“Nothing is popularly held to be better than a dry martini, but worse than sand in the bed sheets. A poor man has it, a rich man needs it, and if you eat it for a long time, it’ll kill you. On occasion, nothing could be further from the truth, but it is not clear how much further. It can be both black and white all over at the same time. Nothing is impossible for God, yet it is a cinch for the rankest incompetent. No matter what pair of contradictory properties you choose, nothing seems capable of embodying them. From this it might be concluded that nothing is mysterious. But that would only mean that everything is obvious—including, presumably, nothing.”


Will You be any Different? On Humanity and how it’s Probably Doomed


The Stanford prison experiment always fascinated me. It is a notorious experiment that took place over 40 years ago, in which a Stanford psychologist  Philip Zimbardo turned the university’s department into a fake prison and divided the volunteers into prisoners and guards. While the experiment was supposed to run for 2 weeks, it had to be abruptly stopped due to the disturbing nature it had developed into. At one point, the prisoners staged a riot, and the guards went ballistic. They tortured the prisoners, forced them to sleep naked on the floor and to clean bathrooms with their bare hands. At no point did it occur for the subjects of the experiment -who were simply volunteers- to quit the experiment. Finally, 6 days later, Zimbardo ended the experiment.

This was not the only experiment with a disturbing insight into human nature. The Milgram Experiments involved subjects who were told to give memory tests to a person in a different room and were told to press a button that delivers an electric shock to the subject whenever they gave an incorrect answer. The subjects were in fact actors and the button did not deliver any shock, but this was unknown to the “testers”. They were even told that the voltage of the shock would increase with each wrong answer given. Result? Between 61 and 66 percent continued with the experiment until they reached maximum voltage of a supposed 450 Volts, despite the screaming and begging of the subjects (who were visible to them, by the way). At certain points, they did feel uncomfortable, but continued with the experiment when a guy in a lab coat encouraged them to carry on.

“Rhythm 0″ was an artistic piece that attempted to explore human nature with similarly shocking results. In her piece, the artist Marina Abramović  told the public that she would not move for 6 hours regardless of what they do to her. There were many objects in the rooms arranged around her, ranging from flowers to a loaded gun.

Initially, Abramović said, viewers were peaceful and timid, but it escalated to violence quickly. “The experience I learned was that … if you leave decision to the public, you can be killed… I felt really violated: they cut my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the public. Everyone ran away, escaping an actual confrontation.”

Think of the tragedies that occurred along the centuries. Wars involving torture, the holocaust, Abu Ghraib, the crimes committed against the Palestinians. We often think, how could people commit such atrocities? But are they really that difficult to commit?

In all of the above experiments, the subjects didn’t even have a motive to harm the others in the experiment. This makes imagining the development of gruesome situations in real life a lot easier.

After much criticism to the Stanford prison experiment Professor Zimbardo defended his experiment.  “It tells us that human nature is not totally under the control of what we like to think of as free will, but that the majority of us can be seduced into behaving in ways totally atypical of what we believe we are,” he said.

Will you be any different?

Probably not.

Man. A Machine?

“We ought then to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its anterior state and the cause of the one which is to follow. Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it – an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit this data to analysis – it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present in its eyes.”

The above quote is by Pierre-Simon Laplace (yes, the very same Laplace who screwed us with his differential equations) and represents a view known as mechanistic materialism which is to say that the world and everything in it acts as a machine.


Materialism is one of the view used to solve the mind-body problem, which addresses the relationship between the physical world and the intelligible one; or put more simply, the relationship between the brain and the mind. What gives humans the ability to think, imagine and reason? What makes this blob of goo inside our skulls capable of mental activities? Materialism argues that matter is the ultimate reality of all things.

The full impact of mechanism reveals itself as one thinks more about it. It is not only that things act according to immutable laws of physics. Everybody believes that. It is to say that everything is caused in such a way that it could not have been otherwise. That everything is completely predetermined by infinitely long and converging chains of blind irrational antecedent causes. That somehow if you could find a machine that can comprehend all the forces in the universe and account for them, then you would be able to predict every detail in the universe at any point in the past or the future.

