Thou Shall Not Consume, But I Certainly Shall

In a succinct version of a harangue, Jordan´s Prime Minister attributed the critical financial conditions in Jordan to the consumerist culture of its citizens (revert to article published in the Jordan Times on Valentine´s Day in the spirit of love). Problems that stretch from lack of transportation services to the elevated cost of rudimentary sustenance products had one root cause: the greedy, consumerist Jordanian citizen.

Interestingly, and on the same day, a news article was published in the Washington Post indicating that following a meeting between the Jordanian and Foreign Minister and the American Secretary of State, Washington pledged to give Jordan at least $1.275 billion a year annually over the next five years, replacing a previous three-year commitment of $1 billion annually. This generous support comes two months after Jordan urged Washington to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital at the famous UN vote. The US was livid, promised to jot down the names of traitors, and subsequently cut off any aid and assistance as a strong slap on the wrist.  Jordan on the other hand exposed its fangs and talons and employed its best weapon – rhetoric – against Washington´s audacious move. Clearly, water under the bridge, and Jordan and the US kissed and made up.

The message that an average Jordanian citizen would get from all of this would be that their government is unable to sustain itself without foreign aid, but that citizens should and must be able to do so. A family of six with an income that does not exceed 500 Jordanian Dinars should be able to provide the minimum and basic needs for its household, but a government that has mastered the art of aid receipt cannot. The government felt entitled to preach on the basics of financial management and self-restraint against the dangers of consumerism, but set a record for failing to implement sound economic policies. Speaking of records, someone might need to explain to the premier that purchasing a car to get to work is not attributed to Jordanians’ passion for shopping for cars, but rather to the lack of public transportation. And bread is not a meal.

While it is certainly a diplomatic victory for Jordan to have the US not only not go through with its threats but actually increase its aid to Jordan, it is a moral defeat for Jordanians who felt insulted by Trump´s arrogance and disregard to the rights of Palestinians in Jerusalem. Snubbing economic aid would have restored pride and quenched the anger of the Jordanian street – a street that is still being blamed for economic woes and misfortunes. It might not be feasible to reject aid, but a statement that explained why it was accepted and an apology for still being dependent on donations would have been nice – certainly nicer than reprimanding Jordanians for their shopping sprees.

It is only hoped that quotients of the generous American aid be channelled to citizens...after all, they must maintain their consumerist behaviour, no?

Halifax Now and Then

Movies tend to awaken senses and invite ideas to take a deeper and more profound spot in one´s mind. A series of shots with visual effects that are interwoven beautifully within a script could allow for a reassessment of notions and beliefs. In the movie 'Darkest Hour', the mute inner dialogue of Winston Churchill once he was appointed Prime Minster of England at the acme of World War II resonated with a sapient audience from the future. Churchill´s romantic and patriotic refusal to bow before German attacks and offer a dignified surrender was admired by viewers, who reminisced about the days of glory and pride. The weak, feeble figure of Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, First Earl of Halifax, was naturally ridiculed for its defeatist standpoint. After all, it was the Earl of Halifax who pushed for striking a deal with Adolf Hitler after the fall of most of Western Europe. But Churchill the hero defied his party and its leadership, and stood by the pride and will of a glorious nation. And history proved his decision right.

Interestingly, English statesman and writer, George Savile, the first Marquess of Halifax (1633 –1695) held similar views to the 20th century Halifax.  A staunch opponent to the concept of ´fundamental principles´, he defined such a hyped and defended concept as the ‘nail that everyone would use to fix what is convenient for them at a moment and keep it unshakeable. Fundamental is similar to sacred vocabulary that maintains things in their state, disallowing anyone touching them’. Such progressive intellect could be broadened to tackle the right to question any concept, belief, or costume – including national pride. A fundamental belief in any concept could be a vice that is cladded in ethical discipline. Any government that is based on a set of fundamental principles that are rigid, inherent, and defining to a nation could be subject to auto-destruction if opposed to re-evaluation and assessment.

Earl Halifax warned his English peers in 1940 of the dangers of transforming principles into causes. He championed peace, even if it meant surrender, and accepted that England´s history of victories see a setback- potentially and hopefully temporarily. Refusing to rejoice pride might have echoed the 17th century Marquess´ views regarding the need for a `radical compromise between power and freedom…whereby governments should be able to be strong to maintain peace, and liberal enough in order not to cause repression'. Had history taken another turn, most viewers would have supported Halifax´s questioning of a romantic notion that was promoted by a leader who refused to compromise a fundamental principle. A strong government must ensure peace. It is acceptable to lose at times, to surrender at others, and to start again.

