Who Implements The King’s Ideas?!

By Fahed Khitan

تم نشره في Sun 16 October / Oct 2016. 12:00 AM
  • Fahed Khitan

The ideas in the King’s sixth discussion paper crystallise the difference between what stands and what is aspired; the distance we need to cross in order to arrive at the banks of our destination, the Civil State and the Rule of Law.

Seldom does a journey of this sort launch from ground zero; there is a plentiful of ancient, stable, and deeply rooted authorities and legislation, in addition to that of law, erected by the power of constitution.

In any way, this does not mean that we do not need reformation, development, the initiation of legislation and law, and the bridging of practical gaps in implementation, on contraire; His Majesty even pointed out a number of these issues.

Fact is that because there is a vast hesitation in the enforcement of law, considerable concessions on part of the State in the erection of authority in favour of certain social constructs and forces, in addition to obstacles in the reformation process, these issues have become more or less general phenomena, both worrying and dangerous.

Many will wonder, as they usually do after every discussion paper His Majesty proposes; what prevents the realisation of the King’s ideas, which happen to be vastly supported by Jordanians?

This inquiry has to be addressed by State authorities at once; executive, legislative, and judicial, and with extreme caution. Failure in this regard will give enemies of reformation and progress the chance to belittle its validity and credibility, as well as that of the propositions in totality.

More so, it is dangerous to have the conviction settle, that there is a gapping space between the King’s aspirations on one side, and the practices of the State and the administration of public affairs on the other. Working to bridge the gap requires systematic efforts basing from ideas and principles that lay the foundation of reformation, and the careful selection of leadership with conviction in these principles, coupled with the empowerment of respective institutions in charge of law enforcement, while holding them accountable for any shortcoming or failures.

The very essence of the democratic process, just as His Majesty said, lies in the exact, precise implementation of law; comprehensive, non-selective, and non-illusive enforcement, over any and all social components equally; no exceptions, at all times, which is not exactly the case right now.

In many instances, the enforcement of law undergoes processes that incubate a variety of political, social, and individual influences, leading to the evasion of law and accountability for some of the more influential lots in society, who arrive at a social place beyond the authority of law.

Contrary to that, His Majesty did not leave His propositions at the abstract or theoretical level, but has gone deeper into detailed action plans and steps that need to be established on all levels, including aspects that have to do with the jurisdictions and powers of the executive authority, as well as the role of the judiciary, all the way to public opinion, which is the primary stake holder in the rule of law, down to the rooting of the concepts and principles of the civil state, as the inseparable component of law.

Accordingly, the rule of law cannot be put aside from the integrity and qualification of those entrusted with its implementation. In this regard, an evident problematic arises; one that requires a decisive approach, to ensure impartial law enforcement, and prevent the exploitation of authority for personal endeavours.

Nepotism and discrimination in the enforcement of law is a main factor in the regression of public trust in the official institution, as well as the collapse of ethics in the spheres of the public sector, leading to the spread of bribery and favouritism, and insolence of the authorities. Truth is; the more individual grievances pile up, the more the collective sense of injustice culminates, nurturing desperation, frustration, and usually translating into hostility against the state and its institutions.

All in all, the state will not find it too difficult to realise the King’s ideas, if at all; the vast majority of Jordanians now realises, more than ever, the importance of the State and the Rule of Law, with a catastrophic opposite all around us of people devastated over the forfeiting of the State authority and that of law.

We need not rest assured with the status quo; not a single state around the world is beyond the stakes of chaos, save for those whom have endeavoured on end to fortify the structures of the State of Law and maintain their peoples.

The sixth discussion paper, proposed by the King, is more or less a call for the commencing of the maintenance of the Jordanian Nation State, that it may ever be strong against all odds.