Win - Win

Elections in Jordan are due on September 20^th  - anyone driving down a Jordanian street will notice the dozens of posters hanging on electrical poles, which blaze with flaring slogans and ambitious, one-line promises that would bring peace, equality, democracy, prosperity, and justice to the country and its citizens. Candidates are grouping in national lists and are harmonising their programmes and electoral promises. Under the new Election Law, promulgated in 2016, which introduced a proportional system based on open-lists, candidates are no longer subject to the limitations imposed on them by the former system of “single un-transferable vote”, imposed since 1992.

The new Election Law has been praised as a step towards political development and party involvement. The scope of this article is not meant to analyse the law – which in no way empowers parties – but to discuss what the new elected parliament can do when elected in September.

Back to the slogans. Irrespective of the agendas and programmes of the candidates (independent or partisan), the soon-to-be member of parliament (MP) has one of the two goals (or both, or none): live up to the promises made to the electorate which were made through the numerous speeches/banners/interviews/lunch feasts, or appease the government and support its policies, which would require strict and blind support to anything proposed by the government/palace. Some might try to do both, but their credibility by both the street and the regime will be jeopardised. Some might do neither, and no one will notice.

Under these two potential behavioural scenarios, the question to ask is the following: how can MPs demonstrate that they are pushing for policies which emanate from street-petitions or those which are government-designed?

Friedrich (1937) referred to the ‘rule of anticipated reactions’, whereby one actor shapes their behaviour to conform to what they believe are the desires of another. This means that MPs usually change their behaviour and demonstrate that they are conforming to the desire of the government or the street, and attempt – at the same time- that somewhere in the middle, MPs are exercising some influence. It should be noted, as Benton and Russell (2009) argue, that “Influence is also associated with the perception of relevant actors; this is sensitive to anticipated reactions, but may conflate reputation for influence and actual influence”. They also propose that ‘there is no “Parliament”, in a collective sense, at all’.  This means that it all boils down to the behaviour of a group of MPs during the tenancy of the parliament and how they demonstrate their influence to either the street or the government, irrespective of its level, strength, and credibility.

In light of the fact that party representation will be minimal in the upcoming parliament (not to break habit), MPs who actually want to influence policy or take part in policy making (irrespective of who this policy serves) must attempt to act collectively and portray an image of unity before the street and the government. Parliamentary blocks might be a good starting place, but given their history of continuous break-ups and disaccords, MPs must think of a new mechanism to show the street that they are indeed fighting for policies, or to show the government that they can obstruct, influence or facilitate policy making.

Ambitious and unrealistic as this proposal might be, a demonstration of power might be indeed be achievable through the following: the parliament can be divided into two opposing powers. On one side, there is a clear group of MPs who support the government’s policies but can obstruct it should the government not yield to certain demands. This will keep the government in check. One the other side, there is a clear and semi-cohesive group which does not necessarily need to portray opposition, but to represent the general demands of their electorate. This group must portray to the street that they do exercise influence over policies and that it can change the course of events based on the street’s demands.

In both cases, one side will win, and it is clear which side it is. But this is not a zero-sum scenario: the fact that the one side lost indicates to the street that there was indeed a battle, and to the government that the battle was one thanks to the support of the loyal half of the parliament. What is being proposed here is not a reinvention of the wheel: it is merely the way that the Westminster Parliament functions. Despite the fact that the electoral system has changed and that the party system is different, Jordanian MPs can apply this system to their parliament if they ever want to get ahead in the realms of policy making.

Irrespective of the differences between the various political currents and ideologies that will be represented in the parliament, there is one common notion that binds all MPs: survival depends on strength, and strength must be demonstrated. Should the elected representatives not learn how to “perform” in parliament and reveal to the public and to the government that they can actually shape and influence policy in the Kingdom, the political scene in Jordan will forever remain trapped within the glorification of one’s personal attributes concealed behind a loyal disposition to abide or to sulk.

Short Story

A short story written a while back that depicts immigrants’ suffering. A heartfelt gratitude, appreciation and admiration to selfless souls in Spain and elsewhere in Europe who countered migration policies with humanitarian sensibility. Claudia Moya, you are meant here in particular.

