Tentative Change in Amman

While the new Jordan parliament may reflect voter's desire for change, it also reflects an election that was decided largely on tribal lines.

By HANI HAZAIMEH
Amman 521 (photo credit: ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Amman 521
(photo credit: ASSOCIATED PRESS)
ON NOVEMBER 9, 1,255,024 JORDANIANS elected 120 deputies to the House of Representatives. Following widespread allegations of government interference in the previous elections in 2007, in an effort to bolster public trust, the authorities allowed local, regional and international monitoring institutions to observe the elections.
At the same time, the country’s largest opposition party, the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, boycotted the elections partly in protest against a new election law pushed through by the government.
The boycott and the openness to the monitoring point to both continuing problems and tentative progress toward democratization that the Kingdom of Jordan, a constitutional democracy, has made over the past two years.
The previous elections were heavily tainted by government fraud and manipulation. In a lecture forum hosted last year by the Ad Dustour daily newspaper, former prime minister Maarouf Bakhit clearly admitted that the government had intervened in order to prevent the IAF, composed overwhelmingly of Jordanians of Palestinian origin, from securing a large number of seats in the House of Representatives. And, indeed, the IAF viewed the previous elections as a setback to their popularity among the electorate, which had lost faith in the party’s political agenda – based largely on opposition to the peace accord between Jordan and Israel – and in its ability to stand firm against government policies and defend the public’s interests. With a power base concentrated in the large cities, which are Palestinian and Islamic strongholds, the IAF poses a constant threat to the stability and power of the Jordanian kingdom.
In November 2009, King Abdullah dissolved the House of Representatives, offering no explanation for the decision, which was anyway generally welcomed. One month later, Abdullah assigned Samir Rifai, a member of a loyal, powerful conservative family, to form a new government and equipped him with a mandate to institute political reforms and broader representation. Following the king’s directives, Rifai embarked on meetings with political figures and representatives of civil society institutions as well as political parties regarding reformation of the election law.
After months long of debate, Abdullah promulgated a new elections law. This revised law expanded the number of contested seats from 110 to 120 and doubled the number of seats allocated specifically for women, from six to 12. However, the revised law maintained the controversial 1993 one-person-one-vote system, which has been under constant attack by opposition parties, trade unions, politicians and the media.
Under this system, although there can be more than one seat chosen from a given constituency, voters are allowed to choose only one candidate. Before 1993, voters were able to vote for all seats in their constituency. Furthermore, the new law retained the larger districts, now known as electoral zones, but divided them into 108 subdistricts, with one seat allocated for each one. Voters can vote for a candidate in their sub-district or for any candidate in their larger district/zone area.
Critics have said the system produces representatives with tribal affiliations, instead of those who truly represent the people.
Furthermore, opponents of the new law claim that it does not bring any significant change in terms of the voting mechanism; rather, it makes the situation even worse by dividing the districts into geographically unidentified sub-districts, which, the opponents accuse, will entrench tribalism rather than strengthening partisan life in the country. Overall, most analysts view the new law as a setback for efforts at political reform.
The IAF is particularly critical of the Jordanian political process, especially following the disastrous 2007 elections. Soon after the government endorsed the new elections law, the IAF, which had also posed other demands, including greater freedom of expression, announced that it would boycott the elections and promptly fired at least three of its members who had announced that they would run in the elections without the party’s consent. The Jordanian Democratic Popular Party also decided to boycott.
In the months preceding the elections, the IAF, along with other opposition parties, called on all Jordanian citizens to also boycott.
Rifai and some members of his government relentlessly attempted to convince the Muslim Brotherhood not to boycott the polls, creating a clear impression that the government genuinely wanted to encourage the party’s participation and emphasizing Jordan’s democratic character, especially in contrast to the prevailing dictatorships in the Middle East.
Certainly, the government wanted to co-opt the IAF into the system.
Indeed, had the IAF participated, the party would probably have gained a significant foothold in the parliament and become even more influential in political life. Furthermore, since the controversial 2010 elections law is a temporary law that will have to go before the Lower House of Parliament for endorsement, working from within legislature itself was the Muslim Brotherhood party’s best chance of pressuring the government to amend the law.
By rejecting the attempts at co-option, the IAF continues in its efforts to embarrass the government and bolster the disaffection of Jordanians of Palestinian origin without risking another election.
In the final count of these elections, the balance of representation in parliament has tipped further from the cities to the rural and Beduin areas, which voted, as they usually do, for tribal, progovernment loyalists.
In a press conference following the elections, Sheikh Hamza Mansour, head of the IAF, declared that the new parliament is “worse than the last one because many won through their family connections and by spending money to buy votes that could have been given to the poor.”
THE GOVERNMENT WAS WORRIED THAT THE IAF’S decision not to take part in the elections would affect voter turnout and undermine popular support for the political system.
In an effort to combat the boycott by emphasizing that these elections, in contrast to the elections of 2007, were free and open, the government allowed unprecedented access to public monitoring groups. The National Center for Human Rights sent more than 1,260 observers to 35 percent of the polling centers and issued regular updates on the voting process. More than 3,500 international observers from other Arab countries, the US and the EU also oversaw the process, in addition to 25 teams from EU diplomatic missions, some 90 officials, who toured the country on election day.
