Identities

An interview with Adnan Abu Odeh aired by Al Jazeerah has been a source of much commentary. Two aspects of the interview have created controversy. The first is related to Abu Odeh’s historical narrative of his role as a key policy maker during the reign of the late king Hussein. The second is his advocacy of what he calls the rights of Jordanians of Palestinian origin.

Many commentators dismiss what Abu Odeh has to say on the grounds that he is a political opportunist who was an integral part of the regime, and is now lashing out to bring himself back to the limelight. Yasser Abu Hillaleh calls him out on some statements of fact that may be misleading or inaccurate. While the case for hypocrisy is obviously easy to make, I think that the message needs to be addressed in a more substantive manner.

The core of Abu Odeh’s message is that Jordanians of Palestinian origin are marginalized in the political system and are underrepresented in key sectors, most notably the security services and in key government posts. He points to the electoral law that under represents urban over rural areas, which ultimately leads to the under representation of Jordanians of Palestinian origin. This, he claims, is evidence of deliberate marginalization of this group.

While I am not always particularly fond of what Nahid Hattar has to say, I think that he hit the nail on the head when discussing this issue. The thrust of Hattar’s argument is that the question is posed in a dangerous way. What is the point of turning the Jordanians of Palestinian roots into an ethnic sect, demanding proportional representation based on their supposed proportion as a sect? Doesn’t this undermine their identities as Jordanians? Does the deliberate attempt to magnify their proportion help their case or that of the Palestinian cause?

In fact, I don’t see Jordanians of Palestinian as a sect. There are no ethnic or religious differences between the two groups, and any sense of identity is purely a personal opinion or sense of belonging. Many Jordanians (particularly the older generation) feel that they are Palestinian, and many of their children and grandchildren have never known any home besides Jordan, and have a sense of belonging to this country that may exceed that of a Jordanian with an East Bank heritage. Why should such people be labeled as Palestinian?

Despite this, there is still an obvious failure at many levels to forge an inclusive Jordanian identity. There are historical residues from the 1970 purge of Palestinian organizations from the country, and grievances involving exclusion from the security services and (perhaps) the government as well as counter grievances related to exclusion from the private sector and academia, sectors where Jordanians from the west of the river were the first to dominate. These are grievances that reflect historical events, and continue to cast shadows on how the two groups sometimes view each other. It is not obvious why it would be difficult to sort out these problems, and build a system based on merit rather than the homes of grandparents.

It is important to point out that many people in rural Jordan feel as marginalized from the power structure of the country as anybody else. Many large tribes, villages and even small towns have never been represented in the authority structure of the country, either as ministers or even a tier lower than a minister. While east Jordanians may be over represented in the political structure, the distribution of this representation is not necessarily fair. Certain tribes and families have always been better represented than others. It is not obvious that the problem is East versus Palestinian Jordanians. Rather, the hereditary nature of distribution of public offices seems to be the main source of complaint.

I am sure that rural areas in the north and the south of the country would gladly trade their overrepresentation in the parliament with better wealth and infrastructure distribution in the country. Many of these areas have severe poverty levels and an obvious lack of economic opportunities, in contrast to urban areas where the situation is notably more comfortable. Since the issue of fairness is being raised, well, let everything be put on the table. I find it amusing that underrepresentation in the security services is viewed as a sign of discrimination. In most countries, it is the more socially and economically disadvantaged people who are the ones who choose to join the army.

But the more fundamental question is not the presence of grievances. It is a question of identity. Is any real or perceived grievance enough for a person to shed their feeling of belonging? Conversely, can a sense of belonging and loyalty be bought? Abu Odeh and his likes are living proof that they can not. Many of the current system’s failures stem from the assumption that they can.