Sovereign Decision

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

Just as Orwell Said

George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate before including themselves under th

Wishing You a New MENA

Journalist and author of A nd Then All Hell Broke Loose: Two Decades in the Middle East said that “Everything changed with the First World War. The Middle East was reorganized, redefined, and the seeds were planted for a century of bloodshed.” He was not entirely right. Bloodshed lasted more than a century actually. Here we are in 2019, and the Middle East and North Africa region – the infamous MENA – is still a boisterous, rowdy zone of political recrimination, military coups, conspiracy theories, historic reminiscence, oil squabbles, and religiously-infused rhetoric. Blood shed of course as well. Well, here we are. Algeria is set to head to the polls in April. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika will likely secure a fifth mandate. If not, Algeria’s powerbrokers, mainly the military and powerful business elites will enter into an expensive bargain of security versus social and economic stability. Having vested the long-enjoyed tranquillity on a political figure, rather than a

Notions

Search This Blog