How old the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan really is, and whether that had any different effect on the organization of the state than in Saudi Arabia.
Compared to civil war, all is rather quiet in the lands of the Hashemite dynasty. Though established in Jordan scarcely any longer than the Saudi monarchy has been in Arabia, their royal lineage is infinitely longer – so long, and with such distinguished forebears at its head, that the Hashemities might govern by prestige alone if necessary.
King Hussein and his American wife made a very good impression on the West. Perhaps that also means the dynasty has acknowledged the legitimate expectations of the people for the political and civil liberty that is now a tradition there.
I haven’t found out how far they have gotten on the road to constitutional monarchy; I do know the papers contain no news about acts of revolution in Jordan, and little enough in the way of protests and demonstrations.
· The actions of some dozens or scores of men in stabbing unarmed police officers bear no relation or resemblance to those of an entire class rising spontaneously from a renewed consciousness of its interest in economic, political, or civil reforms. Provocation is a dangerous, difficult, and left-handed way to start a revolution. On the contrary, the Salafis have tried to use a circumstance not of their making to advance their warped and irreligious agenda.
· If physicians and other workers at hospitals demonstrate because they want a raise, it’s not revolution. They’re asking the State to take a course of action (which grants that the State has the right to act in the matter), but not demanding changes in the nature of the State (which only a revolution could make). We do that here in Wisconsin.
· The March 24th movement of students bears the same relation to the petit bourgeoisie as the unemployed of Daraa to the proletariat. They’re in training to become part of the middle cases, but they’re not there yet, and so their agenda can be free-floating, not determined by real interests arising out of concrete economic activity. Consequently, they can advocate a revolution, or try to start one, but they’re hard-pressed to carry it out – at least not on their own.
All the despots in the region are notorious. Notoriety is the antithesis of prestige. So, when the Hashemite king makes a promise, it is likely to be sincere on his part, and credible to his subjects.
On the other hand, the demand that the king give up his right to nominate the prime minister is intended to change the state itself, and hence is revolutionary to that extent. There are at least two paths to follow: that of constitutional monarchy, in which the parliament selects and the monarch approves the minister, and the path of direct election, in which the person elected ceases to be a minister of the monarch and becomes instead an official of the people.
Yet it’s possible for the King of Jordan to accede without sacrificing the foundation of his monarchy…
…or his residence in the nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment