الدرس الاوروبي

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.

Diplomacy

    We have all heard the many jokes about George Bush Jr.’s low IQ and non-existent wits, how his poor knowledge on world affairs cost thousands of Americans lives and billions of dollars and how anyone – including the commentator - could have made a better decision on the Iraqi and Afghani files. Funny were the jokes I admit, but perhaps not quite accurate. The same comic approach is being used to describe Obama’s administration and persona, where not only is the president depicted as being lost and weak, but also as unwitty and not so shrewd when it comes to international affairs. Perhaps analysts and political observers have their right to such an argument, but as an average Arab citizen with some interest in political issues, I concluded that this argument does not hold.

    My observation was strengthened after the announcement of the deal struck between the Axis of Evil and Satan himself on the nuclear file, but of course, name-calling was dropped on the happy occasion. Leaving Israel livid at the break through and the world split between those happy for the victorious Iran and those ashamed with American - and UN- weak diplomacy, the agreement can be considered one of the most significant achievements of Obama’s administration. Iran and the P-5+1 agreed on November 23^rd in the third round of talks in Geneva that Iran would cap further enrichment at 5%; not increase its stockpile of 5% uranium; not increase its centrifuge capacity to enrich uranium; stop nuclear-related advances on the Arak facility and allow IAEA inspectors enhanced access to nuclear facilities, uranium mines, and centrifuge manufacturing sites. In return, the P-5+1 agreed to suspend sanctions on Iran’s petrochemical exports, trade in gold and precious metals, auto industry, and civilian aviation; not impose new UNSC sanctions or EU nuclear-related sanctions; the U.S. Administration to refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions; and facilitate humanitarian trade using Iran’s frozen oil revenue held abroad.

      Whilst Israel warned that fundamentalist, anti-semitic and straight from hell Iran cannot be trusted and Gulf States deciding how to break up with Washington, the UNSC and USA in particular hailed the agreement as an important step towards resolving the controversial nuclear file and neutralizing the crisis for some time. Was it a wise decision? Did Iran come out victorious? Did Tehran outwit everybody’ else? Was Obama lost and a bit, well, dumb? Well not really.

   Observing statements that have been made by either sides for the last month or two, one can note a change in tone in both US and Iranian officials. For instance, it was no coincidence that Tehran’s temporary Friday preacher stressed during his sermon late October that using nuclear weapons was Haram, that one week earlier to that Rohani in a national speech said that he hoped the new Swiss ambassador to Iran would reveal Iran’s good intentions to Washington and that the infamous opposition figures Meer Husein Musawi and Mahdi Karroubi, under house arrest since 2011 (after leading the green revolution that questioned the 2009 elections) were to be subjected to less severe control procedures in a decision made around the same time. On the international realm, it was also no coincidence that in late October Britain decided to resume its diplomatic representation in Iran, deciding to reopen its embassy in Tehran and in fact appointing a non-resident charge d'affaires to Iran later in November (after two years after Iran’s ambassador was expelled from the UK following the storming of the British embassy in Tehran in 2011). The timing of the the leader of EU parliament's socialist group and the two socialist representatives' visit to Tehran in October in an attempt to break the ice was no mere coincidence either. On the last note, Khameni's calls for friendly relations with all nations, including the USA in a speech made in late October was not a slip of a tongue. All were preparatory steps towards mending bridges.

     Based on the above, the rapprochement between the West and Iran was no sudden move and no hidden affair; the USA therefore was only acting as per a strategy to accommodate the Persian giant into a friendly zone where it seems that history is turning its page on the mutual accusations, mistrust and animosity between. Whether it was based on the objective of avoiding a new costly war, an attempt to neutralize Tehran on the Syrian file, or an actual and genuine attempt to slow down the nuclear program, the strategy did in fact work. No blood was shed, no loss of lives, no financial burdens, no unnecessary regional spill overs or a great deal of meaningless and empty rhetoric. The West, and Iran, got what they wanted at the least costs paid.

      The shrewd Henri Kissinger said that Diplomacy: the art of restraining power. It is not if you are not with us you are against us, it is not deadlines and threats, it is not falsification of reports, not group punishment or religious wars …it is as Kissinger exactly said: restraining oneself from use of power when possible. The Obama administration came out victorious in the end: a halted nuclear program, a rapprochement with Tehran that may be a first step to understandings on other files, a removed threat from Israel and a demonstration to the entire world that Iran could, and did, compromise, even to Satan himself. Bravo Obama, bravo diplomacy and bravo intellect. To conclude, accusations regarding Obama's passiveness and lack of action are inaccurate and perhaps too haste...he achieved all that he promised with absolute elegance and calculation... a true diplomat and an intelligent one as well. 

Reinvent the Wheel

      Revolutions, counter revolutions, toppling autocratic regimes, restoring old regimes, military coups and political Islam revivalism have all been taking place in the Middle East for the past three years. Arab nations are calling for introducing democracy as a political system, a system that must be enforced, by any means or price. The ticket to freedom from tyranny, poverty, exploitation, backwardness, political repression and every ailment that has struck the region since the Islamic days of glory should be the one and only “rule of the people”. Democracy: the magical potion.