In a book written by La Mettrie, titled “Man a Machine”, he argues that man, with his thoughts, sensations and emotions is the sum of his organs, nerves, impulses, reflexes, pumping heart and the like; simply the physical counterparts of springs, cogs, wheels, wire and so on, all reducible to physics and chemistry. He compares the brain secreting thought in the same way that the liver secretes bile and that what we refer to as the soul is nothing but an empty word used to describe the part of us that thinks; an advanced machine.

I have always been inclined to believe in only what can be scientifically tested and proven, so maybe man is but a machine. Yet the idea of reducing everything in the world to a series of infinite reactions highly disturbs me. It simply removes free will. Then everything; my writing this post right now, you reading this very sentence, is predetermined by a blind irrational chain of events. I guess for some it is easier to believe that things are above us, that when something doesn’t work out, it is because something or someone didn’t want it to. But that ultimately makes everything pointless. Then all we are is puppets in the hands of their master.


Source used for writing the post: “Questions That Matter” b Ed L. Miller

On Philosophy & the Allegory of the Cave

Recently I have become really interested in philosophy. My knowledge of the subject is still very modest, but I like how it makes you question everything and most importantly how it can help you categorize your thoughts and views on life which makes things easier, I believe. For example, if you believe reason to be the source of knowledge then you are a rationalist and if you believe experience to be the source, then you are an empiricist. What I like in philosophy in comparison with religion, is that although both concern themselves with the unnatural world and with what cannot be proved, philosophy gives you the freedom of choice. Many philosophers with many contradicting views, and you are free to choose which one you conform with. 

But I digress. One of my favorite philosophical metaphors or stories is the one provided by Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. The following is the description of the allegory: 

Inside the cave

In Plato’s fictional dialogue, Socrates begins by describing a scenario in which what people take to be real would in fact be an illusion. He asks Glaucon to imagine a cave inhabited by prisoners who have been chained and held immobile since childhood: not only are their legs (but not arms) held in place, but their necks are also fixed, so they are compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which people walk carrying things on their heads “including figures of men and animals made of wood, stone and other materials”. The prisoners cannot see the raised walkway or the people walking, but they watch the shadows cast by the men, not knowing they are shadows. There are also echoes off the wall from the noise produced from the walkway.

Socrates suggests the prisoners would take the shadows to berealthings and the echoes to be real sounds created by the shadows, not just reflections of reality, since they are all they had ever seen or heard. They would praise as clever, whoever could best guess which shadow would come next, as someone who understood the nature of the world, and the whole of their society would depend on the shadows on the wall.


Release from the cave

Socrates then supposes that a prisoner is freed and permitted to stand up. If someone were to show him the things that had cast the shadows, he would not recognize them for what they were and could not name them; he would believe the shadows on the wall to be more real than what he sees.

“Suppose further,” Socrates says, “that the man was compelled to look at the fire: wouldn’t he be struck blind and try to turn his gaze back toward the shadows, as toward what he can see clearly and hold to be real? What if someone forcibly dragged such a man upward, out of the cave: wouldn’t the man be angry at the one doing this to him? And if dragged all the way out into the sunlight, wouldn’t he be distressed and unable to see “even one of the things now said to be true” because he was blinded by the light?

After some time on the surface, however, the freed prisoner would acclimate. He would see more and more things around him, until he could look upon the Sun. He would understand that the Sun is the “source of the seasons and the years, and is the steward of all things in the visible place, and is in a certain way the cause of all those things he and his companions had been seeing”.


Return to the cave

Socrates next asks Glaucon to consider the condition of this man. “Wouldn’t he remember his first home, what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow prisoners, and consider himself happy and them pitiable? And wouldn’t he disdain whatever honors, praises, and prizes were awarded there to the ones who guessed best which shadows followed which? Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn’t he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? Wouldn’t it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it’s not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead them up, wouldn’t they kill him?” The prisoners, ignorant of the world behind them, would see the freed man with his corrupted eyes and be afraid of anything but what they already know. Philosophers analyzing the allegory argue that the prisoners would ironically find the freed man stupid due to the current state of his eyes and temporarily not being able to see the shadows which are the world to the prisoners.


