The only solution: Back in Time

       

    The ideal state, statehood, citizenship, democracy and governance have been themes studied and debated by famous political thinkers, starting from Socrates, to Hobbes to Duverger. Civilizations, both based on philosophical grounds and religious doctrines (and more recently civic and judicial foundations) have all tried to come up with the supreme state-model, a blueprint for a happy and well-functioning society, an ideal type of governance and relations between citizens, nations and political class. Achieving a euphoric state is not a logical objective, but the quest is. Nations make sure that they constantly reform, modify, update, analyse and test their policies and governance strategies, all with the objective of enhancing the quality of the state and statehood in question. As modern as this may sound, this activity has been actually long practiced, starting as early as the fifth century BC Greece.

     

    Plato believed that a good man must be a good citizen who in return could not exist without a good state. He believed that no law is more powerful than knowledge, rejecting laws and customs that people accept at face value and without a critical eye. Aristotle believed that reason cannot be separated from a good state that is incarnated in both law and customs of the community that is being governed. Moral ideals, supremacy of the law, liberty and equality of all citizens and law-based governments have all been the supreme ends of any state. The pleasure seeking Epicureans for their part believed that a state is found with the sole objective of achieving security, protecting men from other men’s egoistic interests. They lectured that considering that all men are selfish and seek personal happiness and joy, and that men would do anything to achieve such happiness, men in communities agreed to form ab agreement that protects them from harm caused by one another. Men, therefore, adopt a plan to respect the rights of others with the objective of having their own rights protected. Antisthenes and his school of Cynicism  preached liberal thoughts of refusing society, laws, traditions and prejudices,  focusing on the inner merits of individuals; rich men, poor men, Greeks, barbarians, citizens and foreigners booth free and slaves, nobles and villainous are all equal  and should all be reduced to a common level of indifference. With the expansion of the Greek empire after Alexander the great, the Greek philosophy also became more universally oriented, where the concepts of universal state and universal citizenship became clearer. The Romans inherited the philosophies of their Greek neighbours and new philosophers, such as Cicero, began preaching the universal natural rights, universal states governed under the law of God and the equality of all men under this eternal celestial law. He strongly believed that only bad habits and false opinions impede men from being equal. Seneca (the Roman Stoic philosopher) then emphasized the importance of benevolence, tolerance, morals and equality of men, a set of thoughts that spread in the Roman Empire and inspired the Christian thought. From there, and since Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire in 380 AD and Islam came to preach abut equality of human kind and that races, no matter how much they differ in color, language, and conditions, are all equal before a benevolent God. Empires then followed and the ideals kept on developing. Good. So what happened later? How could this string of intellectual progression of human political thought get destroyed by political leaders and fanatical ideological ideals? How could it be that a community in Roman and Greek empires preached and believed in equality of citizens, reason and subjection to a common law that would protect their interests, while now, in the 21^st century, we are rebelling against, law, common sense, and humanity itself?

     

    A quick review of last week’s Middle East’s headlines read as follows: Iraq: Al Qaeda aims at suffocating Sunni Cities; Dozens dead in a series of blasts in different Sunni cities; Two car bombs kill 17 Shiites in south Baghdad during Karbala religious ceremony; Muslim Brothers students in Egypt’s convert universities to conflict zones with security forces; MB to boycott referendum on constitution; Jihadists chop head of three Alawi men in Adra next to Damascus. What is not being broadcast but is somehow general knowledge is that Jordanians frown upon Palestinian presence in Jordan; Palestinians are oppressed by Israelis; Israeli Jews discriminate against anyone who does not carry pure Jewish blood; Iranians want to annihilate the Zionist nation; Iraqi Shias sympathize with Iran's quest to spread Shiism; Lebanese Shias agree and feel oppressed by Sunni co-citizens; Sunnis want to join hand with anyone against Iran; Christians and Muslims doubt each other’s intentions; Kurds still deprived of full autonomous rights in Syria, Turkey and to a certain extent Iraq; Alawis are not Muslims nor are the Druuz say fundamentalists…and the list goes on. We seem to be living in a conflict zone, a moral, intellectual and religious conflict zone. Respect to human rights, freedom and dignity has evaporated, and pure fundamentalism is taking their place instead. Tolerance is no longer acceptable and is in fact considered a sign of weakness. Any comprise or deal made without bloodshed, without compensation, without wars and trials and destruction would be considered a humiliating defeat. We ridicule leaders who sit down with enemies and listen, we judge citizens who try to picture the other point of view, and we disapprove of any deviation of the accepted political/religious/social doctrine. We are living under the slogan of vengeance, when the history of our region, whether political, intellectual or religious has demonstrated elsewise throughout history.