    

      The beautiful thing about political thought is that it has been a developing science, growing and changing and taking on new ideals and beliefs in order to justify political practice and systems. Ever since the early Hellenistic civilization, followed by the Romans and the emergence of “modern” religious based empires, toppled by secular regimes and revolutions, political thinkers, scientists and philosophers have introduced in their books and their research the ideals of political organization. Who should rule? Why? How? How can money be distributed amongst citizens? What about communism? What to do with freedoms? All these questions have been asked and answered and criticized and doubted and asked again...this cycle of theory development ever stops, and all politically conscious and responsible countries and their political thinkers never stop wondering “how can we make it better”.

     

     What is interesting about this is intellectual activity is that it proved itself correct. Trial and error, experimentation, accurate and scientific observation and constant evaluation of political systems in the western world have all lead to the establishment of regimes that have proven to be efficient. Not to go deep into criteria of efficiency, but one must take quick look on economic performance, quality of life, life expectancy, level of satisfaction, environmental considerations and gender equality to realize that yes, the western world has actually learned about the correct formula to apply in order to achieve its goal of social, political and economic fulfilment. This part of the world did not ignore political thinkers, did not shy away from discarding political ideals that were revered by many but judged inappropriate, did not contend to the status quo and did not stop trying to link in the ground reality with the equivalent political origination and manifestation. I don’t believe the Arab world did, nor will do.

     Receiving a manual on “101 in political organization” to ensure democratic practice is the solution that many political activists have been indirectly campaigning for. “We want to democracy”, “let the people rule”, “decision of the majority”, “separation of powers”, “secularization of institutions” etc., are all admirable ideals… they did after all prove effective in many parts of the world. But are Arabs like the rest of the world? Do we have the same set of beliefs? Do we aspire to the same things that Europeans aspire for in terms of social and political issues? Is our social make u the same? Are our educational interests close to those of Americans? Are we as culturally prepared to take on radical leaps towards a Scandinavian governance system? Did Jean-Jacques Rousseau include us in his political studies?

     I believe that what Arabs need at the moment is a period of patience, contemplation and scientific investigation. We need to learn about the best political formula that would accommodate our social, religious, cultural and economic realities. We cannot expect to import an ideal and implement as it is, and then get frustrated when it did not work on the ground. What we need is a modest recognition of our limitations and an attempt to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes the wheel does need to be reinvented; especially when a certain vehicle has helped a nation to reach its destination in ease has led to chaos and disaster in others. Take Egypt as an example; political idealism of majority rule led to the election of political figures that have failed in all aspects of governmental reform.

   At this stage in our history, I suggest that we go back to the basics, delve into political thoughts since its beginning and come up with our own formula.  Socrates believed for his part that virtue is a field of knowledge that can be learned and taught. Perhaps we should approach virtue and its political manifestation as a serious field of study rather than a de facto issue…learn what virtue means for us as Arabs and how we can mould it into a system of life. His student, Plato, in his priceless book “The Republic” said that there is no hope for a state unless power is found in the hands of those who know, who know what state responsibilities and duties are and what education is deeded for citizens in order for them to carry out these tasks. Laws not based on tradition and customs, but those based on rational analysis and education…nothing should be written down on stone. Perhaps the words of this philosopher ring ever so true in our Arab reality…perhaps our laws are flawed and we need to restudy them. Then again, is that not what thousands have lost their lives for? 

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.

     Iran’s proposed plan offered to the P5+1 included two phases, both of which did not touch on its right to enrich uranium, but where open to concessions regarding quantity and levels of enrichment. Moreover, Iran also accepted to have its nuclear sites and facilities inspected by IAEA inspectors in any sudden visit, confirming with that that its nuclear goals are but peaceful. Its offer is being studied but has so far drawn applause and acceptance, at least from the media.  Catherine Ashton for her part described the diplomatic approach that Iran is treading as useful, Britain and France seem to be warming up to their Persian not-quite-the- adversary, and the Obama administration ignored both Israeli and gulf worries about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and political influence in the region and seems keen on going forward in talks with Iran and its new leader. The nuclear concessions offered by Iran will – if not already have – be met with political concessions from the US which are basically a given recognition of the role of Iran in all of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Palestine and the possibility of including Iran - rather than gulf countries - in the negotiating table with Syria. Whilst the western world refused at the beginning to include political issues in nuclear negotiations with Iran, they are now more inclined to embrace that only available option. The loyal and victimized allies in the Arab gulf now seem to be left out, and accommodating the villain of all villains seems to be the salvation.

