العصافير "توتوت" والقافله تسير

ارتفع سقف حرية التعبير..
بس فعليًا ما صار في تغيير..
المشاكل هي هي وقابله للتجيير..
والجماعه فوق بيتكركرو "ههه قال بدهم تحرير"..
والجماعه تحت بيتخبطو باللي بصير وما بصير..
طعه وقايمه قلبت كل صغير كبير...
والكبير سقف أحمر لأنه من غيره بئس المصير..
صدقنا حالنا وفكرنا فيسبوك مأذنه للتكبير..
وفكرنا تويتر لحاله رح يعمل تأثير..
وتناسينا إنه الكلام الحاف ما بحل أزمة تعتير..
إفتراضي كان أو جاي من حتة تقرير..
الوضع مهزله والحراك قابل للمصادره بس مش للتصدير..
وسلامتكو وتعيشو على خطابات إجلال وتقدير..
فحواهاالعصافير توتوت والقافله تسير

Is Hitler a Christian?

I was recently asked by a 12-year old adorable and very intelligent American boy “Was Bin Laden a Moslem?” I answered “Yes”.

The question suddenly popped up on my mind on that same evening. It wasn’t so much the question, but the fact that a 12-year old kid is already thinking along these lines. I had no doubt of the innocence of his question. However, I had all doubts about the media at work shaping this type of thinking.

The following day, and while having breakfast with the parents of this child, and who happen to be devout Christians, I decided to bring up this question again. It was now my turn to ask the father (who is a good friend) and said “Was Hitler a Christian?” He answered “Yes”. I then continued “Does it ever occur to you why is it that even though Hitler targeted groups based on their religion, we never think of him as a Christian but rather as a Nazi; while in the case of Bin Laden who was specifically opposed to U.S. foreign policy and intervention in the Middle East, we still insist on emphasizing his religion rather than his actions?

After what ended up being a lengthy discussion, we concluded that neither the actions of Bin Laden nor those of Hitler are representatives of their religious beliefs. More importantly, we agreed that once religion is infused in politics, they both become manipulative, toxic, and lethal. Most importantly, my 12-year old friend shared in this discussion, which thankfully succeeded in putting this matter in a different and more tolerant perspective.

As for the media fueling and mongering such thinking, well that's a whole different question altogether!

Count Me Out For Now!

While some argue that elections give transitional countries experience with organizing parties and civil society in addition to improving the protection of civil liberties, others argue that well-functioning rule of law must precede elections. The importance of a vibrant middle class and a functioning state apparatus are also stressed on as prerequisites of meaningful elections.

In the absence of many of these prerequisites, the question that remains in my head: why should I vote on Tuesday (our Tuesday that is November 9, 2010)? I am fully aware that this is a “chicken and egg" question? Ooops this riddle has been recently resolved, it’s the chicken. Well, you get the gist of what I am trying to say. I hope!

If the process of campaigning is any indication, then I am definitely turned off. If the track record of the candidates is any indication, then common sense tells me that the majority of them did not get to finish their last term because they were simply fired (I have no better way to describe it). So seeing them back again would be equivalent to Yogi Berra’s “It's déjà vu all over again". A nightmare scenario if you ask me. If the firing of many of the likely lucky future MPs, ok ok term dissolution, was unfair (as some might argue), then the independence of this entire crucial branch is more of a reason not to vote. To tell you the truth, when the last session was dissolved I got the feeling that the message was “you either do it the executive way, or I will show you the way”, out that is!!!

Sounds negative. I know. Well let me look at it from a more positive angle. I will start with letting bygones be bygones. Let me now look at the campaign program of the candidates I am supposed to cast my vote of confidence for. Program? What’s that? Some have declared superficial and skeleton ones through slogans that make elections sound more like martyrdom, while others have simply and “condescendingly” declared “no messages” but we are still supposed to take them seriously and vote for them. Others have graciously reminded us that Jordan is for Jordanians...how about the “non-Jordanians” (as defined by these very Jordanians) who will be voting?

I am extremely annoyed by the fact that I won’t be voting. But frankly speaking, I would be more annoyed to vote for a candidate simply because I have to. I’d rather delay this part of being a good citizen and concentrate on the many other parts that are real and can hopefully make a meaningful difference. Sorry...

The Paradox of Change

It is impossible not to feel the breeze of the winds of change sweeping through the Arab World today. Mesmerized by the news, and totally awestricken by the sheer fact that fear is gone; we the people of this region have finally reclaimed our long muted voice.

The speed with which the recent changes have taken over our lives has served as a centrifugal force of all indifference and passivity. Purgatory is no longer an option, it’s either hell or heaven; and the choice is ours! Consensus on the definition of what each means was also formed with a dizzying speed: hell is the status quo pre Tunisia, and heaven is the reality that we will proactively and collectively create together. All of a sudden, our vision has become that of an eagle in its clarity, and our mission that of a saint in its good will. Boundaries in all their forms have melted erasing with them all manifestations of apathy and numbness. Our outlook is now vibrant, energized, empathetic, and full of hope. We suddenly found ourselves falling in love with life, with action, with thinking, with history, with ourselves, and ultimately with one another. Our defeated souls no longer haunt us. We have trumped defeat with a vengeance, and we have all made a tacit pact among ourselves that never again will we be subject to the humiliation that we once helplessly and ashamedly suffered in silence.

