Autotelic Politics

    I came across an interesting blog today which is mainly dedicated to posting videos of fights in parliaments. These fights - as in fist fights- that erupted in European, Middle Eastern and African parliaments, not only revealed the hidden barbaric aspect of suit-masked gentlemen, but also drew attention to their very poor fighting skills. I mean, if you are going to throw a fist every now and then, you might at least try to improve what little kung-fu skills you have. Maybe start up a fund with member contribution? New taxes perhaps?

      In all cases, this was not what most drew my attention in the blog; after all, the diversity in the ideological background of MPs in some parliaments and the wide spectrum of political orientations of its representatives may have added coal to the fiery politician. At some point, and according to the political scholar Khaleel Al Hajjaj, differences between Jordanian partisans led to exchange of fire, inside and outside the parliament. Extreme right populist parties must not tolerate any of the ideals presented by far left socialist parties; a communist party member may never see eye to eye with an Islamic party; and a neo-liberal may never understand a Marxist. Policies drawn in such parliaments need to follow the rule of compromise and disappointing consensus. Even when dealing with majority systems (such as the UK), policies drawn by governments do not tend to greatly differ from what the opposition bloc would be willing to accept. Policies have to pay the price of conciliation.

     What does however draw my attention is the question of “the autotelic nature” of politics. Politics is not considered autonomously valuable or an end in itself. It is considered as a mere mean in deliberation to reach an end. As Guido Parietti explains, many reject the idea that politics could be an end in itself; defence of democracy and political participation stop just short of recognising politics as ends in themselves. What is the root of rejecting the autotelic nature of politics? Is it the fault of those who defend democracy heatedly? Is it a result of considering that any decision taken that does not take into account the opinions of others should be considered void of any meaning or purpose? Do politics and political activity always need a result to justify their use?

     Personally, I believe that politics is a need; expressing one’s opinions, fighting for ideals, lobbying for selfish purposes, compromising for the good of all are all aspects of our modern intellectual selves. Even if the result is not convenient to some sometimes, even if there are no results at all, political deliberations are a must in any civilized society. To teach our children how to argue, how to debate and how to manoeuvre is building up political consciousness whose importance goes way beyond democratic achievement of results. However, focusing on moderation and compromise in any political activity confirms the notion of “useless politics if not agreement is reached”. As Berber said: !It is the self-governing people who most need moderation, for they have nothing but moderation to remind them of the weakness and infirmities on which their self- government relies, and by which it is justified”. Moderation is indeed a necessity in drawing polices and making decisions, but it is not what defines a political activity or its purpose. Difference of opinion, strong commitment to ideals, ability to explain one’s political beliefs also do count, even if they do not yield the aspire results. Should our politicians remind themselves that politics is autotelic, and is praised as a procedure in itself, more civilization in the chambers of political deliberations would be achieved.

    To conclude, Winston Churchill famously testified in the House of Commons in 1947: ‘Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.’ Democracy has its faults, compromise has its faults, but politics – in itself - does not.

References

·         Barber, B. (1984) Storng Democracy

http://books.google.es/books?id=2YbevnCXAhgC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=It+is+the+self-governing+people+who+most+need+moderation,+for+they+have+nothing+but+moderation+to+remind+them+of+the+weakness+and+in%EF%AC%81rmities+on+which+their+self-+government+relies,+and+by+which+it+is+justi%EF%AC%81ed&source=bl&ots=kNnuojDgSq&sig=EGu9dhOuWeJz8OjAXVBx2zqRefs&hl=es&sa=X&ei=9TJuU8mmCIWd0AW9l4DIBQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20the%20self-governing%20people%20who%20most%20need%20moderation%2C%20for%20they%20have%20nothing%20but%20moderation%20to%20remind%20them%20of%20the%20weakness%20and%20in%EF%AC%81rmities%20on%20which%20their%20self-%20government%20relies%2C%20and%20by%20which%20it%20is%20justi%EF%AC%81ed&f=false

·         Al Hajjaj, K. (2001) The History of Political Parties in Jordan, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

·         Parietti, G. (2011) On the autotelic character of politics, Journal of Political Theory

