Voting at Gunpoint
We had just a few shawerma sandwiches from Reem and we were sitting on the curb indulging in the beefy yuminess. Reem is my favorite shawerma vendor in town, their meat is always soft and thick, and their sauce never overpowers the flavor. It also reminds me a lot of my childhood, because my mother would always get us Reem and then sit us all to eat on the sidewalk by the Second Circle, and who doesn’t love Jabal Amman?
Last night though, like most mounts of the city, Jabal Amman looked very different, its circles and lightposts almost unrecognizable circuses of a hundred million banners, posters, and other sorts of shitty promotional materials. The very men and women who are trying to catch our votes for a seat in the Jordanian Parliament with empty promises of a better future are severely damaging the one thing that I treasure the most about this city.
We ate our sandwiches in silence as we tried to take in the visual chaos. Then my partner points out to the lightpost right in front of us, which had four different campaigns fighting for our attention.
“Look,” he says. “Candidate A is just a rich guy who has allegedly made his money off of catering to the American army in Iraq. Candidate B was a member of the last parliament, the same parliament that is universally agreed upon as the worst in the history of Jordan. He was simply the government’s favorite to take over the Christian seat - a seat that at one point could have yielded a communist or a Pan-arabist with a true political agenda. Candidate C is a falafel guy, and I’m not kidding! He owns one of the falafel chains in town, and just look at his slogans, ‘For healthy food and no taxes’. Candidate D is the Muslim Brotherhood candidate.
If you were forced to choose between these four at gunpoint, who would you choose?”
I look at their long mustaches and shake my head, “Do I have to answer?”
“Of course you do, you’re held at gunpoint.”
“Ok. We’ll rule out Candidate D completely, because I’m a secular person and I would never support a candidate whose whole basis is built on religion. He also has a really hideous poster. I mean, yellow? Seriously, dude. I suppose we can also rule out Candidate A. Although if you didn’t specifically mention the American army part, I would have probably chosen him - his poster isn’t too horribly designed and his suit looks nicer than the others. That leaves us with Candidates B and C, and neither of them is really very appealing…”
“The guy running for the Christian seat is probably not even interested in your vote. You are probably not his target audience , plus how can you consider a guy who already had his shot and proved his incompetence?! If I were in the last parliament I will be ashamed to show my face in public, let alone run again!!”
“Mmm, well in that case…”
“Tell me you are not picking the falafel guy. The falafel guy? THE FALFEL GUY, Roba!!”
“Ehhh… I’m not voting for anyone. But falafel beats Shari3a. Who would you vote for?”
“I wouldn’t vote.”
“You can’t do that, you’re at gunpoint!”
“I would slip in a blank voting card.”
“You can’t. They are watching over your head!”
“I am going with the Islamic brotherhood guy. Honestly, and don’t tell anyone, I did it before. During my first year at Jordan University I voted for this guy- tactfully named 3izz il Deen al Qassam. When I was a freshman, the Shyookh-dominated student council helped me a lot. They were really organized and when voting time came I voted for this one guy who showed me around on my first day on campus. As much as I despise the approach of ‘I am the Allah-backed candidate and if you pray you should vote for me’, at least they have a political agenda and are not random ‘businessmen’.”
“Dude, you can’t vote for the Muslim Brotherhood! That’s shameful to your disclosed ideologies and tendencies.”
“Well, if they end up calling for something stupid like banning women from driving, or closing swimming pools, I would practice my democratic rights and throw tomatoes at their homes or something like that”
“Ehh… estafadna menak.”
So, the question is, if you were held at gunpoint and you had to choose between candidates A, B, C, and D, who would you choose?
omar
October 30, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
as much as I like the fact that he is some sort of a secular man, but I would never vote for him because I’ve heard that he’s a TERRIBLE man in person (from REALLY close people) and just seeks out fame, people to pay for his tickets to Paris and Rome and El Zalameh lsano 6aweel. So yeah, I would never vote for M.A, lol - Candidate B I guess?
I would definitely go for Candidate C: Falafel, at least the man is fulfilling my binging needs! hehe
Saabe3 Usboo3
October 30, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Just when i though Roba is so apolitical she makes my cat look like a seasoned partisan feline, I am pleasantly amazed and surprised by such politically intelligent posts. You go girl.
7aki Fadi
October 30, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Definitely the falafel guy, a falafel sandwich for every citizen .lol
7aki Fadi
October 30, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
by the way, Roba, 7aram 3alaiky :( shwarema reem for real is my most favorite food in the world, I make my family drive me to the second circle from the airport, I swear ..lol .
Biddiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Moey
October 30, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
I’d turn christian and vote for the christian guy.
kinzi
October 30, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
I don’t get it, the Communist can run for a Christian seat?
