Veil or Unveil

     The visit of Michelle Obama to Saudi Arabia to condole Al Saud for their loss caused vehemence on social networking sites. The first lady was portrayed as an arrogant, defiant, disgruntled and critical little princess who laughed at Saudi culture in the face of the royal family. The virgin eyes of many Saudis could not stand the image of an unveiled lady standing between men in a funeral (the horror). How dare she? How dare she use her position as the president’s wife to defy the essence of Saudi social conduct? Slamming the Saudi attire as inappropriate and feeling relaxed in her wardrobe...the shame.

It baffles me to see how double standards are so easily accepted in many Arab states, Saudi Arabia being crowned at the top of the list. The argument used by some Saudis (not all are closed minded of course – many are enlightened, educated and civilized) is that when in Rome do what the Romans do. Respecting the Saudi culture, good or bad, is only polite. Just like Mrs. Obama wore decent outfits and a veil in her state visit to Indonesia, to show respect to the Islamic culture, the same act of modesty should have been displayed in the Riyadh visit.

Their argument falls short of two important components:

1-    Mrs. Obama and the entire female population are not forced to cover up in Indonesia. The first lady had the choice to either wear a veil – in an act of respect to the culture- or not. Women in almost all Muslim nations across the globe are not confined to certain attire, and their relationship with the veil is governed by their own decision, not the state’s code of clothing. Saudi women are not given the freedom of choice, and are obliged to cover up from head to toe in dark baggy abayias to please hard-liners. No Sir, Michelle Obama will not be coerced into that and will not hide in the background to avoid confrontation.

2-     The argument goes that in a foreign state you must respect the general cultural. By that token, Saudi woman visiting western states must also respect the general culture and unveil in order to respect cultural sensitivities. A veil, which was reduced to a cultural identity rather than an act of modesty and a demonstration of respect to Islamic tenants, must be treated as such outside the borders of the Kingdom. 

Some may agree to humour these fundamental, sexist and absolutely ridiculous norms-of-conduct. Not Michelle Obama, not any woman with a shred of dignity.

What Muslims Need to Do

Paris. The world had it with Islamic militarism… the Charlie Hebdo incident and the shootings at the Jewish store east Paris were the last straw. World leaders joined hands in the anti-terror rally in Paris to express solidarity with victims’ families, renounce violence and reject any form of suppression to the freedom of expression. EU leaders are also holding meetings to study mechanisms to curb violent Islamic radicalism. Jewish communities in France and elsewhere in Europe are being provided extra-protection against possible acts of vengeance and retaliation. The Israeli government, mourning events, took full advantage of the situation and ran to the podium to draw parallels between jihadism and terrorism, ISIS and Hamas and Islamic extremism and the holocaust.

From the many articles and analysis I read on the matter, one particular op-ed stood out. The author, the respectable journalist and expert, Dr. AbdelBari Atwan, sympathized with the victims and renounced all acts of violence. Nonetheless, he demanded equal treatment to other victims in the same country where the drama was taking place. He pointed out to the many acts of violence and discrimination against Muslim citizens in European countries and the hate crimes committed against the Muslim community in the EU. Fifty mosques in European countries have been burnt down/attacked in the past few years, and governments have drawn a blind eye to such incidents. In conclusion, the author demanded equal protection for Muslim citizens against extreme-right wing movements as well as fair media coverage on what the Muslim community in Europe is suffering from.

I fully agree with the author’s standpoint. However, there is one important issue that he left out. The nature of the attacks against Muslim communities in European states is very different form the Paris attack. The former were orchestrated by independent agents with independent agendas and of diverse ideological affiliations, rather than acting on a religious doctrine. The world, as it appears, is ready to forget about crazy people whose acts are based on radical whims, but not forget those committed by any group operating under Islamic slogans. The fame of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran’s entire regime and apparatus, Isis, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Al Shabab have dwarfed the threats posed by any other organized terror group and rendered them benign. They helped in creating the Islamic bogeyman. 

