We Are Obsessed With Healthy Democracies

Jordan isn’t America. Surprise surprise.

There may be many states that want to ape the West, want to reach where the USA is today but you have got to appreciate the fact that many don’t. In fact, I believe it absolutely imperative that you do so because otherwise it is sheer hypocrisy that you criticize the US Government’s involvement in international affairs and yet view the world through the lens of what you define as a ‘healthy democracy’. Because honestly what is this obsession with ‘healthy democracies’? Living in a nascent state is a reality that large parts of the world are facing up to this very moment and I don’t think there is anything as daunting as that politically. Any nation state that exists as a result of the decolonizing process post-WWII will be able to identify with the issues that Jordan faces today in its liberalization and democratization process. The concept of a state is new to us of the colonial legacy. We belong to the era of kingdoms and autonomous, self sufficient units. Aristotle would have been proud of us. We were small enough governing bodies to prove his hypotheses if he had so wished. And then some colonial power or the other swept along and created new governing bodies according to rules of statehood that I don’t we really ever got. India may be the largest democracy in the world today but sometimes that seems like just the worst idea ever. Democracy allowed the Godhra riots, the infamous state sponsored carnage of Muslims early on this century, as well as the rise of extremist parties such as the Maoist movement in the North East and in the central tribal belt. Democracy has had to have been suspended in large chunks of the country, martial law has been imposed and human rights are characters in fictional tales narrated after curfew. This cannot possibly be what our freedom fighters had in mind when they envisioned a free and democratic India. And yes, we’re making do but really? We’re a god awful mess.

Jordan’s monarchy might not allow complete political and religious freedom but the monarchy here has been effective for this country, no denying that. Jordan’s citizens are looked after, their basic needs are met and most importantly they are safe from the consequences of the political instability that surrounds their fair nation. A Prime Minister is in power for four years and has to concern himself with winning elections, garnering public favor and has little time/power/freedom to carry out long terms goals in the interest of the country, in the interest of setting up an infrastructure that can help the struggling nascent state become a stable one. The monarchy is given the freedom to actually prepare and lead Jordan towards an effective democracy and that process is going on currently. It may be slow but it is happening. And what is so wrong about a bureaucratic monarchy anyway? It's not absolutist, this ain't George Orwell's 1984 being reenacted out here. The most major difference between the way Presidential and Parliamentary systems function and this monarchy is that the king is born to rule while we elect our rulers. The ruler however, still derives his legitimacy from the people, the people of El-Urdon want a monarchy, they respond to the system in place and we might not understand that but really, who are we to criticise it? The monarchy isn't random and arbitrary, the ministries are consulted, the government cares, the people are looked after and are safe and yes, they can't really be practising Scientologists but seriously? That's probably a good thing!