The falafel guy. :D
I can’t get over how totally perfectly pixeled the photos are. Not one mole, pore, or extra wrinkle allowed.
KeKo
October 30, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Nicely portrayed :)
In my case I am afraid it is going to have to be: take your best shot. I have never voted for anyone, including school, university, local election, national election nor any other type of election, all through a very conscious choice. Admittedly I want a falafel sandwich so badly at the moment that my principles might be vulnerable
moe
October 30, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
ok , first things first , that shawerma looks YUMMIII and i still didn’t eat anything all day :( , now seriously , although that am and will always be anti-religion , but out of those i would probably vote for the muslim guy (this doesn’t mean that am voting for anyone btw) , hmm , the reason is that although that i disagree with his adologies but at least most of “them” are orginzed and unlike others they actully TRY to help out , and they end up making some improvments , hmm , OR OR OR i would run and vote for myself , ohh wait , am not jordanian , i don’t even have the right to vote :S , so why am i reading this aslan :S
Qwaider قويدر
October 30, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Yes Roba, the situation is really sad!
I think I got what you mean. There isn’t a single party that is challenging the organization and drive of the IAF, it’s the elephant in the room
Ahhh 3ala shawirma Reem! The equivelant here is $9 and it doesn’t taste nealy half as fat!
Bilal - Black Jack
October 30, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
why no body is choosing to be shot instead? :D
Pheras Hilal
October 30, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
I’d go for the Christian dude.
Hareega
October 30, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Kiniz, yes there are no seats for “athiests or agnostics” lol in the Palrliament,
the seats are assigned to not what your true belief is but to what religion you belong to and there’s a difference.
I know a few Jordanian communists who practise Chrisitianity and go to church, but the majority do not. A very significant number of communists and the majority but not all of their leaders in Jordan were Chrisitians.
Khalil Haddadin won the elections in 1993 and 1997 (maybe 1989 too not sure) for Amman’s 3rd district, but in 2003 Oiadeh Kawwas won. Kawwas was incredibly supported by the Orthodox church in Jordan since he was the school’s doctor and a member of some committees in the orthodox educational system (they have a few schools).
Despite being a Chrisitan myself I would have preferred for Haddadin who is probably an athiest to be elected rather than the church-backed candidate Kawwas.
If I want to look what’s better for Jordanian Chrisitans, I think they’re better served by having strong patriotic candidates who can secure that freedoms are not touched and who can watch out for corruption rather than someone who believs that Jesus is the incarnated Son of God and does not do good for the country.
طفيلي( ahmad)
October 30, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
If you compare our democracy with other regime in the middle east (apart of Israel),we should be proud of it. I can see there is no a big difference between our democracy with some of democracy in USA or UK.
The falfel guy is similar to candidate supported by big companies in USA like oil companies, The Islamic brotherhood guy is similar to candidate depend on voters from religious people in USA by adopting programs such banning abortion or no allowing gay marriage.
I might vote for someone who will be commited to our old values and tradiation.like clan candidate.
Since you did not put someone like that , i will vote for Islamic brotherhood guy becasue they call for the same morlas things like clan candiadte.
Hareega
October 30, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Ahmed-Tafili: I might agree with you that the Islamic candidate might, for the first instance, sounds like the most reasonable candidate. But giving more power to religious candidates is supportive of their agenda: an Islamic state in Jordan and probably neighboring countries. I don’t know if you’re supportive of that but I am not. and it sounds more dangerous than the falafel guy. The worst thing is that people assume that Islamists are clean and corrupt-free.
Ahmad Al-Sholi
October 30, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Odeh Qawas gave a lecture in the “Luther” church recently, so maybe he is back-boned by the church in general and not just the orthodox as the best between opponents.
IAF, is over rated. They never gave information about their numbers, we always hear from their senior people, general secretary, spokesman, but can anyone see movements, events, action committees other than what is published? Anything touching daily lives colored by them? (other than lectures by X at some meeting room in the unions complex, collecting funds for refugees,..) I wish to come across their individuals, they play on the islamists account (i.e. general judgments on religious people as part of their group). What puts them in the spot light is others weakness :) They can not stand a group of free thinkers with solid agendas.. What do they have to offer by the way, other than X-rated language?
However, I would rather kill myself than voting ridiculously..
kinzi
October 30, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
Thanks Hareega. I think another well-known country learned the same thing about a Christian leader.
I just assumed Communist meant atheist, as it was in Communist Europe in my days there. I still vote for the Falafel guy, at least he is enterprising.
طفيلي( ahmad)
October 31, 2007 @ 1:22 am
Hareega : I am not fan of Muslim brotherhood party and they should leave poltics life and focus on charity work. i think that they are the main reason for not having democracy life in arab world.
