The garbage can model

Cohen, March, and Olsen (1974) conferred that in organised anarchies, decisions are interpreted as the result of interrelations between a stream of problems, a stream of solutions, a stream, of participants, and a stream of choices. The garbage can model, a term coined by these authors, suggests that actors taking these decisions have no stable goals, where decisions are made without comparing goals with solutions, and are not a product of negotiation between groups of interest. The garbage can model allows the development of several reflections without closely relating intentions to actions or causes to effects (Warglien, Mascuh, 1996: 57-58).

Clearly, some of the rhetorical speeches of newly elected President Donald Trump point to his tendency to resort to the garbage can model in his proposed foreign policy.  This is particularly relevant to the nuclear deal that was struck between the United Nations Security Council and Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was concluded on 14 July 2015 by China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, the High Representative of the European Union and Iran, and was endorsed on 20 July 2015 by the Security Council through resolution 2231 (2015)).His threats to scrap the deal and re-impose sanctions might be void of substance, and filled with political hauteur, but have caused the Persian political machine to steam up and prepare for a media war.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani explained last week that Donald Trump’s victory cannot reverse the deal Tehran reached last year  - a deal that cannot be dismissed by a single government, adding that the US elections will have no effect on Iranian policies. Just today (Monday, November 14th), the Head of Iran’s Nuclear Energy Organisation stated that Iran is ready for all possible scenarios following Trump’s election, including the worst scenario. Another rhetorically-soaked statement from Iran’s side, although the position was apparently formulated in a non-garbage can approach.

It should be reminded that although the nuclear deal is in place, Iran has continued to develop military technologies, including ballistic missiles. Iran has also used ballistic missile testing and harassment of U.S. vessels to assert Iran's military power. In fact, Iran warned that it could – from a technical point of view- return to enriching uranium quickly, and that within one year, Iran can reach the enrichment levels that they have reached prior to the deal – if not surpass that level. The EU meanwhile is standing in the middle, carefully planning its investment options in oil and resource rich Iran.

Trump might be bluffing, and might have spoken out of a moment of passion. The problem of his statements however is that the international scene will remain at edge. Even if the US does not lift a finger and change a coma in the deal, and even if Tehran remains pacific and does not challenge the limitations imposed on Iran by the deal, the best case scenario is that the status quo will be maintained. Rash and thoughtless statements made by rash and thoughtless political heads through such an anarchical system of decision making will only freeze developments on the Iranian file. Whatever Mr Trumps’ political gamble in the region is, what is ensured is that his statements might be misinterpreted in Iran, and will have severe consequences on the region as a whole. A challenge of an economic nature will be responded to by a political action executed by Iranian proxies in Iraq, Syria, or Yemen. Wasting money and wasting blood are synonyms in this game – if Trump dares to jeopardise Iran’s economic opening, Tehran will not shy away from creating more stir in the region. Words will likely be met by actions from Iran’s side – and it will not be blamed.  Perhaps the garbage can model of decision making and statement drafting should be rethought by the new President.

Warglein M., Mausch, M (1996) The Logic of Organization, Walter de Gruyter, Germany

Barking Episode

I was walking back home two days ago and decided to take the longer road, which had a nice park in the middle. I thought it would be a good occasion to relax and enjoy the tranquillity of a Spanish suburb.  A group of old ladies were sitting on a bench, side by side, probably enjoying a typical evening with neighbours, whilst observing the pedestrians. A minute later, I spotted two veiled women walking the opposite direction; in spite of the veil, the women’s attire was perfectly normal to Spanish standards. They were wearing jumpsuits, and were most probably exercising – if strolling down a street is considered as such.  When these two ladies approached the bench on which the old ladies were sitting, a tiny – yet boisterous - dog started barking its heart out. The dog hurdled off its master’s lap, and circulated the two veiled women, making it impossible for them to carry on walking without stepping over the dog (which I secretly hoped they would). In the dog's defence, the loyal pet was probably only defending its owner’s territory. Not being summoned by one of the old ladies, the only instinctive reaction that the dog could harbour was to chase these two women and bark them away.

I expected the pet’s owner to whistle the dog back to her, or to fetch him. However, the old women just sat there staring at the scene before them in silence. They did not summon the dog nor shush it; they just sat there.

There might be many reasons why no action was taken by these old ladies; perhaps the size of the dog and his amiability - to which they grew accustomed- made it unnecessary to do anything. However, it was quite obvious that the dog was being aggressive and offensive; his barking was no music to anybody’s ears. The question that immediately popped onto my mind was this sinister one: did these old ladies deliberately not act? Was their silence a statement towards the undesired class of immigrants who follow a certain faith?