    

   I lamentably believe that the calls for virtue, thought, subjection of laws to human intelligence, tolerance, patience and intellectual activity are being attracted by a number of actors with political agendas. What the Pythagorean cult believed in “harmony as a basic principle in music, medicine and politics” is ridiculed by our modern actors who champion rigid compliance to a sole doctrine. What Socrates believed in respect of virtue as being a learned and taught knowledge is now considered as blasphemy and a challenge to religious laws. Any intention to find a way for harmonic existence is being fought and won by such fundamentalists. Against the backdrop of mutual suspicion against anyone who does not belong to the exact school of thought, religion, set of beliefs, political orientation and affiliation and of course racial roots, and the failure to find any solution, I have a suggestion. I say we divide the region into small patches of land, each governed by a family. Black sheep can find their own patch. This way we can go back to prehistoric times – as we are on the way there by the way – and each family finds a settlement that calls it home. From there, let’s start anew. Let us start to learn how to think, live and progress. Let's learn how to develop our morals and respect for diversity and co-existence. Let us learn how to forgive and tolerate. Let us erase all the ugliness we have seen in our modern days and go back to a more developed past.

+ 3 GMT

   Jordanian local newspapers have all published heated articles complaining about the government’s decision regarding winter time (maintaining GMT+3 instead of GMT+2). They also rejoiced the great public's victory of obliging the government to reverse its decision and go back to winter time on December 19^th. The Prime Minister Abdalla Al Nsur said in the parliament’s opening session on Wednesday that the government received the parliament’s request regarding this issue adding that he was impressed with the parliamentarians’ civilized attitude and approach, which, as he said, was exactly the democratic way of doing things.  There will be great costs resulting from this decision he explained, but since the government is committed to respecting the opinion of its citizens, it will shoulder the expenses*. What a victory, what a social movement, what a potent parliament, what a strong voice, and what an ability to cause drastic changes in policies as per the public’s request and vision. What is surprising however is that in the parliamentary session on Sunday December 1^st, members of the this robust  parliament decided to walk out without giving their vote of confidence on the cabinet as was expected, deciding to postpone this minor issue after the 2014 budget is passed (thanks to a petition signed by 57 members). So far there has been little feedback from major news portals on the passiveness of the parliament and the motives behind this decision, but it does not really matter, we Jordanians are still in the festive mood after getting our way on the winter time war. The public’s demand is not being ridiculed (forgiveness if it does sound otherwise), as all of us Jordanians understand the dire economic conditions in which many fellow citizens live in, and what an extra hour of sunshine in the morning would mean in respect to availability of morning hot water and tolerable weather conditions as children walk to school. When a European country decides to change into winter time, children don’t have to worry about waking up in an igloo-like house, washing up in cold water, or walking in pitch darkness down unsafe roads. The extra hour of sunlight would be used for recreational purposes, visiting parks and enjoying a somehow warmer/sunnier afternoon. Sadly, the situation in Jordan is not so, and hence the demands to reverse the government’s decision. Nonetheless, this rejoice may perhaps be  an indication of underlying anger, one related to a sense of helplessness and complete lack of public control over public policies. When are Jordanians consulted on anything? When was the last referendum held on any issue? How are economic, social and political concerns taken into account? How effective is the parliament in its duty in representing the people’s will? What is the extent of the control it exerts on executive decisions? Did it ever control any of these decisions? Can we safely judge that this jolliness of parliamentarians and the public is somehow linked to a sense of “finally, our voice is heard on something…anything”? That the parliament did in fact practice its role as a legislator and a speaker for the people?

   Someone once said that “Cynicism is humour in ill health”.  Accurate description of Jordanian politics. Fixating on minor issues while ignoring bigger causes and the root of problems will never help us (Jordanians) acheive political development and enhance the concept of democracy, public participation and accountability. To highlight the victory of time change and ignore the issue of confidence vote is a betrayal to all attempts in developing our political system and the sacrifice made by activists and partisans throughout history. When our Constitution was drafted in 1952 and included an article (53) on the confidence vote,  parties, activists and political figures in the country who fought for this change since the 1920s (through national conferences, demostractions and demands on modifications of the 1947 constitution) felt a sense of relief and acheivment. The parliament actually exercised this right as early as the 1950s and had enough integrity to face the storm and accept to have the parliament dissolved because of its defiance to the government and its loyalty to its public responsibility (example: the third parliament elected in 1951 was dissolved on June 22^nd 1954 prior to the voting session as premier Tawfiq Abu Al Huda learned that some members were planning to block the confidence vote). They pushed for amendments and managed to even get the vote of confidence blocked by a majority of the parliamente (1954 modification) instead of two thirds (original version of 1952), an achievement that may sound minimal at the moment but had a great impact on the flow of events back in the fifties and the sixties. Nowadays, when this right is granted, and when the government is fully under the legislative’s control, it is being marginalized and somehow belittled. Our parliament (or part of it) is feeding the public false victories on minor issues while giving away its right of policy control, the right we all entrusted in these members. To conclude, we should thank our parliament for our not-so-cold-or-dark mornings, although we sadly do remain in the dark.

*Please note that the government will shoulder expenses via the treasury, not the piggy bank of any official.