Jordan is one of the most misunderstood nations in the region; an observation that is bothering me. While it is true that that the Middle East as a whole, Arab States, Islamic States, and Islam are all misunderstood entities, the problem with the outside-looking-in view on Jordan is that it is sheerly misunderstood even by fellow Middle Eastern and Arab states. It seems like topics such as Jordanian Foreign Policy, our approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and democracy and society in this country are all misunderstood, or sometimes marginalized, subjects.

As such, I’ll be writing a series of articles under the category of “Jordan – Know More!“, of which this is the first part.

Jordan and Democracy: Know More

Recently, on November 23rd, King Abdullah issued a Royal Decree calling for the dissolution of the 15th Jordanian Parliament, and carrying out early elections, previously slated for 2011. Following news of the Royal Decree, 85% of Jordanians rejoiced from across the political spectrum,while almost every non-Jordanian I have encountered used this as ‘tangible evidence’ of oppression of democracy and exploitation of power. Why? Why the discrepancy? Alas, they just don’t know any better.

Throughout this post, I’ll go through several misconceptions about this recent event, perhaps such discussion will make a difference.

Who wilt it?

Granted, the direct translation of Royal Decree (إرادة ملكية) gives ‘Royal Will’ or ‘Royal Wish’, a rather straightforward indication that it is the King’s wish that is being executed here. But ‘Why’ is a much more interesting and qualitative question; why is it that the king would wish for a parliament to be dissolved? I’ll quote a couple of sources.

Jordanian newspaper Alghad writes (translated):

“Furthermore, politicians confirm that the poor performance of the Council of Representatives, both legislative and regulatory framework, was the most important reason for issuing the Royal Decree to dissolve it, expecting carrying out the coming elections under a new law.”

Jordanian blogger Naseem Tarawnah quotes the same poll I linked to above, saying:

“The poll [...] revealed that 78% of respondents believe the reason for the decision to be due to incompetency of the MPs. Interestingly enough, 90% strongly support early elections, 69% strongly support a new election law, and 88% strongly support establishing an independent body to administer the elections.”

Poor performance. Incompetence.

Sure, the king is dissolving a parliament elected by the people, but here’s an undeniable fact: the people are very keen on seeing the parliament they elected dissolved. Very.

For those of you wondering about the reliability of the poll, it was conducted by Ammonnews, an independent, non-governmental, alternative media website and seld-described news agency based in Jordan. The poll addressed 200 individuals, amongst them (translated) “leaders, polititians, party members, media activists, academics, tribal leaders, and members of civil institutions in an effort to reflect public opinion trends”. Check out the details yourself if you can read Arabic.

An ‘Incompetent Parliament’ Says a lot about Your Democracy

No, it doesn’t. An incompetent parliament only says a lot about the social and socio-political structure and atomsphere within Jordan. It just so happens that we have a fragmented majority supporting the government (with countless political parties), and a unified, centralized, minority forming the opposition (with a single dominant political party: the Islamic Action Front, IAF). Such societal structure, combined with our flawed electoral law, leads to poor and biased representation within the government, and promotes tribal leaders and non-intellectuals, giving them the upper hand in voting. Indeed, the Jordanian Parliament often stood in the face of progress, barring numerous proposed bills, including Women’s Rights bills.

Aha! So your flawed electoral law has been forged by your autocratic leaders to hijack your liberties!

Again, not really. Assuming people who make such arguments refer to the King as the ultimate autocratic figure (who, indeed, is the single most powerful  individual in Jordan), such argument fails for one basic reason: the overrepresented groups in the parliament are those who are the most responsible for hindering the King’s effort in this country.

Indeed, the previous partliament (also elected under the same Electoral Law), were responsible for failing a bill suggested by the Queen herself, pertaining to the status of women in Jordan.

So how was the 15th Parliament ‘incompetent’ to the people?

Those unfamiliar with internal Jordanian politics would be quick to assert that words such “incompetent”, “dysfunctional”, and “poor performance” are in reference to the King’s Agenda. In other words, many might assume that anything that opposes the King’s agenda, whatever it may be, is deemed incompetent by our biased media.

In fact, that cannot be further from the truth. Incompetence of the 15th Parliament is a result of the outcry of the people, not a biased decision by the king.

Indeed, for the 15th Parliament,  Jordan Times writes:

“[...] in the last extraordinary session, lawmakers approved only 13 laws out of 29 listed on their agenda, which included laws of interest to the public.

The extraordinary session was adjourned while deputies were still discussing the income tax draft law, having only finished 11 articles of the 70-article law.