An article I published a few weeks earlier addressed the issue of Spanish media’s depiction of the Muslim community, and its obsession with the Hijab. A couple of weeks later, a renowned conservative Spanish newspaper covered the story of the assassination of the Jordanian political activist and journalist Nahed Hattar on September 25^th. Nahed Hattar, like many other Jordanian activists and thinkers, was critical of the notorious Islamic State and shared a caricature that made fun of the fundamentalists' interpretation of heaven. The story should have been depicted as such, but Spanish media decided otherwise. The newspaper highlighted the religious affiliation of the journalist (Christian), while a left-oriented Spanish newspaper went so far as to point to the radical Sunni interpretation of the Islamic doctrine which was the subject of the journalist's caricature. 

What the Spanish media is doing is not only diffusing inaccurate, erroneaous, and unnecessary details that can easily manipulate and influence public opinion (who cares if the interpretation is Sunni, Shiaa or Alawi), but it is also forcing ideological motives into an issue that is void of one. Mr Hattar's Christianity had nothing to do with his death. Depicting a Christian martyr being killed in a Muslim dominated Amman, does not – in any shape or form – add substance to the story. Whether Mr Hattar was Christian or Muslim, the fact is, he was assassinated by a radical and demented fundamentalist. The picture that the newspaper itself posted on the news item reveals a veiled Muslim woman trying desperately to resuscitate Mr Hattar; subsequently, the story is not about Muslim vs Christian, but rather about the dangers of radical tendencies. It is radical to kill someone because of supposed blasphemy, and it is also radical to blame an entire religious doctrine for the act.

Now an old Spanish lady who is sipping coffee with her neighbours will not go into the details of the story: what she saw was the brutal assassination of a Christian by the hands of a Muslim. What she saw is the dark and gloomy side of a young Spanish woman who decided to convert to Islam and turned into a bag of misery (please see ‘Oh My Veil’). What she saw was that the mere criticism of Islam can cost one’s life. This old lady was not provided with an objective news item of a man who was politically and socially active, and his activity led to his assassination. Period.

Had this been the case, the old ladies might not have stayed silent while the dog was chasing the two Muslim women. These old ladies might have had every reason to suspect and reject the Muslim faith and its followers: they manifested such a rejection with silence and disinterest.

One can only imagine the dangers facing the European society in light of this islamophobia. The media must become more responsible and reasonable: creating an ambience of scepticism will only alienate a society whose vast majority is pacific, moderate, and peaceful. Europeans cannot celebrate multiculturalism and reject it at the same time. Se-Hyoung Yi* says it best when he explained that:

‘Multiculturalism deprives minorities of their cultural and moral claims in an ironic way: minority cultures may be able to exist, but they will also be separated and isolated’.

On a positive note, one of the veiled women who was being barked upon refused to be bullied by the dog – and its owner. Instead of addressing the ladies and asking them to curb the dog’s enthusiastic defence, she simply stood firm, stared at the dog and barked back at him. It was a good two minute barking competition between the two, and the veiled lady managed to shove him away and to continue jogging. I wish I saw the look on her face, and that of the ladies, but I can only imagine it.

 

*Democratic Inclusion and ‘Suffering Together’ in the Eumenides: Duality of Immigrants, Political Theory, 2015, Vol. 43(I) 30-53

Ich bin nicht aus Zucker

An article published in the Economist on 30 June had this opening line “Ask some Germans how people should react to terrorism and most would probably agree with the historian Herfried Münkler that the best attitude is heroische Gelassenheit: heroic calmness. Let other countries declare wars on terrorism and near-permanent states of emergency, they say; Germany’s dark history has taught it not to over-react”.

Yes, Germany had a dark history, and a share of misery, poverty, and war, coupled with an arduous and constant effort to redeem itself for mistakes created by long gone political brutes, cladded in ideological uniforms of scientific rationalism. Nonetheless, Germans realised that history must serve a purpose, and that purpose is to learn how to shape, control, and direct actions in an effective, efficient, and intelligent manner in order to achieve the desired objectives.

When the entire world expected a fuming Angela Merkel to step up on a pedestal and read, in passionate and heated German, that the nation will not succumb to terrorists who will be easily crushed under German boots, the silence of the German leader stunned the zealous audience. No, we will not crush anyone under our boots, nor impose collective punishment. We will not condole those who we love and owed to protect and who lost those they loved and vowed to protect with a promise to hunt the perpetrators and their accomplices like dogs.

