One of my favorite quotes is MK Gandhi’s, which says: “I
object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only
temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”
اضافة اعلان
The violence we witnessed 10 days ago is the Jordanian
Parliament left indelible scars on the reputation of Jordan. Not that
squabbling and punching were unique to Jordan, but because when it happens, it
affects the mood of the people and may even scar them.
The conditions for a tense session were there. Opinions over
the content of the constitutional amendments were plenty and revealed how
fear-stricken are the people who had already been debating over adding the word
“Jordanian women” to the word Jordanians in the title of the second chapter of
the Constitution. Another point of debate was the King’s chairmanship of the
proposed National Security Council.
Those who defended the opinion that such amendments should
not be allowed based their arguments on future scare scenarios. Equality among
Jordanians of both genders would open the door for the revision of the Sharia
Law, particularly the issue of inheritance. The opponents were also concerned
about the external pressures to adopt the Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
It was not the intention of those who got into squabble in
the December 28 session to do so. They exploded over who should talk first and
who can out-shout others.
Naturally, the room was filled with photographers,
journalists and bystanders. Soon, Jordan was on all the news networks, which
are thrilled by such events.
The published photos provided an opportunity for
parliamentarians to see themselves in that ridiculous situation. Sure they all
love the media exposure and the 15 minutes of fame it brings, but not like
that. So, the photos showed proof that something was deeply wrong and the
debate over constitutional amendments should rise above such level.
On January 2, the debate was still heated, but disciplined
and streamlined to produce the majority needed to decide which way to go.
Abdul Monem Al-Oudat, chair of the Legal Committee, did a
convincing job defending his committee’s decisions-cum-recommendations to the
Parliament’s general assembly. He said that the Arabic term “al urduniyyoun”
(Jordanians) covers both sexes. Still, adding the word “al-urduniyyat” (female
Jordanians) does not create absolute equality. Articles 103-106 of the
Constitution, which will not be amended, guarantee that Sharia Law is still
applicable.
Women have a quota in Parliament, men do not. So, it could
be argued that women have more rights than men. The reason for the suggested
amendment was to show appreciation for and promote women’s role in the society
without encroaching on other forms of established and accepted differentiation.
After five days, the debate picked-up momentum and led to
commonly accepted positions. Some members violated the by-laws of debate, but
Abdelkareem Al-Dughmi, the speaker, tolerated and allowed some deviation from
the by-laws in order to accommodate the lack of knowledge on the part of some
parliamentarians.
Not all the debate was sophisticated or knowledgeable.
Suggestions made on the spur of the moment were plenty and disrupted the flow
of debate. Yet, the professional parliamentarians and ministers saved the day.
Those include State Minister for Legal Affairs Wafa’ Bani Mustafa, whose
contribution was effective, and Ministers for Political and Parliamentary
Affairs, Mousa Ma’aytah, who made helpful comments.
Jawad Anani is an economist, and has held several
ministerial posts, including former deputy prime minister and former chief of
the Royal Court.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
.jpg)
.jpg)
