I was surprised when, holding onto the railing in a crowded subway in downtown Hong Kong, the automated speaker suddenly announced in perfect English: "Next Stop: Jordan!". I later learned that Jordan Station is smack in the middle of Hong Kong subway line 1, right between Yau Ma Tei station and Tsim Sha Tsui station. Go figure :)
Incidentally, it happened to be the very same day when Egypt finally got what she wanted. I was actually on my way back from a short visit to the Egyptian consulate of Hong Kong. I went there to say congrats to whomever I could find, but I found them closed so instead I left a little scribble on an official note that was posted on the door:
I chuckled loudly as soon as I heard "Next stop: Jordan", and a few faces out of the masses of preppy Asian businessmen gave me dirty looks. They didn't get the irony: Egypt had broken free, just weeks after Tunisia. "Next Stop: Jordan" was basically all I could think of all day!
I don't think it takes a genius to predict that change is coming to Jordan, and soon. As a Jordanian reading this article, you shouldn't be hung up on whether you'd like to see things change at all, but rather you should be asking yourself what your role should be in relation to the impending change. Your choices include helping preempt it, channel it, shape it, lead it, take part in it, and of course you always have the classic option of burying your head in the sand in denial towards it - Mubarak style. Whatever you choose to do, what remains unquestionable is that the Jordan of tomorrow is going to be very different than the Jordan of today.
As somebody who had left Jordan early on in life, sort of taking the "jump ship" approach to its problems, I don't get to speak on behalf of Jordanians or even as a citizen in the true sense of the word. However because of my relatively unique position, having lived long enough in Jordan and long enough far away from Jordan to really absorb multiple perspectives on its issues, I think I have something valuable to offer. My goal is to do my little part in enticing debate and presenting Jordanians with logical arguments for change. And so, I have been playing devil's advocate lately in thinking of (and refuting) a comprehensive list of arguments against the change towards real democracy in Jordan. Without further ado:
Top 5 arguments against change towards real democracy in Jordan:
Argument 1: Why bother?
Jordan ain't Egypt. We don't export cheap manual labour to neighboring countries. We don't have starving masses living in mountains of makeshift huts. Things are relatively OK in Jordan. Plus we have a stable situation with a monarchy keeping peace. Why bother with something messy like a revolution? Let's just make best out of what we have and count our blessings.
Because it is not going to last. What little advantages Jordan has over its neighbors are not going to last for too long. Jordan is on a trajectory towards Egypt and it's only a matter of time before we do export cheap labour and do start living in makeshift huts. The trend is clear, all you have to do is look at general economy reports and you'll see that every year is worse than the preceding year. You might not notice the change so sharply if you live there. But I notice it clearly because I make week-long visits spread out over spans of years. It is very hard to imagine a future where Jordan avoids spiraling down, except if the people of Jordan pulled all their collective wisdom today to figure out radical changes. And what do you need in order to gather and summarize the collective wisdom of millions of people? That's right, we call it Democracy!
The ruling elite can't help you navigate away from the storm ahead, because their asses are not on line. They are, after all, the elite. They're going to have a very hard time feeling the sense of urgency of the situation, knowing full well that they are immune to it. The people, whoever, properly represented, will surely try their best to navigate Jordan away from economic misery because their very asses are on the line.
Don't think of this as a call to start trouble where the other option is no trouble at all. The reality of the situation is that there is a looming disaster ahead. This here is an argument to tolerate some commotion now, in order to maximize the odds of avoiding disaster later on.
Argument 2: The King is Great
It is hard to imagine a presidential candidate who'd do a better job, or come better prepared than the current King of Jordan. King Abdullah is no Mubarak. It's not like we are ruled by an 80+ year old mummy who is completely out of touch with reality! We have a young, intelligent, tactful, diplomatic, highly educated, and well informed leader. Are we seriously going to open up the system for some illiterate tribal leader to replace him?
I have four answers to this one…
1. Put your ballot where you mouth is!
Don't get me wrong, I really like the King of Jordan. I met him only once in a conference in New York, where he came to talk to American investors about the potential for investment in Jordan. He was fluent, succinct, precise, and charismatic (his wife was sitting beside him for decoration only but that's a different story). One can only assume he must be doing a wonderful job encouraging foreign investment and collecting much-needed foreign aid for his country. I would probably vote for him in freely held national elections.
