Acting on two fronts

Several people who commented on His Majesty King Abdullah’s discussion papers, especially on the most recent one, “Rule of Law and Civil State”, stress the need to take the next logical step: implementation.

While this is certainly true in principle, in reality the matter is more complex.

On the one hand, any good idea that does not get implemented is a great loss.

The six discussion papers embody a sound underlying vision and precise ideas on several key and timely issues: reform, development, democracy, parliamentary governments, etc.

These ideas need to see the light of day sooner than later. And while there is, in general, value in “discussion”, even when no action follows, the ultimate aim of most discussions, in most situations, is to lead to some sort of specific course of action.

Yes, action needs to be taken in connection with all the discussion papers. Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the value, even necessity, of “discussion” itself, particularly at this stage in our society’s development.

We have to keep in mind the obvious: these are “discussion” papers. Had they been intended for any other purpose, they would have been called something else: “decrees”, “declarations”, “roadmaps”, etc.

Because of this, the first act that needs to happen is discussion.

Discussion or debate, especially when more than one person or party is involved and especially when broad “concepts” or “ideas” (as opposed to “facts”) are presented, normally precedes action.

Action happens when the content of the papers is amply debated and when some sort of consensus is reached based on the outcome of the discussion of the content, and not based on the content itself.

Two questions, therefore, need to be asked here.

Have we discussed these papers, and have we done so properly and thoroughly?

Furthermore, have we come up with discussion “outcomes” that are acceptable to all, or the majority, of us?

Those of us who have attended, and are attending some discussion sessions of the papers, come up with one conclusion, and one conclusion only: while many of us agree on many issues which the papers raise, many are either not clear about what some key terms mean or disagree on what course of action to take by way of implementation.

There are, in fact, stark discrepancies in the understanding of, as well as what to do in order to bring about, democracy, freedom of expression, parliamentary governments, civil governance, etc.

To make the best out of the discussion papers, therefore, we need to act on two fronts at the same time: discuss thoroughly what needs further discussion and clarification, and implement what is collectively agreed upon.