I have opposed the idea of the new social contract adopted
by the liberals in Jordan, around which a big debate arose after it was
declared by former prime minister Omar Razzaz’s government.
اضافة اعلان
This is not because I oppose progress, but because I believe
that the Jordanian Constitution is the only contract that organizes the
nation’s affairs and the relationship between its institutions. On the other
hand, the route of reform and restoration is the development of legislation,
embracing diversity and democracy, and initiating a new sociopolitical project
to renew social concepts.
As I have disagreed with the new social contract, I find it
hard to agree with the concept of the pledge of allegiance as a definition of
the relationship between the Throne and the people.
The pledge happened only once, as a perpetual concept, when
the Hashemites, led by Prince “King” Abdullah I, pledged their loyalty to
Jordan and he launched the idea of establishing the nation which he dreamt
would be the core of the Greater Arab Nation. His efforts were thwarted by the
French/British occupation and treaty of partition and the Balfour Declaration
that displaced Palestine from the body of the nation in favor of the Zionist
occupation.
Jordanians of all social strata pledged loyalty to King
Abdullah I as ruler of Jordan, the nation was formed, and a “basic law” was set
in 1928, which developed later into a modernized constitution imbued by the
best monarchical values in the world.
Since then, a constitutional accord was established between
the people and the Hashemites which is summarized by the first article of the
Constitution, which states: “The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent
sovereign Arab State. It is indivisible and inalienable and no part of it may
be ceded. The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab Nation, and its system
of government is parliamentary with a hereditary monarchy.”
The Throne in Jordan is hereditary in the family of King
Abdullah II, and the authority of the King is transferred to his eldest son to
his eldest son, and so forth.
This means that the King of Jordan is subject to the
provisions of the Constitution and cannot take up his Constitutional
authorities before he swears his oath before the Parliament that derives its
legitimacy from him being the lynchpin in the Jordanian political system.
The King practices his authority through his government and
with a few exceptions laid out in the Constitution, every Royal declaration is
made through the prime minister and the concerned ministers.
All Hashemite kings have sworn an oath before Parliament
before taking up their constitutional powers, unlike other nations that don’t
have constitutions and depend on tribal pledges when the ruler takes over his
role.
This constitutional situation that coordinates authority in
Jordan and the appointment of monarchs has been stable since Abdullah I till
this day. This stability has characterized the unique relationship between the
Throne and the people within the Arab world.
The pledge of allegiance is a historical value that resides
in the Jordanian conscience and is recalled as a foundational event. It is a
Jordanian national icon that has been framed later by a proper Constitution
that governs matters of the Throne and the transition of power in the Kingdom.
The Jordanian society today is no longer the same one it was
one hundred years ago. Today it is a contemporary entity with a united national
spirit, modern civil institutions, and citizenship values governed by modern
legislation approved by Parliament and implemented by an undisputed central
authority.
A century later, and after many achievements in building a
modern constitutional state, no Jordanian would agree to go back to the time of
simple pledges.
.jpg)
.jpg)
