Prime Minister Abdullah Al Nsour responded to the Jordanian parliament's demands to break off relations with the Israeli state with a clarification that relations with Israel is an issue related to sovereignty, stressing that any decision to change Jordanian-Israeli relations would mean abolishing the Peace Treaty signed between the two countries in the 90s. His Excellency’s remarks raise an important question, and a series of related questions: what does he mean with a sovereign decision? Does not sovereignty mean the manifestation of the will of people through their governments? Does not the parliament represent the people? Or is it only meant to pass, amend and propose laws? Is the Peace-Treaty a holy script that cannot be reconsidered? Is it logical to abide by agreements that were penned decades ago, when circumstances and conditions are very different at the present time?
I am not proposing that the peace deal be annulled, nor do I favor regional confrontations and more blood-spilling, but political development must start taking shape. We cannot claim to be on the path towards democratic governance and public participation when our premier resorts to medieval terminology, associating sovereignty with the king and his will in a Hobbesian manner, rather than the modern sense of the word, where people’s sovereignty is translated into democratic political institutions. Were the Jordanians ever presented with a referendum to give their opinion about such a sovereign matter? A matter that touches on their history, their present, their society, their economy and well-being? Are we forever obliged to abide by the decisions of a previous parliament that endorsed the peace deal? Do we have no say whatsoever?
I am not sure if this statement would have fallen better on our ears: “guys, or the majority of you guys, it is not that we don’t want democracy or that we don't want to take your opinion into account, it is just that you are politically uncultured and underdeveloped, and you fail to see the geopolitical challenges and the strategic sensitivity of the entire issue”. Candid, honest and true, although embarrassingly hurtful, this would restore some dignity to the institutions and to the sovereignty of the people. Leading people on with flashy statements and legal terminology will not do people any help...nor would it serve the diminishing legitimacy of governments and thier decisions. If we accept that we, the ever innocent and naive public, cannot make such important decisions, what about our MPs? Are they also incapable of drawing policies and shaping decisions? Are we a nation of 6 million (minus 20 officials) politically impotent citizens?
Comments
Post a Comment