URL: http://ept.sagepub.com/content/11/1/59 

Welfare State ...No Thank You

A welfare state is an ideal state model where the welfare of citizens, economic and social, is provided for by a state that not only assumes this responsibility but defends its exclusive right in doing so (although it may share it with other independent institutions). The objective is social protection…a guarantee of conservation of human dignity, fair treatment of citizens and the effort to solve their ordeals in an efficient and effective manner. The developed world has achieved perfection in its design and implementation of such a state, whilst the developing world (or part of it) is improving its systems and institutions for that end. A state where people’s needs are met, where health, education and decent living are responsibilities that the state assumes in full accord with its citizens is the objective. A culture of well-being is the supreme goal.  

However, the utopian scenario is, well, utopian. Perfection in a public administration is an unrealistic (and quite arrogant) concept. Each system has its flaws and defauxs; even those designed with the best intention and good will have their share of cons. For instance, a country as developed and the USA where the defence of human dignity and protection of citizens’ well-being are founding pillars has its share of mistakes in its understanding and implementation of its welfare state model. Let us take healthcare as an example, which failed miserably and had to be rescued by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) with the ambitious goal of enrolling 6 million people into private health care plans via the Affordable Care Act. The goal was ambitious but was met as 7 million people enrolled for private coverage. The new law, notedthe Los Angeles Times, "has spurred the largest expansion in health coverage in America in half a century." So this affordable health insurance should solve an important problem in the US society, even if it means that citizens have to pay from their own pockets to ensure receiving tis vital service. A country that spends trillions on weapons is asking its citizens to enrol in private health schemes.  Where welfare in that is, I am not quite sure.

    This Act would have appalled and caused mass demonstrations in European countries which frowned upon such a solution. Let’s take Spain for example, an excellent model of supreme health services, where citizens, foreigners, tourists and illegal immigrants all have access to free, immediate and excellent health services. Retired European senior citizens flee to sunny Spain feeling confident that they would be in safe hands. They know that they will be taken care of without any discrimination or additional payments. The health system is very well designed and transparent, where citizens are assigned to a health centre and a set of doctors to consult when in need with zero charge. That is indeed a state that cares about the wellbeing of its citizens, as no one would worry about being unattended in times of need. Or is that so? The problem with a highly organized and regulated system is that it tends to kill the human and social aspect. As a patient you become a number…that number gets you to that only hospital, to that only doctor and to that only appointment. You can’t choose your healthcare practitioner, nor can you tailor your appointments to your needs, nor can you establish a personal relation with any of the staff. You are identified by an ID that dictates your future when it comes to health issues and how they are addressed. You don’t exist outside that number. That sense of security suddenly fades in a moment of emergency or illogical and inexplicable worry. The system does not identify worry as a reason to access such services. Surprisingly, a non-welfare state offers –sometimes- a relief dose much needed in these advanced systems. Let us take Jordan as an example, a country that does not enjoy an efficient healthcare service, but is one where one can feel secure nonetheless. You do exist outside your ID number. A telephone call can solve a problem or push a date back. Logic, compassion and common sense are not limited by bureaucracy and systems. Your confidence stems not from the quality of the system but the quality of the staffs’ character and morals. The social ties and cultural background in this county, as may be in other countries I assume, are a solid rock to many…a safe place to fall back on. Welfare, in my opinion, is a sense of security, confidence that when in need someone will help in a personalized manner. It is not paying little money in a private health scheme with a fancy name, neither is it a blind treatment of ailments in a manner void of any compassion or interest. It is indeed a prompt response, a flexible attitude and a personalized treatment. To conclude, welfare means different things to different people and different nations. My personal understanding of it has been strengthened and rooted thanks to my experience with Jordanian healthcare. Not a welfare state perhaps, but one of welfare health providers.