But that's all besides the point! The point here is, such elections never took place. It would be narcissistic of me to assume that, since I believe he's our best bet for leader, then that must be the reality. I could be simply mistaken, misinformed, or just plain stupid. Even if I'm right about him, what if there was somebody out there who could do a twice-better job at leading the country? How can you confidently rule out that possibility without free elections? In any case, if he really was our best bet, then why oppose free elections to settle the matter once and for all? Go ahead and vote for him :)
Basically, who the best leader is is a matter for the masses to decide. Their collective judgment is more powerful, more stable, and more reliable than yours alone. And while I for one would breathe a big sigh of relief if King Abdullah won the majority vote, I'm not about to put my own opinion above the wisdom of all Jordanians! Instead, I'd join the call for elections then do everything I can to promote the "King for President" campaign ;)
2. What about his grand children?
Even if we all agree that King Abdullah is the best possible choice for leader, ever, that still doesn't count as a good argument against change. A reading in history of kingdoms quickly leads to a prevailing observation about the fall of pretty much every single kingdom in all time: A series of great kings were succeeded by one idiot who screwed up everything, leading to popular revolution or invasion. Do we really have to wait until a retarded king assumes power before we start talking about change? Can anybody really guarantee that the offspring of Jordan's king will forever be superior beings, better suited to lead than the offspring of every other Jordanian?
If you really believe that to be true, then you are pretty much a Nazi. But I doubt anybody really believes in that. We all know too many cases where total idiots raised prodigies, and converse cases where the world's most fascinating people ended up with complete morons for children.
3. You can have your King and eat it too.
You don't have to boot the monarch in order to effect change towards democracy. Many modern democracies out there are basically kingdoms, with strings attached. I for one would be completely happy with a monarch in Jordan, as long as the person or people effectively in charge for immediate decisions are representatives of the masses somehow someway.
In modern monarchies, a king functions are a symbol for the sovereignty of the state, and as a stabilizing factor for otherwise potentially divisive political factions within the state. A king can also help chart long term strategies and build long lasting bridges of foreign relations with other monarchs or leaders. You can also imagine it would be very helpful to have somebody around who had been on top of things for decades, if at least as a wise-man to consult with before making any big decisions. This is all fine as long as the monarch doesn't get the power to rule the country, which is a power that should only ever be vested into true representatives of the people.
It's a fine line to draw, and it requires carefully laid out checks and balances, but it can be done and it is working out there in the real world. Take for example the queen of England, who "appoints" the prime minister, but only after a candidate is vested by the people. Such powers in the hand of the monarch are only ever meant as a guard against exceptional circumstances, so that the king can always trump the process in extreme cases where that really is the explicit will of the people. Another example would be the power to boot the prime minister ahead of time, if the people so wish.
So, if a kingdom is the right system for Jordan, why not augment the constitution, so that the monarch shares power properly? This way we can effectively have the best of both worlds.
4. Sharing power could only make the king greater!
People's attitudes towards the king of Jordan tend to cluster between those who love him to the point of a personality cult, and those who hate him to the point of hallucinating conspiracy theories. I have heard countless stories from friends who fall into either category. One faction would portray the king as a benevolent hero, fighting corruption wherever it is to be found, and forgiving evil enemies with majestic elegance. The other side talks about a very different king, basically a blood-sucking monster, greedy to the point of absurdity, gambling away his own people's riches and ruining the lives of anybody who might stand up to him…
I wouldn't know for sure, but I'm pretty confident that both accounts are wrong. The truth about the king lies somewhere in between. But that's all besides the point! My point here is that, whatever your opinion is about the king, you must admit that people don't have the visibility they ought to have about the details of the dealings and expenses of the ruling palace, and that is a rich environment for myths and conspiracy theories to grow.
Unlike monarchs, representative leaders can be held accountable by the people, and are therefore required to disclose certain things and provide their constituents with visibility into the details of their dealings and expenses.
So you see how, even if you're fond of the king, moving towards democracy would help you silence the voices of those would claim all sorts of stories about the palace abusing its powers. Sharing power implies increased visibility, and increased visibility helps great leaders demonstrate their greatness, and pressures not-so-great leaders to shape up. It's a win-win!