But if they are exist and protect some of my interests ,why do not i support him?.. Anyway, i have nevr voted for thembecasue my clan aloways intorduce acandidtae and he always win. i mention thta i will vote for Islamic brotherhood guy to answer roba’s quetsion. Anyway you are going to vote for falefl guy , well that sound fine by me i would vote for him i. hope he will give free flaafel sandwichs on election day.
omar
October 31, 2007 @ 2:50 am
I’ll definitely be mourning the day Jordan will become a fundamentalist Islamic state. God forbid man! I’d want the Falafel candidate to turn Jordan into a Falafelistic state thought - that would be just excellent.
vive le formation officiel de Laïcité! :P
Ayyob
October 31, 2007 @ 5:46 am
Christian guy…cuz im christian, thats all i get to vote for
Ayyob
October 31, 2007 @ 5:48 am
Hareega, great point by the way
Ahmad Al-Sholi
October 31, 2007 @ 9:56 am
All religious candidates are dangerous and not just islamists. Bush thinks he speeks on behalf of Jesus, his visions are over-ruling any opposition since he is a messanger of god.
Isam
October 31, 2007 @ 10:50 am
Just F***in shoot me …
leen
October 31, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
tb3n the flalefel guy YUMY :)
at least what the worst thing he’ll do? he won’t put t7eeneh bl flafel? i can live with it (not really) :)
go flalfel GO GO GO.
omar
October 31, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Ahmad, VERY true! But us Jordanians we’re a nation quite exposed to each others’ religions that we don’t create stereotypes based on Pricks like the American President.
bass yeah Ahmad, your point is very valid. That’s why I’m supporting “Laïcité”
hehe
Ahmad Al-Sholi
October 31, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
As much the Christian seat would appear supporting our Christian family members, it emphasizes differences and conceals civil society structure. I do not even care about a candidate being a Muslim or Christian, I would care “when we have one” about political agenda. In other words, I see this Christian seat similar to IAF concept: Practicing political civil rights under religious labels, be it Muslim or Christian.
A good Christian candidate shall be praised by the whole society. A comment up there was that ” I will vote for the Christian guy because I am Christian ” Religion divides society and wastes its power.
Hareega
October 31, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Ahmed al-Sholi: If we declare Jordan a secular country which I, and probably 90% of Jordanians, are against then what you’re saying would correctly apply. I also don’t care much if candidates were Christians or Muslims I even believe that a lot of them have very little religious attachments. But it’s about allowing minorities to be represented in the Parliament. If there wasn’t a quote you wouldn’t see any Chrisitan or Circassian in the Parliament.
Onzlo
October 31, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
FALAFEL GUY ALL THE WAY….. So what is the worst that we can expect from him: maybe that he is uneducated smells? Sounds like 90% of our old MPs.
Ahmad Al-Sholi
October 31, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
Hareega,
I will not defend secularism broadly, as it does for itself :) I would just like to share my thoughts about it: being a vessel that melts different background individuals into a shared form, nationalism. Each religion has many shades, with different concepts about the other sects, in addition to the thoughts about other beliefs. This would scatter people, surgeon differences, and eventually people slip away from the greater good, their common and shared interests, the welfare of the country they both “theoretically” serve.
Beliefs are for individuals, they can worship god in any approach they choose “or was chosen for them”, or just nothing for instance without profiling people upon their own religious beliefs, and the judgment day convictions.
Allow me to quote you in ” I also don’t care much if candidates were Christians or Muslims I even believe that a lot of them have very little religious attachments ” and correct me if I wrongly understood you: If a person presents him/herself to the public as a muslim or a christian candidate with a little religious attachment, would not that be religion misuse, public manipulation? Using religious beliefs for material gains? Its like using a car to cross a river..
The 90-10% may be true, I do not know if any research center surveyed that. Unfortunately, secularism was badly broadcasted in our region. It needs time to develop fully, and yes we are not ready for it, at least for now. However, if you want to scale Jordan on a religious parameter, ZERO being SECULAR, 10 being RELIGIOUS, How would you rate it? Take into consideration Financial Monetary System, Criminal Law, Economic Model, Governmental Agendas, Grand Mufti role. Socially you can eyewitness extremes.