Peaceful Taliban

     

     The Afghan Taliban on Saturday called for an end to violence against Muslims in the Central African Republic, a statement echoed by al-Qaida's North Africa branch. After weeks of atrocities and horrific acts of barbarity committed by the 'anti-balaka' militia against Muslim citizens, along with mutilations, death sentences, beatings, burnings and terrorization, the Muslim salvation group decided to speak out and call on the international community and the Christian leadership in particular to put an end to what is happening. The question is: where are they? They found their way to the US, and Iraq and now in Syria, fighting for the liberty and dignity of Muslim citizens across the world…does the Central African Republic not count? Do Muslim suffering in the African country fall under a second class category of Muslims? Fighters were able to infiltrate into the Middle Eastern region and North Africa, but could not go further south? In no way am I suggesting or promoting their involvement in Central Africa, or anywhere else, but perhaps the rhetoric and the hypocrisy of these militant organizations must be acknowledged by themselves first, and then by their admirers. To claim to defend an ideology/religion by all possible means and at any cost may sound heroic and idealist (to some), but to “pick your fights” changes the equation. It is no secret that Syria, Iraq and the Middle East in general is of greater interest to Al Qaeda (and to an extent Taliban), may it be of strategic, political or economic purposes, and the for the time being Central Africa does not seem a lucrative engagement.    

      Sirs (Taliban and Qaeda militants), a statement condemning what is happening and calling on the Pope to interfere do not sound like something you would generally say nor do they reflect your brutal and bloody strategies. If there is a change in heart in respect to your tactics and the African country's events have opened your eyes to a new diplomatic and peaceful way to tackle crises, then please advise. If not, then it would be more dignified (and credible) to retract your statement. It was pointless, and void, and will remain so.

     I will conclude with a George W. Bush statement that once made no sense (apologies) but now appears to be accurate: “you are either with us or against us”. Just as the political thinker Maurice Duverger suggested, there is no real centrality in politics…you either agree with one solution or the other, take the side of one party or the other. No matter how many variations of a decision there are, in the end, it is either “this” or “that”. Centrality is false. The same is applicable to our dear militias, you either choose the "diplomatic wing" or the "violence wing". It is either the political and diplomatic course when it comes to conflicts in all nations where Muslims are oppressed, or blood shed and violence. You can’t have it both ways...it is futile, just like everything elese you  did or said.

Note: This is a link to a video exposing what is happening in Central Africa…viewer discretion is strongly advised. http://alarabalyawm.net/?p=127216

What Machiavelli Said

The 16^th century politician and philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli argued in his morally controversial book “The Prince” that the final objective of politics is to conserve and augment political power. He championed absolute monarchy in the chaotic renaissance Italy which was facing a problem of a corrupt and damaged society, arguing that when the necessary virtues disappear from a given society, it is not possible to neither restore such virtues nor form an organized government except via tyrannical power. Such a tyrannical power, he argued, enjoyed a special status in respect to the society. The governor, according to Machiavelli, is above morality; morality that must be adhered to by the group of citizens, but not the governor himself. The only way to measure the success of such a governor is through the policies he applies to augment the power of his state. Machiavelli also recommended despotism in the creation of new states and the reform of a corrupt one, adding that when corruption is vast, laws would be impotent and incapable of containing such corruption, hence the need of an iron-fist governance model. To save a country, issues of justice and injustice, humanity and cruelty, glory and infamy are not to be considered…what is primordial is the salvation of the state and the protection of its existence and liberty.

The resonance behind Machiavelli’s masterpiece and his political thought amidst a corrupt and divided Italy (controlled by heads of the church at the time) is beyond the scope of this article. What is intended is to draw parallels between the arguments applied centuries ago with those used today by tyrannical leaders and oligarchic leaderships in Arab states. Observing the arguments used by the Assad regime, the defence strategy of actions made in the name of "protecting Syria" and the logic behind the positions it has been taking throughout the past three years, one can say that indeed, some do believe that the only path towards salvation of a nation is through tyrannical leaders. The constant reminding of the dangers of islamists, the hand of Israel in the riots, the personal and self-serving interests of the suggested alternative government and the hidden agendas of regional and international actors are the arguments used and repeated by this regime. The acts of violence, targeting of citizens, blood shedding and stubborn hold on to power are all being justified by Assad, his circle of elites and his sympathizers, both local and international.

  Perhaps the prophecy of Machiavelli is true…perhaps morality is not to be applied on all equally…perhaps the protection of the existence of the nation is an objective that justifies acts of cruelty and injustice…perhaps holding on to power is the ultimate objective of politics….but what is sure is that such a line of thought only exists in that part of the world. 

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.