The Roman Citadel held on but had to fall, and she had nowhere to hide at all. Over the cracked Greek stairs she was forced to crawl, until she reached the Phoenician quay on all four. She anchored her hopes to the boat and to the handler to whom she was in thrall, carrying within the child she wishes would never be born. Marooned in the deep blue sea she prayed for a god to save her soul, but her screams were much too stout for her weakened jowl. Watching the faces fade under the water while the waves roared, she clenched her nails into the rubber boat that was all torn. The sun at last shone and warmed her soaked bones, and fate did smile when she reached the old land of the Moors. With beauty and peace her heart did soar, and did not understand why they were calling her back to the shore. “In a village of La Mancha, the name of which I do not wish to recall, our fate would have been different my dear boy” she sobbed as her child snored.

A boy touches his crying father during a Nov. 19 protest by angry migrants from Pakistan and Morocco who blocked a section of the Greece-Macedonia border after Macedonia began granting entry only to refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. (CNS photo/Georgi Licovski, EPA)

Oh My Veil

Ellen DeGeneres made TV history in 1997 when her character on her sitcom “Ellen” revealed she was gay. The disclosure of her sexual preference drew many oohs and aaahs, and despite being hailed as courageous and transparent by some, her show did suffer, and so did her reputation as a comedian. Instead of being recognised as an artist with an incredible sense of humour and admirable creativity, Ellen was known as the “gay, short haired comedian”. In fact, the “Ellen” show lost some audience, and was even banned in some conservative countries (it was no longer aired on Jordan TV for instance).  Nearly twenty years later, people still refer to her as such.

What was considered as controversial back in the nineties has now become common, if not predictable, news. It is no longer a shocker. What is considered as such is the decision of western citizens to embrace Islam as a religion.

Reading the English version of El Pais newspaper last night, the first article that was posted on the daily’s page was a story about a Madrilenian young lady who works at a fast food restaurant, and whose decision to convert to Islam won her the star story of the leftist newspaper. No, the ISIL was not the opening story, not the stagnating economy, not the high unemployment rates, nor the lack of government formation for the second cycle in a row. It was about a girl who decided to convert to Islam.

The story starts off with a photograph of a young scarf-wearing woman, draped in dark and loose garments, and sitting in a dark room, whilst gazing outside a window. It must be underlined however that the girl does not actually wear a hijab in her everyday life (for professional and cultural/social reasons). Nonetheless, the writer decided to depict the convert’s appearance in a shabby attire, and mention the Islamic hijab and traditional wardrobe (or what is perceived as such) a total of nine times in the article.

It is fully understood that the radicalisation and the Islamisation of the western society is a threat to the Western-way-of life: such threat ranges from a mere distortion of cultural values to a real and dangerous threat to national security. Not only are young Europeans affiliating to the notorious ISIL and embarking on journeys to fight alongside the other mujahedeen in Syria and Iraq, but many of these brainwashed and fundementalised youth are taking part in internal attacks and plots against their own citizens. Watching out for such cases is empirical if this phenomenon or radicalisation is to be stopped; in the same vein, reporting on such cases and disseminating information on such incidents is enlightening and constructive. Nonetheless, the story being referred to in this article makes no connection between the girl’s decision to convert and the pressing socio-political realities that must be addressed, begging the question of “what is the whole point behind the article?”

Should the article intend to portray a more peaceful and tolerant face of Islam- an Islam which the West can live with and can be tolerated, then perhaps mentioning the word Hijab for nine times, the reference to the probable reprehension, the insistence on the web of secrets that must be woven, the emphasis on the cultural judgement, and the reminder of the inability to voice one’s own decision to embrace a doctrine or a theological line of understanding of the world within a liberal and a democratic society, renders the entire article pointless.

Why was not the girl pictured out with her friends having fun? What was she not seen having dinner with her boyfriend’s family? Why did she not talk about her understanding of Islam and the way she lives it and integrates it in her every day routine? Where is the part that talks about the ideological grounds, upon which a young European living in an increasing agonistic society, which might shed some light on a religion that is feared by many? Fortuitous is that all stories on converts follow the same logic of “garments, coming out, and oh my God the society will shun me?”

Every article, every piece of writing, and every scribbled notion must deliver a message or present an argument. What the El Pais article failed to do is to associate the story with a message; what it succeeded in doing is entrenching the idea that the Muslim community in Spain and elsewhere in Europe is destined to be culturally distinct, closed up, disassociated from the European way of life, and a constant potential threat to liberal ideas and women’s rights. Practising Muslims in Spain might always feel as cultural aliens – and reporters sympathising with this reality might only be unknowingly ameliorating such cultural separation. Muslim women will always be veiled...Muslim men will always be bearded, and Ellen will always be gay. It does not matter whether you are a doctor, a comedian, a teacher, or a fast-food restaurant waiter... thou shall always manifest the cliché.

