My Fair Lazy

The financial crisis. A dark gloomy cloud lingering in the skies of Europe since 2008, obstructing any filtration of sunrays to lighten up the dark patches of impoverished lands and lives in this super mega power. Desperate measures have been followed in most affected countries, and when those did not work, people turned on one another and separatist movements emerged, demanding independence from the whole to achieve economic salvation for the part. Others decided to expand and annex territories with historic ties, and others decided to re-examine economics 101 and EU 101. In all cases, innovative steps and plans saw light after the crisis, and so did the rhetoric of political movements and parties. Not only has the crisis impacted parties, their programs and their discourse, but it has also led to a certain radicalization of ideologies that have dug so deep into the belief-base of some societies in a very short period of time and has been feeding citizens hopes and convictions equally as fast.

It is no secret that one of the consequences of the crisis has been the rise of European radical left parties. Unemployment, inequality and failing austerity measures have acted as the perfect pretext to use neo-liberalism as the scapegoat for all the problems these societies are going through. Now an educated society learns that demonizing an ideology is both futile and ludicrous, as problems stem from a series of factors and not a mere economic policy that went wrong. Or is that so?

Walking down the University of Alicante’s path leading towards its general library, a small stand surrounded with white banners and hippie-looking-promoters were handing out flyers in a serene attitude with a hint of tamed indignation. The stand was supporting an initiative with the title of “Nómina Digna Para Todos” (dignified salary for all), attempting to gather as many signatories as possible in order to officially present the initiative to local authorities. In a nutshell, the initiative calls for a dignified life for all Spanish citizens, employed and unemployed. Just by the act of being born, every Spanish citizen must enjoy a dignified life guaranteed by a fixed salary that he/she receives after a certain age, irrespective of their job status. Given that many are unemployed, the minimum that the state can do is ensure dignified living standards to all its citizens by providing those unemployment and without unemployment benefits with monthly salaries. After all, the social contract between citizens and the state can literally mean so: a contract between the state and the citizens where the latter provides and the former sponsors…and if the provision side of the deal cannot come through, the contract’s provisions must be modified so as to ensure sponsorship no matter what. What is missing from the utopian plan is the financial factor – and since the option of money growing trees has been explored and unfortunately deemed difficult – another plan is being suggested by the initiative. Cuts on expenses and restructuring of loans are amongst the proposed steps. I am no economist so I am not going to get into this aspect of the proposal, although one proposal does stand out. Raised tax on well-off citizens.

Those hording, greedy, fat pay-checks country-club set guys must be burned at the stake, but since their money is needed-and income generating jobs too, let us not burn them just yet, just tax them. A lot. And the unjust and excessive amount they make will then be distributed justly. Perhaps that initiative’s flyer did not state this options per-se, but anyone with a cool head can read between the lines. The problem of being rich in a country that is generally socialist in the economic and culture senses was not a problem really before the crisis. Everyone had jobs and services were provided to all, rich or poor. Equality was not an issue dwelled upon by the lower classes as the general needs were satisfied with commendable efficiency. The green-eyed classist monster was asleep. Now that the rough got going, the poor are no longer indifferent about what their rich fellow citizens are doing and not doing. Extreme leftist parties are feeding this social anger and calls on wealth distribution are being more and more popular. How more socialist can Spain get? Is what is being proposed logical? Before exploring logic, is it fair?

What is being fed to university students through this initiative is a culture of dependency and victimization; a culture where it is ok to be comfortable with what is available and it is acceptable to whine about conditions that are not in your favour. A culture that is based on extreme ego-centrism and narcissism, where the government and fellow citizens owe you everything just by the mere fact of being born Spanish. It does not matter if you add any value, if you contribute to the society in any shape of form, if you try to change the status quo by hard work and innovation, if you assume responsibilities with courage and dignity and if you depend on your skills and muscles to provide for yourself. Students are being told by this salvation group that it is ok if you don’t find a job or try to, it is understandable that you don’t want to leave your comfort zone and look for something else somewhere else, we fully support your decision to wait for the 9:00 to 15:00 minimum responsibilities job, as papa government should and will shoulder the burden. Just be happy.

