Khaberni - Media reports have informed us that the Honorable Minister of Interior has asked administrative governors to adopt a new approach that involves limiting the duration of mourning houses to only one day, and refraining from inviting political figures to head delegations, reducing dowries in marriage contracts, and more.
We first thank His Excellency for his attention and concern for the Jordanian family conditions. He is the son of a respected Jordanian tribe, with a long history in the customs and traditions of our inherited Jordanian society, and he knows how, when, and where such initiatives can bear fruit. From my perspective, the initiative can be seen in two ways, positive and critical. On the positive side, it's an attempt to alleviate the social and economic burdens faced by families, to restore some simple values in society, and is a practical step towards correcting exhausting customs and enhancing social solidarity and balance. As for the critical view, does this initiative fall within the core responsibilities of the Ministry of Interior? And is it permissible for the government, even through an initiative, to direct our customs and traditions, such as the part about limiting mourning houses to one day, for example?
I believe that if the state wanted to relieve financial burdens on families, it should reduce taxes, rather than launching initiatives aimed at changing our traditional patterns. If it wants to promote values of simplicity and social solidarity, as stated, it could turn to awareness programs, and call for reducing the size of large councils and mourning gatherings that pose traffic and organizational burdens on vehicles, for example, and not force people to adhere to mourning periods, which may not be followed.
Yes, the initiative carries good intentions if executed wisely, taking into account societal and family particularities, but it would be better if the state chose to address its own excesses in government extravagance as an example. This initiative should have been proposed for discussion in a participatory manner by the local community, families, intellectuals, and local decision makers on how to implement it, and not imposed outright because any top-down imposition leads to resistance, and this is something no one advocates for.