If both Halifaxes were here today, they would most likely have key insights on world events. Should the question of principle kill any attempt for peace? Should a fundamental belief in a cause or an idea deny other alternative notions to emerge? Should the principle that binds Gulf Arab States together in their opposition to Persian expansion stand at a higher pedestal than potential for prosperity and harmony? Are Arab States willing to shed more blood to defend their romantic principles? While it ended well for the Allies in the 20^th century, it will likely not be case for their allies in the 21^st. 

No motive

It was a clever plan. A 17-year-old carpentry-apprentice waited patiently until the target client purchased furniture from his employer, who in return tasked the young man in particular with delivering the furniture to the target’s rented apartment. Just when he made sure that no one was around, except for the landlord of course, the master-mind behind the plot charged and stabbed the victim with a screw-driver-turned-into-a-weapon. The victim quickly reached for his gun and fired a round of shots in the air that killed both the young attacker, and the innocent bystander (landlord). The failed attempt was politically motivated, as intelligently clarified by the law enforcement authorities of the screw driver victim’s country. Yes, the 17-year-old planned all of this to get out an important political message. No one shall be safe…furniture shops will serve as a breeding ground for young political criminal wannabes.  

The whole incident, sarcasm-free, occurred a week earlier when an Israeli embassy security guard shot dead a 17-year-old Jordanian man and the landlord who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Allegedly, the young man was delivering furniture to the Israeli man, when they both quarrelled and the former attacked the latter with a screwdriver. To defend himself, the Israeli security guard reached out for his gun (like a sensible person would do), and with little regard to human life, killed both the young boy and the landlord who was standing there.

The tragedy of the entire episode, besides the unnecessary and unjustified death of two Jordanians, is the casual reaction of the Israeli government to the crime. To add insult to injury, Israeli officials have suggested that the incident was political (in response to the riots in Jerusalem following Tel Aviv’s wise decision to place metal detectors at Al Aqsa Mosque’s site).

By insisting on diplomatic immunity that protects the guard from questioning and prosecution, and by fabricating events and insisting on the ‘political motive’, Israel masked the regular excessive, brutal, unjustifiable, and non-discriminatory act with the typical self-defence rhetoric.

Any incident, any place and any time is meant to directly harm the innocent and defenceless (but gun bearing) Israeli civil servants – that is the common perception marketed by the masters of the victimisation theory. Had Tel Aviv had a little bit of tact, they would have at least given themselves some time to investigate the elements behind the incident and then blame it on political agendas.

It could have been a regular, old fashion argument between a client and an employee. It could have been an act of rage by a young young boy, which could have been handled more compassionately and wisely by an older and more sensible man. It could have been so many things, but death should not have been one of them.

God rest the souls of the two innocent victims.

Picture Perfect

        In an insightful op-ed, political analyst Fahd Al Khitan criticised the newly approved instructions developed by the Greater Amman Municipality regarding the professions that can be run from one’s own home. These professions range from intellectual activities, services, and food production. His criticism to these instructions is valid, but fails to address a number of key issues that are of equal – if no exceeding – importance.  

His argument that the conversion of buildings into small shops will create disturbances, tarnish the public appearance of residential areas, and contribute to further chaos and disquiet in already poorly planned neighbourhoods is pertinent to the problem at hand. Mr Khitan’s shift to the associated economic problems that will arise as a result to probable tax evasion, misuse of buildings’ infrastructure, and business- generated dregs is also understood, and so is his concluding paragraph and main argument that the decision will eventually lead to Amman’s loss of identity and transformation into a city with a random layout.

It will be assumed that the writer also meant to explicitly mention health and safety issues, and the possibility of transforming homes into sweatshop that employ already enslaved foreign employees. For the sake of the argument, let us assume that these vital issues were addressed as some of the major concerns.

However, the op-ed failed to address one important questions: why were these instructions emitted in the first place?

Failing to tackle this question as a first step is similar to criticising the decision of impoverished African villagers to collect unsanitary water to quench the thirst of children. Had potable water been available at ease, people would no jeopardise the health and wellbeing of their own families by searching for water from a puddle.

The unemployment rate in Jordan stands at 18.2% percent in the first quarter of 2017. There are around 1.3 million Syrian refugees in Jordan, representing almost 20 per cent of the country's population, and 14.2% of the population lives below the poverty line. Coupling this problem with growing unrest in the region and the ease of radicalisation amidst desperation, one can only expect the metamorphosis of socio economic problems into the catastrophes that mire the region.  