This unjust, spoilt and lazy utopia should not be accepted nor promoted, especially amongst the young generation. Social equity and justice is something, and what is being suggested under this hippie banner is another. Dignity is an acquired right; the rich people are not the enemy. Justice is achieved when everyone exerts the exact amount of effort; each according to his/her won capacities. Retribution would follow suit. Working hard ten hours a day and getting a lofty pay check should not be recriminated. Demanding that more tax be imposed on rich people, people who work hard and sacrificed and still sacrifice much, to pamper the whims of a-simply-born-Spaniard is simply demagogic. If this call does catch on, it will only lead to the glorification of a culture of sluggishness and dependency. I hope it does fall on deaf ears, and the fact that there was no queue lining to sign the notorious petition at the University’s stand is a positive sign that the petition is fortunately mute.

Ya Hala

The Syrian civil war – or proxy war – has been ongoing for far too long now. Three years of infighting, hatred, massacres, radicalism, vengeance, political schemes, betrayal, diplomacy and deals. Fear and sadness drove people out of their homes and left them at the mercy of the international community and good doers to house them and give them a refuge from all the ugliness that is happening in Syria. Those financially comfortable found a place in Europe; those desperate and cunning smuggled their way into Europe as well; and those with less financial means sought neighbouring countries. In arms wide open some countries took Syrian refugees in and gave them a temporary residence until things clear up and calm down back home. Jordan, and Jordanians, are one of those countries and people that stretched out a helping hand to fellow Syrians. Jordan – as in government- and Jordanians- the people- are housing one and a half million Syrians today. Government and citizens are playing host. Or are they both doing so?

Jordan is a poor country. Very limited are its resources and impoverished is a large proportion of its population. Unemployment is widespread and minimum wages are the common wage. Going into the reasons behind the economic situation and the unemployment rates is beyond the scope of this article. The focus of the article is however on why Jordanians agreed to house Syrians and how they agreed to that. The hospitality, generosity, solidarity and sense of brotherhood of Jordanians are not at doubt at any point, but such honourable attitudes must come from within rather than be enforced from without. Jordanian citizens would definitely help Syrian refugees in all possible means, but it would have been nice to first ask Jordanians if they can shoulder the burden before inviting the 1.5 million Syrians in.

Reports have indicated that Syrians’ presence in Jordan not only has cost Jordan (Jordanian taxpayers) huge amounts of money (to finance shelters, security, food, water, services, utilities etc.) but has also formed a new threat: that of cheaper – and more talented – labour force. Some Syrians are seeking shelter in Jordan not due to security factors but based on economic aspirations, judging that the Jordanian market and industries would give Syrians what they want: poorer salaries for skilled workers. A Syrian would gladly accept an underpaid job with an unfair wage, a job that would have been assigned to a Jordanian, instead of staying home and face unemployment and war. Although refugees’ presence in Jordan is officially confined in camps in the north of the country, it is no secret that many have escaped and found their way into central and southern cities in search of economic opportunities. The Jordanian host is not happy anymore. This brings us back to the main question: when the government “banged its chest” (literal translation of a Jordanian expression that means to offer with generosity) and allowed the entry of these Syrians, how did the decision come through? What was the decision process like?

The issue of refugees is one of great importance in the country and many other countries. The scope of dimensions it covers is wide: economy, culture, society, health, politics and the environment are all related to it. The government’s policy towards refugees is –unfortunately- that of limited scope. No one was consulted on whether Jordan was ready to accept these refuges. NGOS, political parties, civil societies, syndicates and other social institutions have not been consulted in that nor asked to study the issue. Consultation was required not to only reinforce and respect democratic practices, but also to reach sound policies. It seems that in Jordan public policy is still stuck in the realm of public administration. Instead of forming vertical and horizontal relations between institutions – formal and informal – to study issue from all angles and reach policies based on research and analysis, the policy towards refugees was one approached from a strictly single-minded diplomatic approach. Instead of having trained administrators in policy making, employees who can use numbers, theories, studies and analysis to draw best policy recommendations and scenarios, the rigid bureaucratic arrangement was followed. Public policy does not seem to exist in Jordan. The art of making policies is one limited to an elite circle. People and public employees are shut out of the process. Those who know best call the shots, avoiding the tedious process of studying policy options with fellow political actors, administrators and policy analysts and acting on decisions that have been decided on already. To conclude, policy making in our part of the world is a mix of Foucault’s conclusion: "political thought and analysis, we still have not cut off the head of the king" and the wise proverb: Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.