Governance is not merely a collection of institutions, laws, and decision-making mechanisms; rather, its quality depends significantly on the motivations and moral characteristics of the individuals who wield public power. This research aims to derive a typology of governance actors based on Sermon 32 of the *Nahj al-Balagha* and to transform the ethical teachings of Imam Ali into an analytical framework for studying political and administrative behavior. The objective is not to label specific individuals or political factions, but rather to identify motivational and behavioral patterns, thereby establishing a foundation for transitioning from problematic types toward the ideal model of "Alavi" (Ali-inspired) governance. In this sermon, Imam Ali (AS)—offering a realistic perspective on how humans engage with power, wealth, and responsibility—identifies five distinct groups. In this study, these are characterized by the following metaphorical labels: "Power-Shunning Bystanders" (those who avoid corruption solely due to a lack of opportunity); "Power-Seekers" (those who openly pursue power and trade their faith for worldly gain); "Masked Worldly-Seekers" (those who instrumentally exploit religious values ​​and outward appearances for personal benefit); "Pseudo-Ascetics" (those who reframe their own incapacity as piety and contentment); and, in contrast, "Responsible Believers in the Hereafter"—individuals who view power as a sacred trust rather than a spoil of war, and responsibility as a solemn duty rather than a privilege, holding themselves accountable both to God and to the people. The findings indicate that the criteria for distinguishing between these types are not outward behavior, official status, or professed values, but rather internal motivation, the degree of self-control, and how one engages with opportunity and discretionary authority. Just as the absence of corruption is not always a sign of virtue—sometimes merely resulting from a lack of opportunity—the five-fold typology proposed by Ali (AS) serves as a research framework for the evidence-based and comparative assessment of the conduct of governance actors. This typology is defined by indicators such as the manner in which power is exercised, financial transparency, the management of conflicts of interest, the quality of appointments, the consistency of ethical standards—applied equally to allies and rivals—and the alignment between words and actions. Consequently, the fundamental issue in governance is not merely "who holds power," but rather "what kind of person holds that power." Ideal governance, therefore, necessitates the cultivation, selection, and empowerment of officials who are both responsible and mindful of divine accountability, alongside the institutionalization of mechanisms designed to prevent the personalization of power, conflicts of interest, and the exploitation of public resources for individual or group gain.