No one is really scared of Buddhists slaughtering Muslims in Myanmar, nor ETA militants targeting innocent citizens in Spain, nor racist policemen attacking minorities in the USA, nor a Norwegian gunman going on a killing spree, nor sikhists seeking vengeance from political leaders. The general public is in reality only scared of militant Muslims. Justified is their fear? Well, yes. It is sadly normal to be suspicious of a bearded man on a metro line or on a plane. The media has fed the audience pure terror, and as an average spectator, I would also be terrified. It is what it is, and it is OK to admit it. 

Reza Aslan, the renowned scholar and author of a series of books on religion, demanded that a distinction be made between Muslims and these scandalous Islamic organizations and what they represent. He hoped that people can distinguish between the interpretation of certain regimes of Islamic law and what the religioun is really about and that Islam not be associated with the practices, teachings and acts of terrorist groups and autocratic political regimes. Islam, Muslims, Islamic states and even Islamic militant organizations must not be painted with the same brush. His requests are very legitimate and noble. Yet, does the general public have the time and interest in researching the true tenants of Islam or the struggles of Muslims against their corrupt governments? Is an average 50 year old residing in a rural town in Spain willing to draw a comparative analysis of Islam in thought and practice? No. Who should be responsible to clarify issues then? Muslims.

Unfortunately, Muslims are now required to do what no other religion or ideology is requested to do. Muslims are asked to constantly clear the name of Islam and remind the world of the true teachings, tenants and message behind the religion, renouncing and fighting all claims that have been associated to it due to terrorist organizations. Muslims, as a community, are required to remind the world that they are doctors and nurses, thinkers and linguists, scientists and poets, pilots and inventors. The world needs to appreciate Muslims and their role in this world beyond the “oil and credit card” contribution. Muslim doctors are curing Christian patients, Muslim teachers are educating Jewish students, Muslim aid workers are saving the lives of Hindus, and Muslim scientists are contributing to science and technology. Muslims, in general, are doing well and are in harmony with the world.

There is a war launched against Islam from within, and the only way to fight it is from within. Islamic NGOs, youth associations, think tanks, professional organizations and every civic body must double their efforts to display to the world, through acts and tangible proof, the true face of Islam. The beautiful face of Islam. 

Hero or Foe?

I was in a philosophy class back in 2003 when my professor warned me/gave me a public advice: “you better stop right now as you already got yourself into too much trouble”. He was referring to some comments I made – undiplomatic and not-so-eloquently-phrased – about the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. Probably influenced by a book I read about the Revolt and how some Arab forces joined hands with the British Empire to topple the Ottoman rule, I criticised the revolutionary forces, the Hijaz leadership and their putsch. Back in my idealistic days, I believed that loyalty must trump interest and that problems should be solved from within, not without. Now the professor feared for himself perhaps and decided to cut my ramblings short, considering that those leaderships I was criticizing (strictly in the 1916 context) were the same leadership ruling the country today (noting that later on I worked in fact in public institutions loyal to this leadership). In any case, I am sure my professor meant well and wanted to avoid an unnecessary confrontation with class mates who would take much offense to my candidacy.  Questioning the validity of past decisions, and stripping policies from “pressures and justifications and good intentions and nativity and oppression” and all other attributes linked to poor judgments is a necessary activity. As citizens and governments we should not shy away from re-examining past actions and evaluating their soundness. The activity should not always be one that leads to criticism….perhaps they in fact confirm the precision of the decision reached at the time. A neutral, scientific, cool-headed and factual attitude in addressing past events is very important… ….agreeing to de-glorify what we so much enjoyed glorifying is not a shameful act. It restores dignity to the objective and open mind.