The government also withdrew the energy draft law and the income tax draft law to amend them in accordance with developments in these two sectors.”

Doesn’t this prove that the King has the ultimate power in this country?

Yes and no. On the one hand, yes, there is great power that can be abused into a so-called ‘ultimate power’, but on the other: no, there is no intention of having it abused, and any possibility of such event ever occurring is too remote such that, for all practical purposes, is considered nonexistent.

For instance, while the parliament can be dissolved, the constitution makes sure such dissolution is never abused Musa Alshuqairi quotes a Jordan Times article:

“According to Article 73 of the Constitution, if the Lower House is dissolved, a general election will be held, and the new chamber has to convene in an extraordinary session no later than four months from the date of dissolution. The same article stipulates that if no elections have taken place by the end of the four months, the dissolved House will assume its full constitutional powers and assemble as if its dissolution had not taken place.”

So yes, temporary laws can be enacted during these 4 months, but some parliament will need to pass them as soon as a parliament is decided on. And if the parliament is not elected, the consitution commands that the old parliament be re-summoned and restored, thus giving it a say in passing or failing all temporary laws that have been enacted for the previous four months.

Kapish?

So what powers does the Jordanian-elected Parliament have?

The parliament is responsible of passing laws, so that any law – whether pushed by the government or the king – needs to go through the Parliament, in both its chambers, before being passed. The parliament is also responsible for the provision of the government, and can, after the formation of every government, voice their opinion and express their blessing or ‘distrust’ in the government. In the case that the Parliament expresses contempt towards the newly appointed government, the government itself is dissolved and a new one is appointed. The King himself appoints the Prime Minister, who, in turn, appoints the rest of the government. This nascent government will have a short period before it is evaluated by the parliament. So, while the King has the power of appointing and pushing the Prime Minister to create a certain government, the King does so in a way as to go hand-in-hand with the wishes of the people and the government.

We’re a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy. Jordan is governed by a solid constitution that gives power to the people to voice their concerns and direct the political process of the country. Are full powers given to the people? Not yet. The parliament did, for instance, attempt to revoke the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty of 1994 as a reaction to the Gaza War. Luckily, while our parliament can be insane, our monarchy is not; such wishes within the government were given no legitimacy. (I’ll be working on an upcoming post about Jordan and the 1994 treaty with Israel).

So yes, I understand the importance of Democracy, but any “limitations” existing in Jordan in these times are doing us good. The king expressed, multiple times, his wishes of increased democracy (which contextually implies increased power restrictions on his part), but such top-down modification in the system must be handled with the utmost caution.

So, what are your King’s intentions?

Glad you asked. In reference to the dissolution for the parliament, the Jordan times says:

In a letter to Prime Minister Nader Dahabi, the King stressed that these elections “should be a model of transparency, fairness and integrity, and a promising step in our process of reform and modernisation, the aims of which are to achieve the best for our nation and to expand the horizon of progress and prosperity for Jordanians”. [...] He also directed the government to develop the electoral process “in such a manner that the next legislative elections will be qualitatively improved and all Jordanians will practise their right to campaign and to elect their representatives in Parliament”.

While referencing a 2005 article by  The Washington Institute of Near East Policy, a Wikipedia article states:

King Abdullah also decreed that journalists would no longer be imprisoned in Jordan and he called for the liberalization of Jordan’s press. He has given his support to the human rights organizations operating in Jordan to conduct investigations on any human rights misdemeanors and called on the government to correct these problems. King Abdullah was commended on his political reform strategies.

Above are the relevant examples on the intentions of the Jordanian leadership in the scope of political and democratic reform. Other efforts in foreign policy, education, economy, poverty elimination, refugee admission, energy, Arab nationalism, and cooperation are equally, if not more, commendable. Such efforts cannot be discussed in this article, however, because they do not correspond to today’s core topic. They will, however, be discussed in relatively more detail, in future posts.

Conclusion

As I said, I find it disturbing that Jordan is oftened misunderstood, even by fellow Arab states, who underestimate our liberties, marginalize the efforts of our leadership, and wrongly view the entire Jordanian political process. While 60 years ago things may or may not have been different, fellow Arab countries today need to recognize that the Jordanian leadership, ranging from the monarchy to the active youth, is not only working together internally, but is also a magnificent and legitimate force of great intentions and visions. The Jordanian leadership already works closely with several Arab governments, but vocal groups within society in the Arab states must realize the viabilityo f the Jordanian leadership as well.