"Prime Ministers Galore"

Two frequently asked questions about Jordan keep on popping (or pooping) up on almost any occasion, ranging from the funeral of Nelson Mandela to the legalization of  marijuana in Uruguay.  The first is "why Jordan hasn’t been able to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth?" This question is immediately followed by "has this failure always been the case, or is it a recent phenomenon?"  The frequency of these questions intensifies with time, and so does the urge to find answers.  This very urge led me to read countless economic and political economic studies on why genuine growth over the past decades has remained elusive.

In looking for reasons, there seemed to be an emphasis on the weakness of the institutional framework for policy making and strategy planning in Jordan.  There also seems to be a consensus on the symptom, or maybe the root cause, of such weakness, which are the continuous dizzying changes in governments in Jordan. The constant “government hopping” has been a huge enigma for me.  Why would anyone “in his right mind” (the ultimate absolute decision maker namely the king) persistently disrupt an already vulnerable socio-economic  status quo? Why?  Moreover, I noticed that we have tended to blame the past decade (in an indirect allusion to King Abdulla’s reign) for such instability.  Having all of this in mind, I decided to take a quick look at government formations in Jordan since it was a British Protectorate (Emirate of Transjordan 1921) until today.  Here is what I found:

-          The first prime minister Transjordan knew was Rashid Talee’ (April-August 1921)

-          Since 1921 Jordan has had 73 changes of prime ministers. An average 
of one prime minister per 1.3 years.

-          Since 1946 Jordan has had 61 changes of prime ministers. An average of one prime minister per 1.1 years

-          Three prime ministers had their (or one of their) premierships for less than a month.  5 days (Hazza Majali in 1955), 8 days (Hussein Khalidi in 1957), and 9 days (Muhammad Daoud in 1970).

-          61 out of the 73 were prime ministers for less than two years.

-          41 out of the 73 were prime ministers for less than a year

-          10 out of the 73 were prime ministers for less than three months.

-          The longest sitting prime minister was Tawfiq Abu Al-Huda 1938-1944

-          The longest 3 sitting prime ministers were before 1946

-          Zeid Refai was twice a prime minister (I had completely forgotten about this) the first time 1973-1976 and the second time 1985-1989. Both periods were tumultuous ones.

-          From 1999 until today Jordan has had 10 prime ministers.  An average of 1 prime minister per 1.4 years. A better ratio than the previous decades!!!!

-          Since 1948 Israel has had 12 prime ministers over 33 terms.

In conclusion,  attributing  our inability to achieve sustainable growth to the instability of our policy making framework seems to hold some truth to it.  As we say in Arabic, if the reason is known, then the puzzlement is gone; or part of it at least.

USA: A Melting Pot or a Changing One?

These days reading the news coming out of the USA, it is quite evident that we no longer read names typically associated with Anglo-Saxon America.  The following is a sample of some of the names in leading news stories over the past few weeks:

Yanira Maldonado:  Arizona woman held on marijuana charges
Arvind Mahankali:  Winner of the Scripps National Spelling Bee
Tamerlan Tsarnaev & Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:  Alleged Boston Marathon bombers
Barack Obama: The first US Jewish President
Tamer Mosallam, Nozad Al Hamawendi, Cecilia Zamora, Alyahyan, teenagers involved in a recent highly publicized tragic car crash in Newport Beach in California.

A passing thought for whatever it is worth.

 

Tolerance...

“I am not guilty of the common error of judging another by myself. I easily believe in another’s humor which is contrary to my own; and though I find myself engaged to one certain form, I do not oblige others to it, as many do; but believe and apprehend a thousand ways of living; and, contrary to most men, more easily admit of difference than uniformity amongst us. I as frankly as any one would have me, discharge a man from my humors and principles, and consider him according to his own particular model. Though I am not continent myself, I nevertheless sincerely approve the continence of the Feuillans and Capuchins, and highly commend their way of living. I insinuate myself by imagination into their places, and love and honor them the more for being other than I am. I very much desire that we may be judged every man by himself, and would not be drawn into the consequence of common examples”. (Michel Montaigne)

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