All of us believe that we are in possession of the truth. That their reality is what’s real. Otherwise, we wouldn’t believe it. Conservatives think they’re right, liberals think they’re right, Christians think they’re right, Muslims think they’re right, atheists think they’re right, and so on and so fourth. So who’s right? What is reality? Is there such a thing?

On Freedom of Religion in Jordan – A Look at Recent Events in Fuheis

Jordan is a country which boasts of its freedom of religion quite openly. Christians have a quota in the parliament and there are churches quietly nestled in many corners around Amman and the country. As a Christian (I wouldn’t describe myself as such, but seeing as this country gives you the choice of being either Muslim or Christian,  I suppose I fall in the latter), I personally never faced any ordeal simply because I am. Sure you come across the occasional ‘smashed car because there was a cross hanging on the mirror’ story and are confronted with inconsideration every once in a while, like having exams set around Christmas,  but nonetheless, I was always more or less convinced of Jordan’s ‘freedom of religion’.

The recent events in Fuheis, however, made me rethink just how ‘religiously free’ we as a society really are. For those who haven’t heard, a week ago some hundred protesters from Fuheis, a predominantly Christian town, closed up the major roundabout with blazing tires in protest to a young Christian woman eloping with a Muslim man. Of course there are many, many versions of the story, and trying to get the actual story is damn near impossible. Some say the girl was raped and forced to marry the guy and others say she got pregnant and ran off with him. The latest story I heard even involved him being in jail due to drug-related issues. Whatever the true story is, it sure hit a nerve.

The whole Christian-girl-marries-Muslim-boy issue already is quite a sensitive topic with Christian families, particularly lately. Not that it has anything to do with religion itself, nobody really cares if the man is devout or not,  just as long as he has a Christian family name, he’s good to go. I don’t know if it’s due to the diminishing numbers of Christians in Jordan or if it’s simply a cultural taboo. I know of many women who have been shunned by their families because of their decision to marry a Muslim, and I know of many other Shakespearean couples who were forced to break up or elope outside of Jordan as the man was Christian and the woman is not, and therefore they cannot marry here. I will avoid to speak here of the hypocrisy of such a law, alas, this is the case.

Of course with the recent turn of events, such a topic cannot be avoided at family reunions, and the statements I hear truly make me wonder at this religious freedom we supposedly have. After hearing the story, one of my uncles went so far as to yell, right next to his daughters, that he would kill them if he knew one of his daughters was going to marry a Muslim – the Christian version of honor crimes, that was traditionally practiced up till recently, I would say. The rationale behind such a stance by most is that it’s not a two-way street; a Christian man cannot marry a Muslim woman, and therefore why should their daughter, sister or whatever female relative they think they own be given away to a Muslim.

But I wonder. Had it been possible to do so, would it no longer be a taboo? Would suddenly all our prejudices and hatreds simply cease to exist? Would we truly live in harmony together regardless of what God we do or do not believe in?

Brag about our tolerant society all we will, but the truth is, when push comes to shove, we are anything but tolerant.


Life Philosophy


Against Article 308: The Rape and Marry Law

It’s been a frustrating couple of days for those keeping up with women’s rights in Jordan. The news about a 19-year-old who was exonerated after raping a 14-year-old girl in a tent for 3 consecutive days sent shock waves through the Jordanian community. This was due to article 308 of the Jordanian penal code which exempts a rapist from punishment if he marries his victim. The cherry on top was Dr. Khazai, a professor of sociology in Jordan University who claimed that women are different from men, and can overcome such an ordeal if they want to, and that the wife (remember, a 14-year-old kid) should start having kids so they put the situation behind them. 

Fortunately, we managed to translate the anger and frustration into something useful. Tweet after tweet, facebook group after group and as a first step, a couple of us met and constructed an initial action plan, the first fruit of which is this petition that I hope you will sign and share (LINK:

Realistically speaking, changing such a law won’t come that easy nor quickly. Our esteemed parliament, who only manage to be productive when it comes to their pensions hearing, still have about 30 temporary laws to vote on, I’ve been told. But the first step is speaking out and gathering awareness towards this injustice. Because the only thing worse than a law marrying rapists to their victim is it happening with no one to protest it. 