Policy making is not an easy task. It is neither clean cut. It has many shades of grey that are equally scandalous to a novel that carries a similar title. Some problems are more relevant and perilous than others. Opening the door for entrepreneurs try to start up their businesses with the least costs involved will stimulate innovations, entrepreneurship, solidarity, and hope. It will provide youngsters with the opportunity to think of how to build on their ideas rather than how to apply for immigration visas. It will give housewives a chance to convert their skills acquired through a lifetime into bread-winning activities that would contribute to sustaining families and empowering women. It would bring neighbours together to help out in waving carpets than in heating coal for argileh. It might create more trash, it might generate more noise, it might lure the unethical into missing the opening, but it will certainly motivate change.

If ensuring self-sufficiency and entrepreneurship would require in their initial stages a disturbance to the picture perfect of the city, then I hope a  new loud, boisterous and alive Amman resurrects from its long, and serene nap.

What Common Cause?

      

      President Donald Trump is on an international tour that was kicked off with a visit to Saudi Arabia. It was followed by a trip to Israel, which was subsequently followed by expected mess, confusion, and poor strategic vision. Trump opened his first visit to Israel by saying that he sees growing recognition among Muslim nations that they share a ´common cause´ with Israel in their determination to counter Iranian threats. The opportunity was ripe for a peace deal, he said. Reading this statement could be interpreted in only one of two ways: continued American arrogance and determination to fuel sectarianism, or stupidity. The latter option – as appealing and convincing as it may sound – might not be the sole motor behind the actions and the statements of the American president. His lack of experience is compensated for by the shrewd and wise insights received from veterans in diplomacy - such as Jared Kushner- and therefore, we need not to worry about that.

Now, sectarianism. Trump arrives to a country in which prisoners are on a hunger strike pressing for better conditions, and the situation is alarming. Everyone is at edge until the crisis ends.  The enemy, as far as the prisoners and their supporters are concerned, is primarily the Israeli government at the given moment. It is their biggest security threat and sole source of injustice. The Arab world at large is sympathising with these prisoners, and the rhetoric is on the rise. A sensible act would have been for an American president to prioritise this issue as one of the main factors behind the dispute, and address it at this earliest convenience. But no. Let us deepened the sectarian schism that has led to the birth, extension, and radicalisation of groups such as the ISIS. Let us alienate a country that has agreed to a peaceful solution regarding its nuclear activities and offered investment opportunities to the entire world if it were allowed the chance for dignified existence. Let the Houthis and the Salafis quench their thirst for more hatred, sectarianism, prejudice, and extremism.

The number one enemy in the Middle East as far as Muslim nations are concerned is not Iran, Israel, the USA, or any country really. It is the deep-seated and innate fear of the other, and the appealing solutions of annihilation and suppression to face such fears. A ‘common cause’ cannot be unanimous animosity towards an entity, and who it represents. Settling scores by ganging up against an adversary through rhetoric is cowardly and foolish. Trump’s hosts know better, and their lack of response is hopefully attributed to a Middle Eastern common tradition of hospitality – even if Trump is the guest.

Next stop is the Vatican...his trilogy was not lost on anyone. 

Wind of Change

The results of the French presidential elections  were unusual:  the failure of the two main parties (Socialist and Republican), who have been hogging the French scene for more than six decades came as a shock. The elections envisaged for May 8, will see Marin Le Pen, leader of the extreme right-wing party, and Emmanuel Macaron, leader of the centre Party, head to head.

The traditional left-wing Socialist and Republican parties have failed in recent years to address the problems facing the French society, which is suffering from an accumulated economic crisis and high unemployment, especially among young people. They also failed to instil a sense of security in the French society which has suffered from painful blows in the past years by terrorists.

In the first round, Marie Le Pen's victory came as a shock to the ruling class; it represented an extreme right-wing party. Therefore, immediately after the results, the political leaders of the traditional parties collapsed and demanded their electoral rules to vote for Macron to block Le Pen and not allow her to win the second round. However, traditional parties have lost part of their popular bases to other parties. For example, Marie Le Pen has been able to get support from the middle class. The boundaries between political parties are no longer as they were in the past. The global economic and political transformations have led to the collapse of these borders.

Manuel Macaron may have chances to win the second round of the French presidency, but his victory is not guaranteed yet, despite the support he has received from the political class and from several parties in the European Union. But she should not be underestimated because she proved to be a sophisticated political politician. She resigned from the party chairmanship not only for campaigning but also to distance herself slightly from her extreme party and to get closer to the right and centre of the vote.

The election results will decide who France's next president is, but it also shows the magnitude of the change that has taken place in France.

