Worthy development

At its core, democracy presupposes difference. If all people, in any given society, agree on all issues, there is perhaps no need for democracy.

The following paradox about democracy needs always to be kept in mind.  On the one hand, democracy is fuelled by difference on issues. On the other, it comes to regulate and “resolve” such difference.

In other words, for democracy to develop and thrive people need to have divergent opinions and positions on a host of core issues. And they need to express those opinions and positions vocally.

At the same time, as opinions by individuals or groups differ, or collide, there needs to be a system to administer difference or divergence and come to terms with it. Otherwise, there will be conflict, violence and perhaps chaos.

This system is democracy.

When democracy was introduced — reintroduced, rather — in our society in the late 1980s, it was seen by many as both bland and non-vibrant.

A close observer of the scene, especially the societal, did not see many differences on core issues.

There were, to be sure, some visible differences and lively debates on the political scene. A number of political parties held different positions on different issues, and most political parties held views that differed greatly from and at times collided with those of the government.

But among the populace, in society at large, one did not see divergent positions being expressed on important issues.

Things have changed, and remarkably so.

A close observer of our society sees many discrepant, at times radically conflicting, opinions being expressed on both core and peripheral issues.

There are intense debates about privatisation, economic development, standards of living, school curricula, transportation, the role and form of religion in society, secularism, gender, women’s rights, individual freedom, competence of public institutions and a host of other issues.

One of the best examples of both difference of opinion and vibrancy of debate on issues is the case of Article 308 of the Penal Code, which the Lower House of Parliament just abolished.

Prior to the vote, several people (political parties, activists and ordinary citizens) took to the street, to social media and to other forums to voice their opinions and promote their positions.

There were intense debates and a lot of lobbying by those who wanted to keep the article, those who wanted to abolish it and those who wanted to amend it.

The significant development here is that the various campaigns, pro or against, were conducted in a civil and responsible manner; and the differences (sharp, wide and conflicting) were resolved amicably in Parliament.

This, many felt, is democracy at its best.

Indeed, our society has changed, and Jordanian democracy is growing and progressing, slowly but surely.

Several factors have brought about and invigorated the change: people, now in a more democratic atmosphere, have become more vocal; social media have given many people who had little or no venues of expression place to voice their opinions; social and political activism has become a phenomenon to reckon with; NGOs have become stronger and more experienced in calling for and pressing for change; complacent reliance on the government to act on behalf of individuals has lessened; faith in parliament as an institution increased, etc.

The main development, however, which is fuelling and augmenting democracy, is the dual trend of people having developing clear-cut and divergent positions on core issues, and expressing these opinions vocally, but responsibly, and pushing them forward.

For such a worthy development, we should be thankful.