A cornerstone of any political structure is the achievement of sustained national solidarity and consensus. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, this issue is directly linked to the guarantee of The Nation's Rights (Chapter Three of the Constitution). However, a significant gap exists between the sublime ideals of this chapter and their interpretive and executive processes, challenging the stability of social consensus in the country. The primary goal of this article is to functionally analyze selected principles of the Nation’s Rights (particularly Articles 19, 22, 27, and 34) in realizing solidarity, and to investigate the interpretive challenges and executive obstacles faced by these principles in light of the constitutional discourse of legitimacy.

This research employs a descriptive-analytical approach, relying on documentary methodology. The findings indicate that the principles of Chapter Three theoretically provide a robust framework for social cohesion, consistent with Durkheim's theory of organic solidarity. However, the main obstacles are concentrated at two levels: first, restrictive and conservative interpretations (relying on caveats like public order) that degrade public freedoms from an "inherent right" to a "conditional privilege"; and second, structural executive barriers (such as institutional weaknesses in the Court of Administrative Justice) that undermine the effectiveness of the right to legal remedy (Article 34). These discrepancies directly lead to the erosion of political trust and the diminishing of the regime’s performance legitimacy. Consequently, the sustainability of national consensus depends on moving beyond reductionist interpretations and ensuring the practical guarantee of the Nation's inalienable rights in implementation and legislation.