The Sixth Discussion Paper from a gender perspective

The sixth discussion paper proposed by His Majesty King Abdullah to lay the foundation for the rule of law and civil state opened a much-needed debate on multiple levels of analysis looking at citizenship, the value system of the Jordanian state and the role of the law and the judiciary in safeguarding a civil state.

The King skilfully articulated the key opportunities and strengths that aid the reform process leading to the vision he has for Jordan.

The series of discussion papers are His Majesty’s contribution to a national debate on “political reform path [and] roles of stakeholders in the political process”, and articulate “the ultimate end goal for the reform efforts”. 

In the past week, several commentators already scrutinised the messages and highlighted key references to the main themes: the contract between the citizen and the state, the concept of citizenship, the relationship between religion and the civil state, the relationship between the civil and secular state, processes to guard and maintain the supremacy of the rule of law, threats and internal challenges to the state stability as well as the external pressures caused by the regional turbulence. 

In essence, he presented the country with a roadmap that would take Jordan from where it is today to a modern value-laden Kingdom with institutional foundations in justice and rule of law that redefine the relationship between state and the citizenry.

Behind all these themes the King clearly wished to highlight the importance of building trust, transparency and the responsibility of both citizen and administrative/government institutions as elements essential to the stability of the country that he currently believes is threatened by weak administrative performance, appeasement, nepotism, corruption and what he described as “leniency” in upholding the law, which leads to a disconnect between state institutions and citizens.

Without oversimplifying the formula proposed by the King, the mechanism for rebuilding trust and maintaining the rule of law that he offers is one based on transparent meritocracy, accountability, evaluation and internal audit. 

Although addressed to the nation as a whole, the focus of the discussion paper was on youth, minorities and the disenfranchised, with an understanding that these groups stand at the core of any policy to protect against extremism and radicalisation.

Essentially, the King articulated and reinforced a value system for Jordan that is based on propagating and embracing positive values, such as social solidarity, protection of religious freedom and worship for all, embracing differences in opinion, modernisation, integration, tolerance and respect for minorities, while working to stem and weed out what he feels are by now normalised but negative values such as incompetence, mediocrity, division, xenophobia, racism, sub-loyalties, extremist ideologies and manipulation of religion to serve factional interests.

Still, against this very well articulated and justified vision, the women of Jordan were not given sufficient focus that would have sent the strong message that they are also to benefit from this revised vision for a modern Jordan. 

This is particularly true with respect to the Arabic version of the discussion paper.

For example, the first paragraph says that the objective of the reform proposed by the discussion paper is to “achieve an envisioned level of democratic participation necessary to secure young generations with a promising future of prosperity and stability”. 

That is in English. 

In Arabic, the original language of the discussion paper, “generations” are referred to as “abna’ena” or “our sons”. 

Similarly, the last paragraph of the discussion paper concludes: “Values... are inseparable from our heritage and we will continue to instil them in our young generations.” In Arabic, “in the hearts of our sons”. 

It follows that the first and last paragraphs of a paper like this would directly identify the beneficiaries of the proposed reform.

One might argue that “abna’ena” refers to both males and females, but paragraph five in English, which says: “Today we are at a critical crossroads… pass onto generations a legacy of peace…,” in Arabic says: “To achieve the aspirations of abna’ena [our sons] and banatina [our daughters], which shows that we cannot take the word abna’ena to mean both because this paragraph explicitly identifies both genders. 

Wherever the terms “muwaten” (citizen), “mas’oul” (official), “sha’ab” (people), “insan” (human being), “muwathaf” (employee), “as’hab al khibra” (experienced individuals), “shabab” (youth), “al qudah” (judges) and, most importantly, “urduneyeen” (Jordanians) were mentioned in the paper, they were masculine nouns.

In its one reference to women, in the paragraph that describes how the state protects rights and provides freedoms, the discussion paper mentions that the state provides that protection for minorities and women.

Although this sentence acknowledges that women are as vulnerable and exposed as minorities, and therefore requiring state protection, on the less positive side women here are seen as victims and, most importantly, outside the citizen narrative of the paper, limiting thus women’s political scope and sidelining their role as contributing partners to the building of the reformed state.

Unexplainably, in the paragraph before last in the English version, the last sentence says: “It is a state where citizens have equal rights and duties, without any discrimination based on religion, language, colour, gender, race, class, political affiliation or intellectual views”.

In Arabic, that same sentence says: “Without discrimination as a result of religion, language, colour, race, class, political affiliation or intellectual views”.

The gender reference was dropped in Arabic.

These observations aside, it is clear that the King’s intention in this discussion paper was to provide the foundational values that will inform the country’s executive and legislative authorities’ next steps as they institutionalise the reform he envisions.

It is critical that neither government nor the two Houses of Parliament miss the rights of Jordanian women as full citizens who share the country’s past, present and vision for the future, not as victims, minorities, dependents or idealised mothers, but as equal citizens.

Wafa Khadra is an academic at the American University of Madaba and a consultant on education and gender studies. Nermeen Murad is a journalist, political commentator and gender expert from the non-profit sector. They contributed this article to The Jordan Times.