The Islamic Republic of Iran presents a distinctive model among contemporary political systems by integrating republicanism with the doctrine of the Guardianship of the Jurist (Velayat-e Faqih) within its constitutional and institutional structure. This article employs a phenomenological approach to examine the process of “jurisprudential deconstruction” within Iran’s political system. In this context, deconstruction refers to epistemological and institutional ruptures from traditional Islamic jurisprudence in the domain of governance-ruptures primarily driven by socio-political realities, political imperatives, and the functional demands of a religious state. By focusing on institutions grounded in the concept of Velayat-e Faqih, such as the Expediency Discernment Council and the Guardian Council, the article illustrates how jurisprudence, when confronted with the exigencies of republicanism, has been pragmatically and functionally reconstructed. The phenomenological analysis of these transformations reveals that post-revolutionary fiqh-e hokoomati (governance-oriented jurisprudence) has evolved from a closed, deductive framework into a multilayered, interpretive and power-inflected semantic network-producing internal tensions with its own foundational premises. The novelty of this study lies in its exploration of the intersection between Islamic jurisprudence and social hermeneutics through a phenomenological lens-an intersection that may offer new horizons for both comparative jurisprudence and political fiqh. Emphasis on the institution of the Absolute Guardianship of the Jurist (as enshrined in Article 57 of the Constitution) reflects a unique legal-political configuration. While this system integrates elements of religious democracy through its republican form, the centralization of religious authority and political power effectively distances it from classical paradigms of democratic governance. This phenomenological reading demonstrates that although the interplay between republicanism and Velayat-e Faqih has contributed to the political legitimacy of the system, it has simultaneously raised significant questions regarding its alignment with the normative standards of good governance and successful democratic models