Following the elections, most of the observers expressed approval of the electoral process and the measures taken by the government to ensure smooth and transparent elections.
Just under 53 percent of the electorate participated in the elections, compared to the 58.9 per cent turnout in the 2007 elections, according to official figures released by the Interior Ministry. Jordan has a population of some 6.4 million, according to the Department of Statistics, and 2,373,579 eligible voters. There are 20 active political parties in Jordan and 763 candidates competed for 120 seats, 24 of them reserved for women and minorities.
More than 40,000 public servants participated in the preparations for the elections, while nearly 1,200 local and international journalists covered the event. Although overall the election process was orderly and smooth, police and officials reported isolated rioting over alleged vote-buying and bribes. Some 20 persons carrying weapons were arrested and referred to the police for investigation, after reportedly trying to prevent citizens from going to polling stations in Madaba, 15 kilometers (10 miles) to the south of the capital, Amman.
According to the official results, nearly 80 of the 120 elected members, some 70 percent, are newcomers, while 37 have served previously as deputies, two as senators, and eight as ministers. Seventeen are affiliated with political parties and two journalists won seats. This indicates, according to some commentators, that the public is frustrated with the performance of the previous chamber and points to a desire to bring change into the country’s political life. Political analysts were split, however, on whether the new Lower House will be substantially different from the last and how it will fare vis-a-vis the Upper House, or Senate, which is composed of 60 seats appointed by the king.
“We expected to see this number of new deputies make it to parliament,” columnist Fahed Kheitan wrote the following day in the Al Arab Alyawm daily, citing the failure of the previous chamber to interact with voters and reflect their concerns and interests. Although the newcomers have no background in parliamentary politics, Kheitan notes that the majority of them have political affiliations and have already been involved in politics in other positions.
Kheitan believes the new parliament has potential to be stronger and more active than past chambers, provided that it forms strong, permanent and independent committees. He notes that committees in the previous chamber were dominated by the powerful National Current Party, headed by then-speaker Abdul Hadi Majali. In the dissolved parliament Majali’s party had over 65 seats, giving it control of the House. In these elections, the party won only 16 seats.
Columnist and political analyst Oraib Rentawi believes that the new chamber is unlikely to bring the change voters were seeking, noting that the majority of its members are either tribal loyalists or former employees of public institutions. Political analyst and pollster at the University of Jordan’s Center for Strategic Studies Mohammad Masri agrees, telling The Report that while the new make-up of parliament may reflect voters’ desire for change, it also reflects an election that was decided largely on tribal lines.
“There is no reasonable explanation for the failure of prominent figures who had previously secured seats in parliament for several terms. However, the similarity of candidates’ platforms and their failure to bring major issues into focus made the voter look for change,” he says, adding that the absence of debate over important issues caused candidates and voters alike to concentrate on tribal affiliations rather than social agendas, such as jobs or services.
“The other factor that can explain this composition of the house was the Muslim Brotherhood’s absence in the elections,” Masri notes. “It [the boycott] left a significant imprint on the results.”
Rentawi adds that the IAF boycott caused many voters to stay home or sell their votes to tribal candidates. He also notes that fewer than 15 percent of the new MPs are Jordanians of Palestinian origin, the lowest since Jordan’s administrative disengagement from the West Bank in 1988. There is no official figure on the size of Jordanians of Palestinian origin, but unofficial estimates put it at around 50 percent.
“This segment of the voters is concentrated in the country’s three major cities: Amman, Irbid and Zarqa,” Rentawi explains. Indeed, voting reached only 34.4 percent in Amman and 36 percent in Zarqa; in comparison, turnout reached as high as 81.8 percent in the Northern Badia district and 80.3 percent in the Southern Badia, populated by East Jordanians and tribes.
JORDAN’S DEMOCRACY FUNCTIONS according to a complex system, in which most powers rest with the king, who appoints governments, approves legislation and can dissolve parliament while still attempting to provide the country with democratic reform. The king convenes parliament every November 1. Legislative power rests with the king and with the parliament (Majlis al-Umma). This National Assembly is composed of two houses – the Upper Chamber, or Senate, and the Lower Chamber, or House of Representatives. Decisions are taken by a majority with a quorum composed of twothirds of each house.
Senators must be Jordanians, over 40 years of age and unrelated to the king, who selects them from among his former ministers, retired high-ranking officers of the army and other prominent individuals.
Senators are appointed for a period of four years and can be reappointed. The Senate is headed by its president who fills a term of two years. Members of the House of Representatives must be at least 30 years of age and may not have any active business interests. They are, as in this election, elected for four years period by popular ballot.
In a press conference immediately following the elections, Prime Minister Rifai announced that the elections were a successful step forward in the country’s political development and reflected the Jordanian people’s decision to participate in the political process and ignore the calls for the boycott. He added that citizens “showed a high sense of responsibility in practicing their constitutional right to select the representatives who will defend their interests.”
He had reason to be satisfied. The high voter turnout and results were a public slap in the face to the IAF, weakened the Islamic groups and strengthened the government’s position.