Argument 3: Jordanians are too divided for democracy
For those who don't know, Jordan is not exactly Sweden. Jordan has a rather unique situation, in being a nation deeply split between two demographics of Eastern vs Western Jordanians. This dates back to the first wars with Israel, when hundreds of thousands of then-mostly-farmer Palestinians where kicked out of their homes and forced to live as refugees among their neighbors, the then-mostly-beduin tribes east of the Jordan river. Those refugees who stayed (the majority) never really assimilated, partly because their hosts (being of a tribal culture) never acknowledged them as their peers, and partly because the refugees considered any move towards assimilation to be an act of concession of defeat to Israel, so that their "right of return" necessitated that they never treat Jordan as home. There even was a civil "war" (more like a civil skirmish) back in the 70s, for which many of the older folk still hold a grudge.
History aside, the situation today is that there is a bone-deep split between two kinds of Jordanians, roughly 50-50, and that the two groups basically hate each other, and view each other as existential threats. Now, take the monarchy out of the picture, and you might end up with a civil war (a real one this time).
Nothing unifies better than a common goal.
I for one believe that this sort of concern would simply wash away once the moment of choice is truly upon us. When it comes down to choosing the leader for real, you'd find that those same people who had been fighting among each other, would come together towards the common good. That is simply because, when push comes to shuv, it would dawn on everybody that their fear of failure as a state is bigger than their fear of each other as factions within the state. That's what patriotism is in a nutshell, and it is something you'd start to feel only when you become part of the decision making process, not before.
This is why, while I concede the problem, I argue that it makes the move towards democracy twice as necessary.
Besides, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but if you were the ruling power, and you knew full well that this situation of deep division and lack of national unity gives you your biggest raison d'être, would you work hard on fixing it? It's very hard to ask somebody to fix a problem when they clearly benefit from it, as even the best of us would at least subconsciously tend to lean towards keeping the status quo through inaction, if not reinforcing it through deliberate action.
So, if anything, this division would be a good argument for change, not against it.
And perhaps there really will be civil unrest as we move towards democracy. In that case, I argue that such unrest is a necessary evil. If the road to freedom and prosperity has to take us through some rough patches, then I say let's just go through it and get it over with once and for all. Think of this as the horrible tasting spoon of medicine that you just need to swallow r to get better.
Argument 4: Jordanians are not mature enough to handle democracy
Just look at how they're handling parliamental elections! Selling votes, voting for tribal elders, voting for whoever orders the best catering for their campaign events, Jordan's electorate have consistently failed to demonstrate any sort of political maturity. Handing those people the power to elect a leader would be like handing a machine gun to a five year old.
If you believe in this, you are confusing cause and effect.
Many Jordanians are not politically mature because the democratic process is impotent. Most of them don't bother to take parliamental elections seriously because they've come to know full well that the role of the parliament is decorative. Jordan is so clearly ruled from the palace, and people don't see the point in dwelling over issues like whether to vote for this inconsequential MP or the other one.
Now, take away the cause and the effect will disappear. Given the task to elect real representation, and knowing full well that their decisions would affect the quality of their own lives in the near future in very real ways, you will be amazed how mature people will suddenly behave. Make no mistake, Jordan has a very high rate of graduate degree holders. We have masses of educated people who make a living out of exercising good judgment and strategizing for the future. It's just that they don't apply that to politics. Channel all that energy towards politics and suddenly you'll have a powerful think-tank effectively steering the country indirectly through proper representation.
Argument 5: Tribal system is inconsistent with democracy
To that I refer to the same argument above. In the absence of true decision making, one defaults back to whatever else they value, such as the tribe etc. Empower the democratic process with real consequences and your "tribal" leader suddenly sounds much less appealing as a candidate. After all, would you really expect your educated electorate to stand behind their tribal leaders when real life issues are on the line, like taxation and state-wide budget planning?
And sure it will get messy at first, with many people sticking to old habits and squandering precious votes for the silliest of reasons. I suspect that it has to get a little worse before it gets better.
One thing I'm sure of: The path towards prosperity for Jordan runs right through the palace! And it's a path we'd better start charting calmly and peacefully while we still have those luxuries, as I suspect soon we'll find that we're on an accelerating trajectory and things start getting out of control real fast. I think we can all agree that smart people learn from others' mistakes, and that it would be the last thing any of us wants to see for Amman to fall to chaos and bloodshed like Tunis or Cairo. Unlike those cities, ours still has the luxury of time.
Comments