As for the christian, caucasian issue. This will limit these people within their minorities and will restrain their potential within as they do not represent the majority. Moreover, what do these candidates have to offer to their electing community other than favors if they were corrupt, and blocking their potential when framed within a minority as they do not represent majority. When they fail in a non profiling system, they would fail for their agendas, better than succeeding because they are best of a bad selection.
omar
November 1, 2007 @ 1:29 am
Ahmad great insight on the matter, yet I tend to disagree with you a bit on the part where Jordan is ZERO being Secular. Law happens to clash with Shariaa very frequently - biggest example would be that we don’t either lash people for “fornication” nor we create amputees if they stole goods. As much as our traditions and values are based on Islam among the nation but the system running is absolutely not “10 Religious”. I mean, come to compare it to the typical Islamic state such as Saudi Arabia.
a good example to a country that rose due to complete secularism is Turkey,
true the people there are mostly not very knowledgeable with their religion. But it did benefit Turkey on a very wide scale.
Hani Obaid
November 1, 2007 @ 5:15 am
Roba, too bad you didn’t make it a poll.
I would give my ballot to the gun toting guy, let him decide, and go enjoy my election day vacation.
Besides, it’s a monarchy, voting is irrelevant.
Hareega
November 1, 2007 @ 7:29 am
Ahmed Al-Sholi, I got most of what you’re saying. To Jordanians, being secular is being an athiest. I don’t know how religious Jordan and Jordanians are. Most families are very conservative but that doesn’t mean they very religious. Our law is not entirely based on Islamic Sharia.
Maybe Jordan like any country is better be secular than religious, but until most Jordanians believe so I’m not for it.
Ahmad Al-Sholi
November 1, 2007 @ 9:02 am
Omar,
I was asking a question only, If you would rate “unscientifically” I will call it a 7.
The only shri3a laws we have, are those of Civil Registry issues. But when it comes to business, its totally on the other side.
Hareega,
As you said secular is understood as atheist. That is the problem in our region.
halalhippie
November 5, 2007 @ 2:08 am
Greetings from Denmark: like you, we have election coming. A slim chance for change, but most likely none.
What puzzles me is the emphasis “you” put on the religion of the candidate: being Muslim/Christian/Whatever does not make a person a better (or worse) law-giver. Religion should not be an issue in politics, as I see it. For that reason , I’d vote for the falafel guy.
In Denmark - with 92% of the population belonging to the state Lutheran church - the Christian Democratic Party is too small to be represented in parliament.
Ironically, the (remnants of the) Danish Communist Party is headlining Asmaa Abdol-Hamid , a young woman of Palestinian origin, who wears the *gasp* hijab. She seems to run the Communist Party out of parliament. So, are “we” anti- Muslim ? I prefer to believe “we” are anti-religion-in-politics.
Christian or Muslim, Jordan or Denmark, may the best (wo)man win.
Peace to you all
Ahmad Al-Sholi
November 5, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
what do you mean by “she is running the communist party out of the parliament” exactly?
In Jordan, we are 92% Muslims according to latest published demographics and 8% Christians.
We have quota system to support Christians, Caucasians and Sheshans - Jordanians from non Arab origins -, and women - being a highly male dominated society -.
No one attacked Islam, Christianity, or race of anyone. The conversation was that people support quota system to defend minorities, and other group who believed that quota system is a defying system. Many in our society - Jordan and Arab countries - believes that religion is highly involved in all matters of life including politics, while some other believe in secular form for both muslims and christians. Our lives highly revolves around religion for both muslims and christians as a conservative oriental society, we have to discuss religion issues to overcome our endless problems.
halalhippie
November 6, 2007 @ 1:45 am
Ahmad al-Sholi:”No one attacked Islam, Christianity, or race of anyone” not me, either, sorry if I made that impression.
Now, you have quota systems, to make sure minorities and women are represented.
Glad to hear that, I kinda had the impression you were voting along sectarian lines.
Come to think of it, we have quotas to represent the Faroe Islands and Greenland, which are in commonwealth with the Danish Kingdom.
and “what do you mean by “she is running the communist party out of the parliament” exactly?” The Red-Green Alliance/Communist party has very bad polls at the moment. Some see her candidacy (sp?) as being too controversial and the reason for it.
The most striking difference that I can think of, is that apart from this observant Muslim on the extreme left and two Lutheran clerics on the extreme right, no one in the Danish parliament is identified by religion. There may even be a Jew or two, I can’t say.
Is this better ? Not for me to say, only different.
May we both get the best men and women in power.
(joy - what a lovely anti-spam word)
Ahmad Al-Sholi
November 6, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Major differences between Denmark and Jordan in Economics and Culture. But for myself, I think secular forms are best to be followed for all countries if they were concerned about civil/political development. Wish we will reach that soon.
Yaz
November 9, 2007 @ 5:45 am
None of the above… I’d vote for Miss Samar Haj Hasan :) Check her out! Samarhajhasan.com
UmmZaid
November 12, 2007 @ 2:44 am
I cannot vote for Reem?