In contemplating our future, it seems as if we all agree that the ball is in our court now, and it is up to us how we play it. There are varying views on what is the best way to go about asserting our right in determining this future. Regardless of what the means are, the end result must ensure building democratic institutions that would eventually transcend the individuals behind their creation. The foundation of these institutions is a rule of law that is just in its essence, and enforceable in its application. In this institutionalized system, universal equality might be farfetched, while equity must be its cornerstone. As for the skeptics who have long championed the condescending claim that Arabs aren’t ready yet for this neat exercise of institution building, my answer for now is anarchy!

Quoting the popular Arab adage “it doesn’t get constructed unless it gets destructed”.* The process of constructing will necessarily have to coincide with a radical phase of destruction. Bakunin, the well known theorist of collective anarchism said: “ The urge to destroy is also the urge to create”. Incidentally this urge, in its most absurd form, resembles to a large degree what the Arab world is going through today: a process of negation, without necessarily claiming to know what the best alternative is. What is certain today is that all forces of oppression- be they political, economic, cultural or moral are being confronted and attacked with unprecedented determination. More important, central to this confrontation is the proclamation of absolute confidence in the masses, as well as the absolute rejection of the stifling status quo that has for long symbolized the source of suffering and humiliation for many.

If politics were to resemble art, then drawing parallels with the Dadaist movement would be appropriate in this case. Nearly a century ago, Dadaism was formed as a direct result to the cataclysmic events of the turn of the 20th century. Today at the turn of the 21st century, we see Arab revolutions and upheavals taking place as a direct result of mind boggling oppression felt through accumulations of abuses, defeats and failures over the years. Dadaism response was “a rejection of the values of a society that had allowed such tragedies to happen”; and so is the Arab response in its rejection of anything associated with autocracy and dictatorship. Tristan Tzara summed up the Dada attitude in its manifesto of 1918: “Let everyone proclaim that we have a great work of destruction and negativity to accomplish. Sweep and clean. The cleansing of the fellow will take place after a period of total madness and aggression, the mark of a world left for too long in the hands of bandits who are tearing apart and destroying the centuries”. In effect what Tzara was describing was an anarchism that did not last, but nevertheless was catalytic in the creation of some of the greatest art that the 20th century witnessed including surrealism and avant guard styles.

Similar to Dadaism, the Arab world must go through this dialectical process of the struggle between the forces of destruction and construction in order for it to transcend into a full fledge independent and democratic society. A society that spouses the interests of its people and respects its will at large. A society that is dynamic and participatory. In this society, values of freedom reign supreme, and citizens are equal in rights and opportunities.

Finally it would be naïve to assume that the individuals carrying out the revolutions today are better intentioned than their predecessors decades ago who saw themselves just as progressive and good willed. The decisive factor of success today is the ability to build functioning and dynamic institutions that supersede and transcend the events leading to their creation. The day we see loyalties lie in protecting a system that we painstakingly create, rather than the individuals behind its creation, is the day we know that we have made it.

* تخرب لما إلا بتعمر ما

Leaderless leadership

Thursday's televised debate between Ayman Safadi and Youssef Mansour was disturbing. Safadi was vehemently defending the status quo; while Mansour was persistent in blurting accusations that are at best superficial and at worst hearsay. The end result was that the debate ended without offering any insight for understanding the frustration taking over our streets and our discourse lately.

Safadi overwhelmed Mansour with indicators that were clearly carefully anticipated and selected. In most cases these indicators were also true (I would definitely argue with the Aqaba so called Billions!!!) Mansour fell easily into the trap of Safadi by consistently being on the receiving end. He was weak in laying the grounds for what the opposition really wants or stands for. However, for anyone who thinks that Mansour’s weakness made Safadi look any better, let me just remind you of what happened in Tunisia a week ago.

Safadi could have easily been a Tunisian minister sitting in a televised debate on Al Nasmah channel defending the status quo with numbers that none of us could argue with. The question is, are these the numbers that we should be considering in evaluating our situation or in formulating opposition views. I highly doubt it. Had the revolution not taken place in Tunisia a week ago, it would still be hailed today for the progress it made on various fronts: economic, infrastructure, women’s issues, population mortality and growth rates, and many others.

Today we all know too well that any progress that does not filter down to the common man or woman on the street, is far from being called so. Stiglitz was one of the very first prominent economists who alerted us all from the perils of using Gross Domestic Product as an economic barometer for growth and prosperity.

In essence, what the leadership needs to know is that we can be selective about almost everything in life except one thing: the truth. Another thing I would add to the leadership the higher you are on your horse the more painful the fall is going to be. Empathy must definitely be the order of the day. On the other hand, what the opposition needs to know is that by definition they are opposed to something that they would want to replace. If what we saw on Friday is the alternative to the existing leadership, then I am sorry they ain’t getting my vote!

Until this leadership crisis is resolved , my motto will remain the incompetent devil I know is better than the incompetent one I don’t!