So speak up people! 


Look! Funny post here!

I just realized how depressing this blog must be, after reading my last couple of posts. I don’t really spend my entire time lamenting the bad situation. Really. So, to cheer you up a bit, watch this George Carlin video guaranteed to make you laugh. Enjoy!

Futuristic Jordan

Forget all the politics for a while. Forget all the news about acquitting people so corrupt, that giving back 700 million JD back while keeping their god-knows-how-expensive Dabouq mansion is considered a settlement. Forget that the legislative bodies over the years, elected by a rigged electoral system, only accomplish awarding themselves diplomatic passports, raises or lifelong pensions. Forget that every project that would’ve had the potential of improving quality of life had been cancelled after spending a couple of millions. Forget that almost every piece of Jordanian land or resource is being sold for peanuts with the elite capitalizing on the crumbs. Forget that the journalists either get detained or paid off so you don’t even know if what you read in the newspapers is true, made up or half the story. Forget that the youth are being taught that nationalism and patriotism are connected to religious conservatism or a mere display of meaningless chants and empty slogans. Forget all that.

The fact of the matter is, in a couple of years, there will be no water delivered to the houses. The streets will run out of spaces for the ever-growing population of cars. Overpopulation is going to make the people poorer, more conservative and less educated. We will probably have planned blackouts every couple of hours. Inflation will continue increase at an exponential rate. 

But hey, that’s just the cynic talking. If you have another point of view, please share it. I really do want to change my mind. 

On Censorship and Typical Jordanian Aversion to Logic

The government is considering applying a censorship on pornographic websites. For me, I find the whole idea of internet censorship ridiculous to begin with unless you’re using it to protect small children from inadvertently accessing inappropriate content (like say googling “swallow” in search of the bird and getting horrified for life). Other than that, unless you’re planning to raise them in a bubble, they will eventually come across porn (intentionally or not). The best you can hope for is that they are actually convinced that porn is bad for them. Before the internet, guys usually got their porn from Balad vendors probably. Maybe this would boost the economy, eh? The point is, immorality, as they call it, is not the result of the internet.

That is besides the actual impossibility of blocking the internet, with all the proxy websites that are designed to bypass the blocks. Even if the proxy websites themselves are blocked, one can subscribe to a mailing list which mails you a constantly updated list of proxies, so by the time one is shut down, a new one pops up. What censorship pretty much does is inconvenience.

Different people have different opinions, which is why censorship is a matter that should be left to the person/family/organization to decide. Why should a governmental institution be given the power to decide what is deemed to be acceptable content? By what standards or criteria would whatever committee responsible filter out the content? Will Flickr be deemed inappropriate? How about Wikipedia articles regarding sex? Deviant Art? Dating websites? Who’s to say that this wont spread to political websites? In Saudi and UAE, blocked websites actually do include some Wikipedia pages and Flickr.

The obvious solution would be for concerned families/individuals to pick out the parental control scheme they are comfortable with. Orange Jordan provides parental control plan. There’s a whole list of categories which you can choose from (and you can even submit new suggestions to your own list).

All of the above, however, is irrelevant, since the government is actually doing this in response to a campaign by citizens who want to block these websites. The Facebook page “for closing down pornographic websites” has about 18000 likes. And if you ask your average Jo on the street, they will most likely be with the campaign. The very fact of the matter is, it’s not citizens vs. government when it comes to censorship. The average citizen does want censorship.

So all your logical arguments are simply pointless. If the average citizen wants to encapsulate themselves in a bubble of sanctimonious morality, how are you to argue with that? The thing is, if porn really was the only thing holding us from immorality, I’d be the first one campaigning. But this is a society that favors blocking porn, and then goes off to harass its women on the streets. Long live hypocrisy.

-Check out this link for statistics (old but valid nonetheless).

This is the best we can do…

“Now, there’s one thing you might have noticed I don’t complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: ‘The Public Sucks.”