Why this memory? Well, I was reading a controversial book that day with the title “Spies Against Armageddon”, a pro-Israel book that - in my modest opinion - lacks a tone of humility and objectivity. In one of the chapters, the authors refer to the case of a double agent who worked for the Israeli Mosssad (intelligence) whilst feeding Egypt false intelligence information at the same time. This double agent was first recruited by Egypt to spy on Israel but then Israel recruited him to serve as a double agent. What both stories agree on is that the spy, Rafat Al Jamal, was born in Egypt, recruited by the Egyptian intelligence, resided in Europe for a while and then immigrated to Israel under a false identity where he established himself as an important businessman. So far so good. Now the story changes; according to the Egyptian version – the one I grew up with and the one I so much enjoying watching on TV as it was converted to a famous series -  Rafat was a shrewd agent who spied with much talent and sent Egypt periodic reports. He even helped out in the Six Days War in 1967 by sending information to Egypt about the day Israel would attack. He also played a role in the 1973 war and was an exemplary citizen of nationalism, heroism and servitude to the Arab nation and cause. How impressed was I with that national hero.

Now, the book. According to the Israeli version, Rafat was caught spying on Israel by the Mossad and was given a choice. He either rots in jail for the rest of his life, or he accepts the offer to work as a double agent. He took the latter option and was recruited by the Mossad. Egypt was under the false impression that he was still a loyal agent, and he, to maintain the façade and avoid drawing suspicion, continued sending information to Egypt (albeit useless and marginal). According the book, he did in fact help out in the 1967 war and did inform Egypt about the date of the attack. But instead of telling them that Israel had planned to strike the air force, he told them that Israel will launch ground operations, hence the decision of Egyptian generals to leave fighter planes in the open. Of course, this deviation of attention immensely helped Israel in the war, giving it an upper hand after destroying the entire Egyptian air force in an eye-blink. Thank you Rafat.

I am not suggesting that the Israeli version is true. But what would have been nice was allowing the audience to decide…give them the opportunity to decide…to learn the facts…to hear both sides of the story. Shielding the Arab sentiment from disappointment has been proven to be extremely destructive. Whether it is about the 1967 war, the Arab Revolt or any other key event in the Arab history, narration must be neutral, responsible and modest. I would like to believe that Rafat served his country and the Arab world, and that Israeli narrations stem from spite and embarrassment. But what I desire and what actually happened are totally different issues. I love the truth, good or bad, and I would like to have the facts to reach a sound decision. In all cases, whether the Egyptian version were right or wrong, I believe that national glory and pride do not reside in one person nor in one plot, but in the nation’s ability to remain proud despite mistakes, deceptions and self-criticism. 

Quatre Efff: France's Foreign Friendships Fueds

Marine Le pen’s interview with Euronews on December 1^st was – unfortunately – impressive. The notorious leader of the anti-EU Front Nationale, who never shies away from protecting the French identity and interests at any cost – is an important contender for the presidential elections set for 2014. Her stances on the international and regional spheres were clear, direct and confidant. Her over-confidence and conviction in what she stands for and how she will translate these convictions into policies pose a challenge to the consistence of France’s foreign policy. Incremental politics? No cheri.

Le Pen said in her interview that she admires Putin’s “cool head”. She acknowledged that there is a cold war being waged against him by the EU at the behest of United States, defending the rights of Crimean citizens to take back the 1954 gift and return it to its natural owners and condemning the ousting of Viktor Yanukovich and the illegitimate government that came after the putsch. In the calm Middle Eastern front, Le Pen also questioned the validity of French intervention in the war against the ISIS (ISIL), and categorically refused to join a coalition that has Saudi Arabia and Qatar as members, considering that they are one of the financers of Islamic fundamentalism. And finally, Le Pen said straight out: “I doubt everything the Americans say. Is that clear? Whatever the Americans say is questionable”.

These positions reflect absolute divergence from the current French foreign policy, a policy that is accepted and supported by the majority of the French people. Despite opposition, the French people elected a legislature and a president who took certain stances on foreign affairs, assuming that such policies defend the French interests and ideals. When the Peace Camp military base was inaugurated by Sarkozy, it reflected France’s commitment to help defend Arab Gulf countries against an Iranian attack and is still serving France’s foreign relations in its use as a base for France’s participation in the US-led anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq. Moreover, it is a clear message to the USA that Franc is on-board to fight terrorism and is committed to establishing security of the region. France and Saudi Arabia also cooperate on a number of files, whether in commercial relations, diplomatic relations or common interest in the Syrian file. This fanatical terrorism financing cleric regime is not as monstrous as Le Pen paints it be, at least in Holland’s eyes. On the Russian front, France condemned Russia’s stance and acts in Crimea, and joined the EU /NATO coalition against the Russian bear.

