I attended a presentation on nuclear safety last week which discussed the prospects for nuclear energy in Jordan. The debate got a bit heated at times, demonstrating the strong feelings that the nuclear issue raises, not only in Jordan, but world-wide. The fact that the debate took place at all was good and it will no doubt continue.
The main message I took away from the discussion was a much wider one: people are hungry for debate as a way to participate in decision-making. Political and economic issues have an impact – direct or indirect – on people’s lives. So reasoned, objective and open debate is an important tool for governments to persuade people that their policy choices are the right ones. And open debate is a basic way for all governments to guarantee freedom of expression.
His Majesty King Abdullah has himself underlined the importance of accepting a range of views through free and open expression. In his speech at the opening of Parliament last week he emphasised the need to respect civil liberties and directed the government to provide a safe environment to guarantee the responsible exercise of freedom of expression.
This freedom of expression means that disagreeing with someone, even someone in authority, does not mean that you are disloyal. Respect for other people’s views is a fundamental principle for democratic societies. So criticism is healthy and should be welcomed. It should not lead to accusations of disloyalty.
In the United Kingdom, we have developed the concept of “The Loyal Opposition”. This might sound like a contradiction in terms, but it is a vital aspect of the way our political system works. It means that the minority party in Parliament takes it upon itself to criticise what the government is doing. They oppose the government, but are loyal to the nation. They thereby keep the governing party or coalition on its toes, questioning the validity of their policies and presenting an alternative view. This way of operating is accepted as a valuable contribution to the policy process. Indeed, the great Victorian Prime Minister Disraeli said that “No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition.”
On the other hand, once accusations of disloyalty, subversion or treason creep into the political process consensus building becomes much harder. Those who offer objective comment on government policy should not have their motives questioned. More often than not, such people simply want the same as the rest of their countrymen: a secure and prosperous nation. Disagreeing with policy should therefore be regarded as healthy and constructive, not an opportunity to trade insults.
One of the wisest statements I have found on this question came from His Majesty the late King Hussein: “We respect opposition to any position or policy. But we believe that the opinion that should prevail and be respected is that of the majority.”