-George Carlin

Petra Entrance Fees

It seems that my posts have been reduced to tweets, but I felt like I needed to elaborate more on this topic as much as it infuriated me.

A friend mentioned the other day how he was with a group of friends going to Petra, and one of them did not have a Jordanian nationality and as a result had to pay 90 JDs (130$)  in comparison with the 1 JD fee for Jordanians. I was shocked. 90 JDs? No way. But I checked it, and lo and behold, the entrance fee for Petra is 90 JDs which apparently now includes a horse ride from the Visitor Center to the entrance of the Siq, informational brochures and maps and a guiding service. Great. Camel and donkey rides however are available at extra cost.

But then I thought, wait this is one of the new world wonders. Maybe I am overreacting. Perhaps all sites of such historic importance have such a steep entrance fee. So here are the entrance fees for foreigners in the following world wonders:

  • Machu Picchu in Peru: 40$ with 50% off for students.
  • Taj Mahal in India: 15$
  • Chichen Itza in Mexico: 12$
  • The Colosseum in Italy: 12$
  • Great Wall of China: 14$
  • Christ the Redeemer in Rio: Free

So what possible justification does the Ministry of Tourism have for such an obscene sum? I for one will not be encouraging anyone I know to visit Petra. It would be rather humiliating to have someone I know have to pay such a fee. So there you have it, the proof that our government can take the most spectacular of things and make it as they say, sammet badan…

Mu’asher’s Paper on Struggling Reform: Summary and Analysis

“The clear discrepancy between the king’s directives to the seven prime ministers he had entrusted to form governments in his twelve years of power—and the actual record of reform completed by these respective governments—points to a structural problem that is all too often ignored.”

Marwan Mu’asher, a previous foreign minister and press adviser with an admirable reformist mentality has posted a paper in which he examines the last decade of the actions (or lack thereof) of the successive governments under the King. The paper provides a narrative of the events that took place as government after government came into power with political, economic and social reform being their main task, and then failed to deliver. He asks the same question that has been plaguing me for a long time. The same question that a lot of people are surprisingly not asking (or maybe not so surprisingly). With the King´s ideal vision of reform that we so pride ourselves with, how come is it that for the past 12 years, none of his demands that we keep hearing over and over again, are being met?

The following is a not-at-all concise summary of the paper, but I think the following sections are definitely worth a read (particularly the part about the National Agenda) and are a helpful summary of political events of the past decade, regardless of how you choose to interpret them. That being said, the entire paper is a must-read as well, as a summary might not clearly explain the circumstances. The bold parts are the ones that I found rather interesting, and the red parts are my personal commentary. My personal opinion is after the summary.

The Early Years

In his first letter of designation to Prime Minister Abdul Rauf Al-Rawabdeh, the king emphasized the need to enhance national unity, promote democracy, strengthen the judiciary, boost efficiency in the public sector, and strengthen the role of the media in promoting freedom of expression… The focus was largely economic and resulted in some notable achievements…but on the political reform front, few positive developments took place.

Rawabdeh, an experienced but conservative East Bank politician, was widely perceived as biased against Jordanians of Palestinian origin and generally averse to the private sector and media. His feud with a local paper, as well as his inaction on changing a highly controversial and restrictive press and publications law, did not endear him to the press… His resistance to political and economic change, as well as the resignation of three liberal ministers in his government, finally did him in. The king’s call to reform the electoral law was never even touched.

When Rawabdeh was dismissed in June 2000, his government could not point to any significant advancement on political reform. He had reportedly managed to temporarily convince the king that political reform carried major risks for stability if combined with accelerated economic reform.

The Governments of Ali Abu Ragheb, 2000–2003

Ragheb was supposed to be everything that Rawabdeh was not. Although also an East Bank politician, Abu Ragheb was younger and more liberal, both politically and economically. The king not only reiterated his wishes to preserve national unity in his letter of designation, but also entrusted the new government to enact a constitutional provision calling for equality and equal opportunity for citizens, regardless of their origin.

His directives on political reform were even stronger and more than compensated for the previous letter’s lack of specificity… Unfortunately, the directives were not implemented. The government may have embarked on an accelerated path of economic reform, but it continued to waver on the political reforms necessary to ensure the development of a system that could monitor economic activities and curb abuses. In fact, it moved in the exact opposite direction.

