In politics, slogans alone are not enough to present political parties to the public, nor are grand headlines enough to prove commitment to principles. The real test for any political party begins when political interests come into conflict with the requirements of the law, and when respecting the rules becomes harder than merely talking about them.
اضافة اعلان
From this perspective, the case of the dismissed MP who has gone into hiding following a court ruling against him represents a genuine test for the Umma Party not only for the MP concerned, but also for the party that selected him and presented him to the public as their representative under the dome of Parliament.
The question here is not simply: Where is the MP? That is a matter for the competent authorities, while the judiciary has its own procedures and mechanisms. The broader political and ethical question is: How does the Umma Party choose its MPs? What standards does it rely on when selecting those who will represent the party and the citizens?
Are the selection criteria limited to political and organizational loyalty, or are respect for the law, state sovereignty, and compliance with judicial rulings an integral part of the selection process?
This raises an even more direct question: When an MP takes the oath of office, does he swear allegiance only to the party’s ideology and principles, or does the oath, above all, require respect for the Constitution, the law, and state institutions?
No one is asking the party to pass judgment on its MP. That is not its role, nor should political disagreement ever turn into a public trial. However, the public has the right to know the party’s position on the act of evading the enforcement of a judicial ruling and to hear a clear position that leaves no room for interpretation.
Is the party in contact with the MP? Does it know his position? Has it advised him to turn himself in and respect the court’s ruling? And does it consider the enforcement of judicial rulings a matter that cannot be subject to political bargaining?
These questions are not an attack on any particular party as much as they are a test of the very concept of political party work.
A party that raises the banner of justice cannot treat justice as a principle suitable for speeches and publications, only for that principle to become a matter for debate when it concerns one of its own members or MPs.
More painfully, some political rhetoric rooted heavily in religion often presents its proponents as guardians of morality and values. But values are not tested through sermons; they are tested in difficult situations. Compliance with the law does not require a speech, but rather the courage to face its consequences—even when those consequences are uncomfortable.
Here, an important truth becomes clear: Political courage is not about speaking of justice when you are far removed from it, but about respecting justice when you or someone close to you becomes a party to it.
Therefore, the case of the former Umma Party MP who has gone into hiding should not be reduced to the individual himself. The more important question concerns the political parties that select candidates, place their trust in them, and ask citizens to elect them.
How do you choose your MPs? What does loyalty to the party mean to you when it conflicts with the duty to respect the law? And can a party demand that the state apply the law to others, then hesitate to take a clear position when the matter concerns one of its own MPs?
No one expects political parties to act as courts, nor MPs to be immune from mistakes. What is required is far simpler: a clear position on the rule of law.
Democracy is not measured only by the number of MPs who make it to Parliament, but also by the extent to which those MPs and the institutions to which they belong respect the rules governing the state.
In the end, an MP may disappear from sight, but the questions surrounding the case should not disappear with him. Where is the MP? That is a question for the competent authorities. But how did he become an MP? Why did the party choose him? And what is the party’s position on respecting the court’s ruling? These are questions for the public.
The answers will determine whether justice, for the Umma Party, is a steadfast principle or merely a beautiful slogan that cannot withstand its first real test.