Picture copied from the Huffington Post : 9/11 Ten Years Later: Muslim Women, Organizations Work To Fight Discrimination

Power and Influence, Horse and Wagon

                    'It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.' Alfred Adler

Inspiration, I recently learned, can be sought from people. Submerged in life’s demands and race with time, I failed to be inspired to re-take up my blog and share my notions, which have sometimes resonated with a few former followers (who probably and rightfully deserted the blog). However, and following a thought-provoking conversation with a work colleague who shared valuable and genuine insights on life experiences, I was prompted to ponder deeper into one particular observation and link it to present day political developments.

The discerning comment raised by that colleague (to whom I am grateful) during a lustrous lunch conversation was one related to the ease of shifting the minds and hearts of a nation that learned to believe, in all its passions, that ideology dictates every aspect of one’s life. He recalled from his childhood that the iniquitous capitalist system that has been long scorned during Communist regimes was suddenly hailed as the liberating force which freed nations from economic and intellectual enslavement. The powerful American doctrine with its liberal and neoliberal slogans influenced the minds of millions in a year that might just as well serve as historical breaking point.

History seems to repeat itself in that sense, where a game of influence vs. power is shifting realities in the troubled Middle East. A deal that is being brokered between the USA and Russia to set up a joint implementing group, which would facilitate the exchange of intelligence and coordinate airstrikes against the Islamic State and the Nusra Front in Syria, is a hubristic indication of the approaching winds of change. Suddenly, Russia has become a solution rather than a problem to the Syrian crisis, and soon enough, Al Assad regime will follow suit. The rhetoric regarding the butcheries orchestrated by the regime will gradually become “wrist slaps”, and the devilish features of the regime will be elegantly clad in a victimised “I had no other option” angelic robe.

The slow but steady approach followed by the Russians in their policy towards Syria must be commended. Giving Americans what they want (power), while maintaining what really matters (influence) stands testimony to the veteran ingeniousness behind Russia’s foreign policy.

Mokken and Stokman (1989:46 cit. by Kim, 2013:9) explained that “power is the capacity of actors to fix or to change a set of actions or choice alternatives for other actors, and influence is the capacity of actors to determine partly the actions or choices of other actors within the set of actions, or choice alternatives available to those actors”.  Meanwhile, Zimmerling (2005: 141,cit. by Kim, 2013:9)  defined power as “the ability to get desired outcomes by making others do what one wants, and influence as the ability to affect others’ beliefs, that is, their opinions about what ought be the case or what is right or wrong/desirable or undesirable.

What seems to be the case at the moment is that Russia is feeding America’s insatiable hunger for power – something it is doing by influencing the US foreign policy. Perhaps the US is in a position to enforce what it wants to enforce in Syria and carry out as many attacks as it wishes. However, this power is limited to what Russia is offering: limited options and limited targets under the umbrella of cooperation. Furthermore, Russian influence is extending beyond the traditional allies and expanding to other realms: what might have sounded as outrageous in the past (Assad regime intact), does not necessarily sound that outrageous any more. The belief system of many regimes and their nations is under the influence of the ex-Soviet power, and might be soon subject to its power, at least in the scope of Middle Eastern policy.

This article does not suggest that Al Assad will be hailed by western governments as the saviour of the Arab world from the ISIS wrath, but it proposes that he will indeed be tolerated. To influence people, beliefs must be addressed: if people believe that only limited solutions are available, and that these solutions necessarily include maintaining the current regime, then the  newly introduced and accepted capitalist and democratic system in a post-Communist region, is no different than maintaining an autocratic, yet stable system in a post-ISIS region.

References

• Kim, J. (2013) Conceptualising Influence and Power of EU Agencies in European Policy Making, Maastricht University, The Netherlands
• Mokken, R. and Stokman, F. (1989) Power and Influence as Political Phenomena, in Barry B. (ed.) Democracy, Power and Justice: Essays in Political Theory (pp.33-54), Oxford, Clarendon Press.
• Zimmerling, R. (2005) Influence and Power, Dordrecht, Springer.