Instead of promoting pluralism, democracy, and the formation of political parties, the king—acting on the recommendation of the government and the powerful intelligence services—dismissed the parliament in June 2001. Elections were postponed indefinitely under the pretense of “regional tensions” in the Palestinian territories and later in Iraq. Indeed, elections would not be held again until a full two years later, in June 2003.

Approximately 211 provisional laws were passed during the parliament’s absence, making use of a clause in the constitution that allows laws to be passed by the government in the absence of parliament under pressing circumstances… Contrary to the designation letter’s directives, the government passed laws that further limited press freedom and public demonstrations… Amendments were made to the election law… but on the core amendments necessary to address the king’s directives— formation of political parties and ensuring the equality and representation of Jordanians regardless of their ethnic origin—nothing was done. The new law did not amend the voting system to allow political party representation, and it kept the controversial districting system largely intact—a system designed to keep the number of parliament members of Palestinian origin to a minimum.

The Shift Toward Political Reform: The 2003 Government of Faisal Al-Faiz

The king decided to hold parliamentary elections in June and accelerate the reform process in the hopes of addressing rising political tensions. In October 2003, he replaced the incumbent government with a new one led by Prime Minister Faisal Al Faiz, mandated with both accelerating the pace of political reform and institutionalizing it. Traditional and tribal, Faiz was widely perceived as a “king’s man” who the king hoped would not derail or undermine reform.

In his letter of designation, the king was very specific about the areas of political reform that needed attention.

…Intending to modernize the political process from above, the king’s revitalized efforts and calls for reform fell on deaf ears yet again. The rentier system, firmly entrenched by that time, ensured that no serious political process could succeed without considerable difficulty. On the one hand, the structural flaw in the election law—which the system had no intention of changing—ensured that parliament remained a service-oriented body, subservient to the government and reliant on it for services rendered to member constituencies. It was not a body collectively concerned with major issues, and certainly not political reform.

Government, on the other hand, had an interest in appeasing members of parliament, through the steady provision of services, in order to remain in power. Thus, although the government had a few vocal reformers, the prime minister quickly discovered that advancing political reform would entail difficult confrontations with the country’s political elite, including its intelligence services. Instead, he opted to gradually lower expectations on what could be achieved, rather than engage in any systematic process aimed at developing political life in the country.

Instead of pushing the government’s political reform agenda, Faiz, under pressure from the intelligence services, shifted gears and started talking about “administrative reform” as the top priority during the latter part of the year. Even then, the government found it hard to match its rhetoric with deeds. One particular move that raised a lot of questions was the prime minister’s decision in December to appoint over 30 people—many of whom were relatives or friends of parliament members—to senior government positions and also to replace many university presidents without a vetting process… A cabinet reshuffle in October of that year did little to remedy the situation. In March 2005, the interior minister introduced a government-approved bill to parliament that further reduced political space by regulating the activities of all professional associations. The bill required associations to keep discussions apolitical and called for the creation of a disciplinary structure to penalize those who broke the law. A series of sit-ins and protests by civil society followed and was met with government crackdowns and arrests. This directly contradicted the king’s letter of designation to the government, in which he called for a “democracy based on dialogue and respect of others’ viewpoints.”

When 59 members of parliament signed a petition asking the government to withdraw the law, the government exercised so much pressure that nearly a third of them withdrew their signatures. Several journalists stated that the government had directed newspapers to refrain from publishing news about the upheaval.

The National Agenda, 2005

The political reform process, largely instigated from above, was going nowhere…When the king introduced elements of political reform—such as equality before the law for all Jordanians, more press freedoms, and a modernized election law—such measures were presented without a clear guiding framework, strategy, or timeline. The directives were thus taken by government institutions as being open to their own personal interpretations, and often resulted in either a watered-down version of reform or no reform at all.

….In February 2005, the king offered a new initiative. He entrusted Faiz’s government with drafting “a national agenda that embodies the vision of all of us and specifies

strategic programs and national policies whose realization should be binding to all successive governments.”