Should Le Pen be elected as president in two years time, a major shift in foreign policy is expected. And so is confusion. However, I don’t know who would be more confused, the international community or the French themselves. 

UN$C

New rounds of talks took place between Iran and the United Nations Security Council’s Permanent five members (USA, Russia, France, UK and China) and Germany in Oman in November. The meeting set a November 24^th deadline to reach an agreement with Iran and its nuclear program, where in exchange of lifting economic sanctions, Iran must draw back on its nuclear activities. The deadline was not met, and no one cared really. Before going into that, a brief historic review of Iran and nuclear aspirations will be presented first.

Iran, under the Shah regime, was a western ally. Israel and Iran in fact were buddies. The nuclear program (for civilian purposes) started back then in the fifties and sixties and Israel even offered to help Iran out – an offer snubbed for some reason by Tehran. International cooperation was also offered to Iran, and things went smoothly and peacefully. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 changed everything however, and Iran was no longer the region’s watchdog. The cleric regime shifted the balance of regional power and alliances, and imposed a new set of ideals and national aspirations and orientations. This new ideology affected all aspects of Iranian life, including the scientific sphere, where the nuclear programme was at first disparaged and rejected by the Ayatollahs as being anti-Islamic, considering that any plan to create a weapon that would annihilate people indiscriminately is against the tenants of a benevolent religion (those were the days). Yet, politics trumped ethics, and Khomeini changed his stance on the nuclear issue, viewing the design of a nuclear bomb as a necessity to maintain security and protect the Islamic state. The program was back on again, and nuclear scientists went back to their labs to resuscitate the project. Despite international efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear programme (in particular Israel’s meddling with plans and manuals and later on introducing software defects) the programme was not halted. Assassinations of scientists, imposition of sanctions and embargoes, and supporting the green revolution were all futile efforts, and the programme is still ongoing.

Against this determination and defiance, Israel threatened on numerous occasions to level the nuclear enrichment sites in Iran, but since the boy cried wolf many a time, no one is taking Israeli threats seriously. The USA has also shied away from military confrontation or supporting Israel in any military operation, while peaceful Europe has been measuring its options. The wisdom of the USA and the EU bore fruit in November 2013 when an agreement was inked between the UNSC and Iran on its nuclear program, each side giving and committing to concessions. This year was to see actual progress on the understanding reached last year, where Iran would further halt nuclear enrichment, and the November talks were held for that purpose.

Now the whole humouring Iran and its leadership is not based on fear of Iran’s backlash against an attack (although it is a factor), nor its ability to close off a major strait in the Persian/Arab gulf against international commerce (also a factor), nor polite diplomacy (definitely not a factor); the reason is economics. This interest is shared by both governments and businessmen. Western investors received the news of talks and the possibility of concluding a final deal with much enthusiasm, visiting Iran shortly afterwards in search of investment and business opportunities. As the Chief US nuclear negotiator with Iran Wendy Sherman said: “as soon as sanctions are suspended, the world will flood into Iran”.

The western world’s indulgence of Iran and its programme and its conditions efforts to curb its programme peacefully whilst offering it an economic break is understandable for two reasons. First, Iran proved not to be an illogical, irrational and fanatical regime, as despite the rhetoric applied now and again, the country did not engage in any acts of aggression and in fact collaborated with its sworn enemy in controlling the Iraqi scene. Second, Iran is a gold mine, both for resources (both material and human) and location, and investors do need to dig into Iran’s business scene. Now Iran’s patience with the West and its intentional prolongation of talks is not based merely on its plans to win time (talking and enriching at the same time), but also on a geo-strategic and political card it is wittingly holding. Iran realizes a few important things: Israel will not attack, the US will not help Israel should it attack, Iran is key in maintaining security in Iraq, the US needs Iran to keep Shiite forces in the region in check, the Syrian regime listens to very few – and Iran is one of the privileged few, and the West is interested in Iran’s economic opportunities and oil (especially in light of what is happening in Russia and the possible consequences of oil supply as a retaliation to any sanctions imposed on the patient bear). Iran, as much as it wants the sanctions eased, is faring well and is no hurry to obey orders in return for rolling back sanctions. The revolution did not work, the economy is struggling but still hanging on, and the people learned how to live under constant economic pressures. It can wait.

