Quranic verses 3:159 (Al-Imran) and 42:38 (Al-Shura) play a crucial role in shaping modern Islamic political theories, particularly in rejecting autocratic, hereditary, and oppressive governance systems. In the 20th century, influenced by democratic frameworks in Western nations, many Muslim thinkers emphasized the necessity of incorporating shura (consultation) or parliamentary structures, recognizing the people's right to vote and actively participate in their political future. This renewed focus on shura has led contemporary exegetes, particularly from Sunni traditions, to view it as a foundational element of Islamic governance, extracting its principles from the Quranic verses on consultation. However, significant differences exist between Sunni and Shia exegetical approaches. Sunni scholars generally attribute a decisive role to shura in legitimizing rulers and ensuring accountability, whereas Shia exegetes, while acknowledging its importance in social and political contexts, do not regard shura as essential for legitimizing rulers and do not obligate rulers to comply with its decisions. This study critically examines these differences by analyzing the interpretations of shura by two influential thinkers: Muhammad Izzat Darwaza (Sunni) and Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah (Shia). The findings underscore the distinct functional roles ascribed to shura in their respective frameworks, reflecting broader theological and political divergences within Islamic thought.