This study aims to provide a comparative exposition of the concept of “religious democracy” in the thought of two prominent Shia jurists, Imam Khomeini and Akhund Khorasani. Employing a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach and utilizing documentary content analysis, this research examines the jurisprudential and political perspectives of each thinker. The primary objective is to identify the theoretical framework to analyze the relationship among the people, the jurist, and the religious institution within the political structure. The findings indicate that while both jurists emphasize the possibility of integrating religious teachings with democracy, their models of implementation differ significantly. Imam Khomeini, through the theory of Wilayat al-Faqih, regards the qualified jurist as the central pillar of religious governance, viewing the people as the source of legitimacy and support. In contrast, Akhund Khorasani, emphasizing rationality, freedom, and rule of law, interprets religious democracy within the framework of an Islamic constitutional system, limiting the jurist’s role primarily to guidance and supervision. A comparative examination grounded in the foundations of political sociology reveals that these differences largely stem from the historical, cultural, and political contexts of each jurist and their respective responses to specific societal challenges and threats. However, significant points of convergence exist, including an emphasis on popular participation, rejection of tyranny, preservation of religious values, and constructive engagement with modern institutions such as elections. The results can be applied to the design of religious governance models, the teaching of political theology, and the development of dialogue between seminary and academic circles in Shia societies.