In the political field, the agenda proposed a new election law that would gradually build greater parliamentary strength and address structural flaws by adopting a mixed electoral system. It suggested removing all clauses that discriminated against women from Jordanian laws by 2015. It also called for laws that would grant political parties, civil society organizations, and the media the right to operate free from government interference. It also suggested laws that would guarantee judicial independence and competence.

In the economic and social fields, the committee suggested plans that would almost double real per-capita income, reduce unemployment by half, and convert the budget deficit from about 11 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) into a surplus of 1.8 percent by 2017—in essence, moving from a rentier state to a productive and self-sufficient economy. It also included a plan to have all Jordanians medically insured by 2012. (I’m seriously curious as to what this evidently great plan entailed exactly.)

The committee was loosely divided among three groups: traditional elites, who saw themselves as guardians of the state and thus wanted to ensure that the basic pillars of the rentier system were untouched (particularly the election law); economic neo-liberals, who were mostly concerned with liberalizing the economy and whose attitudes toward political reform were lukewarm at best; and political liberals, who desired real changes to the political system. The first and third groups were often at loggerheads, with the second group taking a backseat on political issues.

The determination of the traditional political elite to sabotage this process stemmed from their fear that a merit-based system—emerging from the discussions on political and economic reform—would come at their expense… Faced with immense resistance to change from his traditional constituency, the king continued to voice his frustration.

…The political liberals, on the other hand, were lobbying to introduce a mixed electoral system, whereby each voter would be given two votes: one for a district-based candidate, and the other to a national list that would encourage the emergence of political parties with representation in parliament. The percentage of seats given to party lists versus districts would gradually increase in each election cycle to allow Jordanians to acclimate to such a system, by gradually moving away from tribal-based politics and transitioning to a stronger, party-based parliament.

This new system proposed by political liberals was clearly a major departure from the rentier state discourse that had shrouded domestic politics for decades. The king’s directives aside, the elite were unprepared to relinquish power, however gradually, even if it would mean a better quality of life for all Jordanians. The group thus proceeded to mount a fierce campaign in the press against political liberals, pegging them as economic neoliberals unconcerned with the devastating social effects of economic liberalization.

They also accused liberals of participating in a conspiracy to weaken the Jordanian state, as well as any other charges they felt would resonate with a public already sceptical of state-initiated reform efforts. Armed with support from most of the state’s political and military institutions, the elite once again invoked the argument of stability versus reform and painted the entire plan as premature and dangerous.

The government of Badran, a liberal who strongly voiced his support for the initiative, was replaced the day after the National Agenda document was presented to the king, on November 23, 2005. Finally convinced of the political elite’s argument that the proposed election law was “dangerous and premature”— and not wanting to alienate his traditional constituency—the monarch did not mention the National Agenda effort in his letter of designation to the new prime minister until deep down in the document.

And while the king entrusted the latest government with… reform, the new prime minister, Marouf Bakhit, had no intention of doing so, having been one of the most vocal opponents of this very initiative. Throughout his tenure as prime minister, he merely paid lip service to the effort, while dropping all references to its political aspects from his government’s program. (A rather interesting description of the current prime minister whose main task is political reform. Never mind.)

The completion of the National Agenda draft program coincided with three events that took place within a few short months: the 2005 parliamentary election in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood secured 20 percent of seats; the bombing of three hotels in Jordan on November 9, 2005, by an arm of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which left 60 Jordanians dead; and the 2006 elections in the West Bank and Gaza, in which Hamas won a majority of parliamentary seats.

…And the old guard in Jordan continued to employ these concerns in arguing that the time was not yet ripe for reform—which they framed as a tool that could potentially serve to empower radicals. On the other side, liberals argued that in a pluralistic society, Islamists would have to compete for votes instead of winning street-level support from those who were disenfranchised and disenchanted with the regime but had nowhere else to go in a closed political system. Brought to a standstill by such widely divergent perspectives, the reform engine had lost all of its steam. (the Islamists “bo3bo3” was used then, and will continue to be used if people continue to buy this excuse).

