About JMP as a partner in creating crises [Archives:2008/1207/Opinion]

November 13 2008

By: Raddad Al-Salami
I don't side with the party that said Joint Meeting Parties (JMP) is a partner in creating crises because it is impossible for a coalition with weak positions to be a partner in producing crises. In event that JMP is truly engaged in creating crises, this will mean that it is strong, however, the opposition coalition is supposed to direct its power and strength toward pressuring the authority to respond to its constitutional demands, not toward creating crises. It is stupid for JMP to be able to create crisis, not to think about possible solutions to pressing problems or to be part of a pressing problem.

Creating political crises is not a solution to pressing problems. Consequently, if such crises are meant to bring deals, the situation will make crisis persisting until they get complicated while the opposition parties will be the firs victims. It is usual for the weak party to be the loser since it often accepts bargaining for personal or partisan deals.

In both cases, the move toward designing a new media and political speeches for the ruling General People's Congress (GPC) after bankruptcy of its current media speeches that turned to accuse JMP of being involved in creating crises may result in the ruling party running alone in the upcoming elections. And, the ruling party's failed program makes it in an urgent need to change its speeches.

From the theoretical viewpoint, GPC will exercise the kind of tricky speech that makes JMP a partner in creating crises. But, from the behavioral viewpoint, it will move toward producing more crises, fomenting problems and bombing the political life with the aim of annulling the upcoming elections or pushing people toward it.

Considering JMP a partner in producing crises mainly targets one of the strongest members in the opposition coalition from the media viewpoint. Also, gesturing to this party that participating in the elections may affects its power and strength is aimed at fragmenting JMP, which has not yet determined its options, and convincing citizens to distrust the opposition coalition.

What will make JMP demonstrate dissimilar positions?

If some JMP members participate in the elections and others boycott, this will – from a strategic viewpoint – make the JMP weak, demonstrate dissimilar positions and unable to take unified decisions. Consequently, the direct loser will be the strongest party in the JMP in the long term. Therefore, all the JMP member parties will suffer similar weakness and be less strong and ineffective in the future. They will enter the phase of discrepancies and fragmentation. The ruling party, on the other hand, doesn't only plan to avoid potential losses in the future, but also it plans to achieve strategic objectives, one of which is splitting JMP and weakening the strongest member in such an opposition coalition. It also plans to shake mutual confidence between JMP member parties.

As far as I am concerned, Yemen's political parties have a single decisive and positive option before them that is: They should let the regime survive without legitimacy, lose trust in its performance and cast doubt on its relation with people. In order for the opposition parties to succeed, they should insist on boycotting the upcoming elections, but positively and retain the option of change open and available for everyone.

As long as the regime didn't listen to the opposition's legal and constitutional demands, nor did it care about reforming dire situations in the country, it will be subjected to corrosion from inside and outside its structure. The opportunities of change will be an automatic outcome of a regime that lost all the essential components to survive and exhausted any recorded achievements in the democratic course.

Source: Marebpress.net