Belgian Sweet Solution

Seven months into the tenure of the Jordanian 18^th Lower House of Parliament, no miracles have yet taken place. The parliamentary elections were celebrated in September 2016 under a new election law that changed the electoral system into a fully proportional system under which candidates and political parties participate in open electoral lists at the district level. Under the new system, candidates must register through lists on the district level with a minimum of three members on each list. The number of candidates on the list cannot exceed that of the available seats in the respective district and is generally topped off at ten. Voters can cast their vote for the whole list as such, for different candidates on one list or for all candidates from the chosen list. Through the open list system, there is thus competition between the different lists as well as between the candidates of each list. It must be underlined however that voters can cast their vote for only one list – a comment that seems evident and redundant, in electoral terms, but will explained at the end of the article.

In all, 1252 candidates ran in 226 lists in the elections. The Islamic Action Front formed a list that included tribal, nationalist and Christian figures, participating under the National Coalition for Reform (NCR). Other parties also campaigned under party lists, or mixed lists. Out of the 50 political parties that are currently registered in Jordan, 39 presented candidates in the elections. Nearly 18% of candidates  who participated in the elections are party members, and 99 out of the 226  competing lists include at least one party member as a contender.

The results came at no surprise; the Islamic Action Front won 10 seats; the Zamzam Islamic party won 5 seats; the centrist National Current Party won 4 seats; the Islamic Centric party won 5 seats; the centrist party Justice and Reform won 2 seats; while the Baath (nationalist), Communist (left), National Union (left) and Awn (centrist) parties won one seat each. In total, 30 seats out of 130 seats. Not a bad figure in light of the history or marginalisation of parties in Jordan. Nonetheless, and again no surprises expected, parties did not form any strong coalitions in the Parliament, nor decided to merge into bigger and stronger parties that would have greater weight and influence. No; Jordan needs 50 parties, which form no majority and which win no more than 10 seats each.

The problem remains in the Election law and the formula chosen to distribute the votes, whereby the insistence on dividing the nation along geographic lines does not serve parties’ interest at all. Had the open lists been national lists, parties could have garnered more support from their constituents located in different parts of the country. Alternatively, an innovation and bespoke solution for Jordan could be allowing voters to select candidates from any list, provided that they select the lists that pertain to their electoral district, and respect the number of voted allocated to the district, which might be a fairer approach to parties. Instead of the hypothetical scenario, one could also suggest to go back to a majority system.  Again and again, the point is lost before law makers: parties cannot compete against tribal leaders. Tribal affiliation trumps political beliefs. Consequently, parties will win few seats, will have a meagre representation at the Parliament, and will not be able to forge sustainable coalitions- a Parlia­ment composed of individuals is the result.

In an excellent paper written by Luciano Bardi and Peter Mair*, a solution might be available to address Jordanian parties’ conundrum. They explain that ‘Contemporary Belgium can be interpreted as lacking a polity-level system of parties, for example, in that the linguistic divisions that have fractured each of the traditional party protagonists have now progressed to such an extent that, at least at the national level, there is now no electoral competition between the various Flemish and Walloon parties. With the possible exception of those living in the ‘mixed’ Brussels region, no Belgian voter is obliged, or even has the capacity, to choose between the opposing sides of this fundamental cleavage. There is, in short, no Flemish– Walloon electoral interaction, and hence no party system at the electoral level. If we are to speak of a Belgian party system, therefore, it can only be in the sense of a set of parties. Within each of the regions, on the other hand, and within each of the linguistic communities, strong competition prevails, with different Flemish parties challenging one another for the support of Dutch-speaking voters, and with different Walloon parties challenging one another for the support of French-speaking voters. Hence, while Belgium does not appear to maintain a national party system, at least at the level of the electorate, it does maintain two parallel sub-national party systems, one for Flemish voters and one for Walloon voters, and within each there regularly ensues quite intense electoral competition’.

So why not do precisely that in Jordan? Instead of dividing the nation based on geographical lines, it would be better to divide it based on ideological lines. Areas that are commonly known to be conservative, to vote for loyalists/centrist parties/tribal leaders can have their lot of districts, and those with politically active, ideologically driven and doctrine-oriented populations can have their lots of districts. A Parliament elected on that basis will have a more accurate representation of the society, and will represent two sides of the coin. Furthermore, grouped to compete before their own kind, parties will necessarily find safety in numbers, and will rethink the power of mergers. Otherwise, elections for the year 2020 will see the participation of, well, 2020 parties, 2 of which will win seats by their own right. Belgian solutions - like their chocolates - can be sweet.

*Luciano Bardi and Peter Mair, The Parameters of Party Systems, Party Politics 2008; 14; 147