Politics is not a product of good will but pure interest, economic interest in particular. Swallowing one’s pride and scaling back on the freedom and democracy rhetoric is a strategy that worked in the past and will work now. Meeting the November deadline was worrying the West more than Iran, as the former has got more to lose. So basically what the West is telling Iran: do what we say, and in return, we will let you let us benefit from your much needed resources. Human rights, democracy, anti-Semitism and the like are not important now. Tehran realized the position it has put the West in and decided to stall….just as a wise Iranian proverb goes: A drowning man is not troubled by rain.

Spring Fling

The Arab Spring swept the Arab world and its regimes by surprise in 2011 when a Tunisian activist inspired millions of Arabs to rise against dictators and authoritarian regimes. Many countries in North Africa and the Middle East took their lead from the Tunisian popular revolt, and soon Egypt, Libya and Syria witnessed mass demonstrations demanding change, whilst other countries witnessed softer forms of manifestations that called on reforms and democratization. Unfortunately, and after three years of the initiation of the Arab Spring, only Tunisia found itself stable, quasi-democratic and on the path of reform. Things did not turn out the same in other countries, and the process of regime change and democratization has failed. Challenges facing each country vary, and conditions on the ground do play a role in hindering any assistance offered by the international community to assist countries in reforming and opening up to democracy. Three examples will be offered in this context, highlighting the difficulty that each country faces and the hurdles that the regimes in these countries impose on any form of assistance - technical or financial – to reform the political system.

1.      Jordan

Jordan has embarked upon a political reform programme since 2005, with the adoption of the Natioanl Agenda, and has since been active in reforming the political system and responding to popular demands, especially after the popular movements’ initiative that mimicked the Arab Spring in other Arab countries. Despite some steps taken by the government in that direction, Jordan remains a semi-liberal autocracy with the King concentrating both executive and legislative powers. Given the tribal nature of the society, the King’s leadership and the regime’s legitimacy were never challenged, but was has been repeatedly demanded and continuously advised upon by both Jordan citizens and by the international community is the empowerment of the legislature. The EU, under the ENP, has allocated a financial package under the ENPI 2007-2013 dedicated to promoting the role of the parliament and indirect assistance to political parties in this field. The project reaped very modest results, given the challenges that face the country. The challenges facing any initiative of project to strengthen and empower the legislature to assume its role as a democratic representative of the people are:

·         Laws and regulations that limit the parliament’s power and place it under the King’s complete control, noting that the King can dissolve the parliament at any moment and without requiring a justification. Moreover, the parliament serves as an entity that passes laws rather than promulgating them, acting therefore as mere administration office for draft laws its receives from the prime ministry. The power to question ministers and reject policies has been dwarfed throughout the years, and any attempt to oppose the general policies taken by the government would threaten the continuity of the parliament and the status of its members before the regime. Therefore, attempting to empower a legislature and engaging its members in capacity building programmes has thus far reaped futile results, considering that the core problem – the legal aspect – has not been addressed.

·         The problem of immigrants, Arab refugees and particularly Palestinian refugees in the country. At the moment, Jordan hosts over two million refugees from various nationalities. Moreover the Palestinian community in Jordan, registered as refugees at UNRWA or not, outnumber the Jordanian community (representing over 60% of the population). The issue of political loyalty, identification with Jordanian local concerns, solidarity and sense of belonging is lacking amongst the great majority of citizens/residents. The regime’s response to the situation, and in an act of protecting itself and its continuity, explain why political freedoms and political plurality are much feared and controlled. A neutralized and silenced legislature with little powers may be considered as a survival strategy for a regime that fears the escalation of events in the region and the reaction of the non-Jordanian community if empowered.