The National Agenda served as the ultimate reform battleground and the old guard had prevailed. The first holistic, inclusive, and measurable reform program in the Arab world was dead on arrival, shelved just as soon as it was completed.

For the next five years, action on reform would be replaced by rhetoric.

I will stop summarizing now, as the image is clear from the past paragraphs. Mu’asher goes on to describe how the National Agenda was bypassed, and the We Are All Jordan initiative was created with “national unity and loyalty” stated as its priorities. He also mentions how Bakhit admitted that the 2007 elections were rigged to exclude the IAF and how after Bakhit, Rifa’i actually made things worse in terms of reform.

Now I am not a political expert, nor will I pretend to be. I’m just a citizen who´s been observing the political happening of the past few years and here´s what I have to say: ENOUGH already. I have had enough. Jordanians have had enough. Being manipulated and lied to so very shamelessly from one government to the next. Of course the vast majority don´t know or have grown completely apathetic and hopeless of the whole reform process, now with a stigma stamped on it after March 24th.  I wouldn’t even blame the March 24th opponents with all the disgusting propaganda they were exposed to while the instigators sit on the top savouring the chaos.

I understand that much of the political constituency is resistant to change, but the difference between Jordan and other countries is that everyone here is in favour of the monarchy system, even the opposition. Therefore no political constituency would dare say anything, if the king were to make changes himself rather than delegate them (a strategy which so very clearly failed).

We can’t afford to be apathetic to the reform process any longer. If we’re going to learn anything from the revolts we witnessed from the start of the year it’s this: it can happen anywhere. And if you think it won’t ever happen in Jordan, just take a look at Syria. At some point people will reach the tipping point.

And when they do, it will be too late.

Note: the only positive point in Mu’ashers paper is regarding Jordanian bloggers and independent websites that have established themselves firmly in spite of government efforts to curb them. And to that I say bravo.

On Jordanian Politics and What We Really Want

Haven’t written about Jordanian politics in quite some time, although it’s one of my favourite subjects on this blog. Reading this article made me want to write something about the Novemeber ’10 elections.

The article talks about the recent National Center for Human Rights report which reports violations of the electoral process and how despite promises of the executive branch to guarantee fair elections, the phenomenon of vote buying was evident.  It goes on to say how it resulted in a parliament of ‘government loyalists and lawmakers with tribal affiliations’.  Well, no shock there. It mentions how the report came out recently after the parliament gave the government an overwhelming vote of confidence of 111 vs. 8 votes, giving rise to such political satire. It concludes with the NCHR making a recommendation that the parliament review the new elections law to guarantee equal representation of candidates and votes and so on and so forth.

So that got me thinking. Imagine that the elections were completely fair. Imagine that there was no vote buying and no intervention whatsoever from the executive branch. Do you think the results would’ve varied? During the campaigning process, was there a candidate whom you believed had a good agenda but did not make it to the parliament due to the faulty electoral process? Heck, were you ever even made known of the political agenda of a single candidate?

Let’s continue imagining. Suppose we had a true democracy. Suppose the Muslim Brotherhood, the only functioning political party in my opinion, did not boycott the elections. And suppose they were elected into the parliament by the public who believes in their cause -cuz let’s face it, the only card that could trump tribalism has got to be religion. Do you think that would’ve led to a better Jordan?

In a country that is this socially and culturally divided, do we even know what we want? Actually the question should be, can we agree on what we want? Is it democracy that we really want?

The above are questions to which I have no answers. 3 years ago in the elections of 2007, I would’ve gone and voted if I could. This time, even if I did have the opportunity, I would not have. Is it that I have become cynical to believe that the future of Jordan could be shaped by it’s parliament?


Random Rant of the Day

It seriously bugs me how there are no movie theatres that show movies in their original language. Everything is dubbed into German. And I can’t download torrents or so as my internet connection is monitored by the dorm, and they will block my connection if I do so.

I want to watch “Despicable Me”. And “The Social Network”. And while we’re at it, who shut down Ninja Video?

Also why does it give me a red line every time I write “movie”? Movie is still a word, no?

I’m off. Have a good day y’all!