/7,” he said. “Someone might have an emergency at 10 PM, stuck in a hospital. Our staff must be available. Naturally, no one is willing to take on this level of responsibility for a minimal salary alone.”
Therefore, MPs often use a portion of their office allowance to provide additional support to their staff, a practice he described as a necessity given the workload.
A Comparative Lack of Resources
Beygdeli offered a striking comparison, suggesting that a member of parliament operates with fewer resources than many local administrators.
“A district administrator has a dedicated building, at least five to eight employees, a driver, and a vehicle with all its expenses covered,” he noted. “A representative has none of these. Our total resources are less than those available to a governor or a department head, yet our responsibilities are vast.”
Focus on Public Service, Not Finances
When questioned whether the compensation motivates some lawmakers to seek more lucrative ministerial positions later, Beygdeli redirected the focus to the core purpose of the role.
“If someone truly wants to be the people’s representative, they shouldn’t be thinking about the salary or the facilities,” he asserted. “We entered this path voluntarily to defend the people’s rights and to be a bridge between the public and the governance. We placed ourselves before the people’s vote with a promise to serve them well.”
The MP concluded by advocating for electoral reforms to reduce campaign costs, suggesting that greater reliance on public media debates could lessen the financial burden on candidates and ensure a more level playing field.