·         The growing fundamentalist Islamic current in Jordan. The Islamic Liberation Party that has need since the 1950s is still present in Jordan gaining popularity in rural and impoverished area. The number of salafi groups and independent activists affiliated with the ISIS fighters is on the rise, signally to the regime that exerting further pressure and control over political movements and monitoring their access to the legislature is a necessity. Should there be open elections and should the parliament be given its full powers, these fundamentalist actors will pose a danger to national peace.

·         The nature of the Jordanian society that remains a tribal and traditional one, respecting the hierarchy rules and the figure of the patriarch pose a great difficulty to any reform agenda and any attempt to empower the people and give them the change to take part in political activity. Whether as voters or as members of parliament, the local population still depends of family ties and social relations and kinship in their political dealings.

2.      Egypt

Egypt’s 2011 revolution brought much hope to the people, not only in Egypt but the entire Arab world. The stepping down of the president in 2011, the amendment of the constitution and the celebration of elections on December 2011 were signs that Egypt was heading in the right direction. However, in January 2012, the Islamists won the elections with a very modest majority. The presidential elections confirmed the notion that Egyptians still did not know where they stand in terms of democracy, where an Islamist candidate and a candidate from the Mubarak regime both won the majority of votes. The election of the Islamic president was frowned upon by both national and regional actors and the power struggle led to the June 2013 military coup ousting the President and his party. The military General Al Sisi won the elections in May 2014 and in a blink of an eye Egypt went back to the Mubarak era. Only last week was a new national security adviser appointed, Ms. Abu Al Naja, who was one of Mubark’s closest advisers and who was criticized for allowing human rights violations in the 2011 revolution. The main challenge facing Egypt is twofold: for one part, the military regime that has taken power since the 1950s has been infiltrated in all institutions and has been accepted as the status quo. Viewed as a lesser evil in comparison with the Islamists, the military establishment rules with an iron fist, controlling all aspects of the political apparatus. The lack of political options led the Egyptian society to endorse a regime it detested, yet a regime that is strong and that can curb the spread of fundamentalism, or endorse a party that promises nothing but an authoritarian system masked behind a theological slogan. The second issue facing democracy promotion in Egypt is the impoverishment of its citizens. According to studies, citizens with meagre economic means tend to focus more on economic aspects of their lives rather than engage in political activity. Despite that fact that a democratic system would ensure a dignified living standard, illiteracy and extreme poverty amongst a large proportion of the society (along with extremist ideological and fundamentalist views) convince citizens otherwise.

3.      Lebanon

Lebanon can be considered as one of the very few democracies in the Middle East. Political parties are strong and have their affiliated, competing freely in elections and engaging in political debated in complete freedom. Furthermore, political and religious tolerance set Lebanon apart from its neighbours. However, the extreme political diversity in the country, the lingering civil war anger sentiments, the occupation of lands in the south and the division of the society upon sectarian lines have rendered the task of electing a president impossible. The tenure of the current president, Michael Suleiman, has ended in May 2014, and five times has the government failed to elect a new leader. The reason behind that is the political division of the two main currents or blocs: the 14 of March group and the 8 of March group.  With parties in each bloc standing firm and insisting on not compromising, the wedge between the two sides is digging deeper and parties are converting little by little into a one-man-show. Lebanon is an example of a paralyzed democracy, where the parties do not need empowerment, but need to adopt a strategy to overcome stalemates. The main challenge in fostering democracy in Lebanon is the issue of regional alliances of its parties, Hezbollah and its militia, a turbulent and powerful neighbour (Syria), and the divisions within the society, converting the country into small patches inhabited by segments of the society who fiercely defend their ethnicity and religious affiliation at the cost of democracy and compromise.

The Arab Spring has turned into a cold cold winter, and all hopes pinned on reform and democratization have been washed away by tornadoes of violence, terrorism, civil wars, fear and dangerous indifference. It was indeed a spring fling...a flirtation with reform, a tease. Perhaps what is needed after all is not a spring but a raving ocean. 

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.