Meanwhile, speeches made by Middle Easter leaders failed to resemble in any shape or form the level-mindedness of their German counterpart. Promises by Turkish leaders to impose “the strictest procedures ever established to counter terrorists”, the Afghani promise to “bury the terrorists with our vengeance”, the Chechen leader’s wishful plan of “selecting the best 2000 Chechen fighters to abolish and diminish all ISIS affiliates in street fight”, and the Iraqi calls for “galvanizing the powers of the fighters and heroic mujahideen” all sound similar to the much familiar promises of medieval rhetoric to stir passions. Many are the times that we read articles in Arabic newspapers which start off with calls to crush the enemy, smother them in their sleep, turn their weapons against them, wipe them off the face of the earth, mobilise the thirsty-for-justice young freedom fighters…the list of ardent cliché phrases goes on.

It is true that the Middle East’s share of terrorism is much higher than that of Europe, and that desperate measures are necessary in certain conditions. However, for a nation that has been mired with war and unrest since the early 1920s, would it be the wisest decision to foment feelings and desires of vengeance through rhetorical and inflamed speeches? Is a hubristic assumption that eradicating wrong-doing can and must come at the expense of humanity and reason? Is the Arab/Muslim nation so fragile that it cannot deal with misery other than a through a mindless urge and call for vengeance? Do leaders assume that by inflaming the passionate streets, the problems of radicalism, terrorism and fanaticism are solved? Are we that fragile to the attractive and luring choice of blind outrageous vendetta?

The German saying of ‘We are not made out of sugar’ must resonate better with us. Perhaps for a religious community, we can change the proverb into salt to assimilate Lot’s story and his turned-into-a pillar-of -salt wife, who probably dissolved when it was pouring acid rain. No, we will not dissolve into a container of hatred and vengeance because of drop of rain or a hurricane. We are neither made out of sugar nor salt.

Those Little Devilish Details

On Friday, the first British Airways airplane landed in Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran, following years of estrangement between Heathrow and Imam Khomeini. The move represents an act of goodwill and indication of the renewal of relations between the UK and Iran. The Airlines indicated that they will work on increasing the number of flights to six a week: doubting that Iran will serve as a mere alternative for English tourists to an upset Spain (following the divorce from the EU), the increase in flights is a reconfirmation that water is under the bridge...or clouds under the aircraft?

Press TV (Iranian official news portal) was quick to announce the news, citing that “the flagship British carrier has described the Iranian capital as “an important destination” for the airline”, and that “British Airways announced in June that it had postponed the long-awaited resumption of its flights to Iran due to “some technical issues.” The article concludes with “Air France also resumed Paris-Tehran flights in April after an eight-year break”.

Western cosying up to Iran after last summer’s nuclear deal does not come as news: talks, missions, correspondence, involvement in peace scenarios, and genuine engagement with the Persian state have multiplied. Indeed, at this very moment (afternoon of September 4th), the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Stephen O’Brien, is holding talks in Tehran with a senior adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution (Ali Akbar Velayati) who confirmed that “The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to help the United Nations alleviate the suffering of people in the crisis-hit countries through whatever means and approaches”. Iran has marked its place in the political map of diplomacy; it is now time for the real deal: the details of every day life.

The Guardian also reported on the flight resumption news in a shy two-paragraph article, explaining that “British Airways described the Iranian capital as an important destination for the airline”, and concluded in a similar manner to that of Press TV, reminding readers of France’s flights to Iran resumed in April.

Iran is right to celebrate the return of British airplanes to its lands. Planes carry entrepreneurs, artists, writers, tourists, scholars, scientists, activists, romantics, and explorers. Iran’s re-integration into the world cannot be limited to the political sphere and locked inside the walls of UN halls and diplomatic cocktails. For the Iranian regime to be accepted as it is, and welcomed to the international community, every aspect of the Persian way of life is to be explored, experienced, and perhaps accepted.

In its elegant parlance and loathe to verbosity, Iranian media reminded the world that it has indeed achieved an important objective: building real bridges with the world through virtual air lanes. Perhaps a picture of a British couple enjoying a Fesenjan (Pomegranate Walnut Stew) is all that will be needed to welcome Iran back with arms wide open.

Win - Win

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short Story

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

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

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

Oh My Veil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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