I’m almost certain of the existence of a ‘sub-comma’, embedded inside a ‘comma’ residing in an ‘article’ hidden within some law roaming into the confusion of our Code(s); dedicated to describe, set and ascertain the criterion for “Eligibility”.. The set of rules, regulations, norms and mechanisms by which a person can or cannot be elected or appointed for Any public or private exercise.
I said ‘almost’ because the doubt rises while observing certain recurrences ‘committed’ before our eyes and still we regard them ‘normal’ and even ‘acceptable’; like when
a) a citizen applies for an opening as a ‘street cleaner’, he or she must present a series of authentically confirmed and updated documents, among which a state released ‘Clean Criminal Record’; whereby the state is officially certifying that the applicant (as well as his kin relatives till the third degree) did not commit, been accused or sentenced for any kind of law offending act(s) at any grade of trial procedures.. While
b) other individuals, though confirmed bearers of definite convictions for committing various types of ‘offenses’, are happily enjoying the ‘impunity’ guaranteed by the law just because they applied, rallied and got elected, or selected; to occupy a political functions (or to cover any other sensitive public office jobs or executive duties) and so they would keep holding tight to their ‘immune’ privilege as long as they can remain glued to their institutional seats.
The “Eligibility/Ineligibility” issue is much wider and a lot deeper than we, the simple and innocent mortals, could imagine. It involves a long history of “Systematic Repetition of Political Lies” added to the “Institutional Approval for Educating Ignorance” both blended with the overwhelming “Intellectual Hypocrisies” to serve us a chalice full, up to its brim, of a bitter potion inducing a graceful state of anaesthetic surrender.
Once we are completely addicted and fully dependant to the lethal blend (given in regular doses at schools, mosques, TV/radio fiction series and talk-shows, in newspapers and through the media); tailored to fit laws would pass without opposition or even discussion; doubtful treaties would be approved and signed to come in force without presentation or debate to/in Parliamentary Commissions; Constitution would be vandalised; and our food would be poisoned.. All while we are peacefully smiling happily watching a mediocre soap opera or a useless football match broadcasted on a TV owned by a Parliament Delegate or a Minister of a governing Cabinet.
We drank it all in the name of “Stability for Security”.. That’s why no one ever since 1952 (and as it seems till today and perhaps even for a long time yet to come) have ever raised the question of “Conflict Of Interests”.. For it is the focal issue.. It is “The Mother Of All Ills”.. Since it eventually implies “Corruption” and procures for it every ‘legal’ measure(s) considered necessary to protect the lucky corruptors and corrupted.
Measures developed and matured through the years by the long trail of tailor made laws or decrees, the specially ordered and manufactured Election laws with their regulations, and the frequent constitutional vandalism establishing the subordination of the ‘Juridical’ under the ‘Executive’.. All together did eventually serve to cement into our brains a special ability to convert the abnormal into a banal normality, and the irrational into the synthesis of rationality; so that the illegal becomes the indisputable definition for legality!
Back to the “eligibility/ineligibility” issue.. Given the example of a ‘Parliament Delegate’, or a ‘Minister’ in the Cabinet, owner (or share-holder) of a TV net, a newspaper or even a publishing firm; we could agree on its clamorous representation as the essence of the “Conflict Of Interests” disturbing matter. Even though it has been repeatedly defended, for a very long time and still is, by the kind of ‘intellectuals’ (regular hosts of the TV net or journalists on the payroll of the newspaper and philosophers writing through the publishing firm) whose defence argument have always been something like:
“We remain convinced that the ‘Law’ excludes the eligibility of the owner of a firm officially licensed by the state. However it is evident that a political majority cannot today overturn the judgement of many previous terms of legislatures, without exercising certain violence harming and punishing many voters”.
Which is exactly like saying: “as a serial killer already have murdered many persons and got away with it, should he kill once more we cannot arrest and put him on trial; otherwise it would be an obvious act of violence against his accomplices”!!??!!
Pass On The Word.PS: This is only the tip of a giant iceberg.. The submerged body of such a hazard, which is still drifting in our waters and jeopardising the navigation course for a Democracy trying to reach its safe harbour; cannot be addressed in one article.. I’ll try to further elaborate in future ones Insha’Allah.