     Political alliances and geopolitical considerations are meant to change over time according to countries’ interests and conditions. Should US interests and those of the EU lie in building bridges with Iran at the expense of Arab interests and Israeli fears, then this change of policy and approach would be perfectly fine. Nothing is engraved in stone. What is not fine however is the manipulation of public opinion with strong and blind convictions that give people every reason to fear an imaginary bogeyman. Depicting Iran as an evil nation with plans to annihilate Israel, destroy Arab states, enforce fundamental shiism, launch wars of terror on western nations and succumb the world to tyranny -quoting Bush Jr. – and then suddenly considering it as an option for a regional partner to restore peace in the Middle East (just like what happened in Iraq) and pacifying its nuclear ambitions, is not OK. Satan cannot repent and change course in a matter of 5 years’ time…unless of course he was not Satan from the very beginning…just a word stolen and altered to suit US interests at the time, just as Orwell said.

All You Need to Know Book

   

   

      At the ophthalmologist’s waiting room I was impatiently checking my watch, hoping it would strike 18:00 in defiance of the laws of nature controlling time passage. Masking my impatience with observing people’s attitudes at the grey large room, I was surprised to be actually entertained with an observation based on fellow patients. Men, women and children of different ages were resting comfortably on washed out green sofas, each defying time with his or her own entertaining gadget: a magazine, a book, a laptop, a phone and an interactive video game.  The only two (three if myself were included) exceptions to the case were the man sitting next to me and the man sitting two sofas ahead of me. Not accurately described as being old, the older men were about 65 -70 years old. Far from having a blank look in their eyes, these two men were staring into everything and nothing at the same time, their minds seemingly engaged with the elements present in the existing room whilst at the same time perhaps shifting into a virtual world of worries, ideas and chores. In all cases, what was on their mind exactly was of no interest to me, but what was – and consequently led to this article – was the fact of their “non-aided engagement” with their own thoughts.

      
     According to Michael Oakeshott, rationalism has been a growing trend since the 17^th century, being applied in all aspects of life (science, politics, religion etc.). Tradition, experience and facts accepted for face-value are all rejected by rationalists, where reason, and only reason, should be followed to reach conclusions about any given subject. Cleansing our minds from prejudices, we – rational learners – start a long journey of learning that requires acquiring two sets of types of knowledge:  technical and practical. In Oakeshott’s words, the process also involves “bringing all social, political, legal and institutional inheritance of our societies before the tribunal of our intellect”. He stresses the superiority of ideology over tradition, an ideology derived from a technique of thinking, investigating and interpreting….confirming that no knowledge is real knowledge unless it is technical knowledge, anything else is pure ignorance. As the philosopher Francis Bacon explained, all works of comprehension starts anew and take their own path, being guided in every step of the way…a comprehension that is an art of interpretation and investigation that complements the weakness of our natural reasoning. However, this rosy and logical picture painted by many philosophers and championed by Oakeshett seems to be spoiled by our modern ways. Oakeshott complains that this rationalist approach has been changing slowly, where we are moving further away from the true sources of inspiration and where the rationalist character has become more vulgar and rude…what used to be the art of thinking has become a manual of how to use your head at a fraction of habitual cost and what used to be the art of living has become the technique of success in life. Everything we need to know nowadays is written down eloquently and directly and we are spared the long dire process of thinking.

      Back to the waiting room, my observation was the following: nowadays, with the spread of books (paper and digital), vast variety of publications and communication tools we have turned into a “deluded information sponge”. We take everything- absolutely everything- in, with few questions asked.  We seem to be waiting for somebody else’s idea about a given topic, which would be taken for face value and stored at the back of our minds without any intention to doubt, question or analyse that thought. We are eager to know anything and congratulate ourselves for using the precious time – that could have been wasted - at the waiting room to flip through magazines and websites and take more info in….any info. What I am not sure about is how dangerous is that to our rational being? Are we really learning how to think? Are we clearing our heads of prejudices and receiving and storing others’ prejudices? Is Oakeshott right to complain that we misinterpreted rationalism and tend to convert the techniques of thinking, reasoning and reaching conclusions into a manual that is followed blindly?

     I am sure that some of us do. Most evident is that reality in politics, where the practicality of political engagement liberated many activists from the duty of political learning and the preference to acquire the magical politics technique that liberates the disadvantaged from political ignorance. His salvation can be found in an “all you need to know book” or a discourse that she can by heart and can apply directly and mechanically. How many journalists, bloggers (myself being one), reporters and programme presenters have brainwashed us and given us a false notion of being politically updated…themselves of course being brainwashed by others? How few are rational thinkers who can read an article published in a prestigious newspaper and written by someone with three titles preceding his name and rationally analyse it and value its essence? How impatient are we as readers and learners to take the fast track and get an honorary degree in knowledge? Are all of these patients – minus two – waiting at the ophthalmologist’s clinic members of the mpatient, passive and not-really-rational group? In all cases, it just struck me as a coincidence that such and observation was made while waiting for my eyes to be checked…although my argument may seem solid after this epiphany, I should stress that my arguments as based on 10 pages of Oakeshott’s book, read in 2 hours and written down in 1. So yes, I am a fellow member.